Senate opens debate on gun bill

[Six-Shot]

read about it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/11/senate-to-vote-to-proceed-on-gun-bill/?wprss=rss_politics

[Tyrel Cody]

Ya'll tell me if this sounds alright. I have sent canned emails and such to this point; couldn't find anything just now that expressed how betrayed I feel. I'm going to send something very close to this via email and regular mail weekly going forward.

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr. Alexander/Corker,

I have written many letters to you over the last few weeks asking you to vote AGAINST any new gun control laws. I would like for you to know that I am EXTREMELY disappointed in your vote to allow debate on S. 648, the Firearms Bill; THERE IS NO NEED DEBATE THIS SUBJECT!

As myself and many other law abiding gun owners have pointed out to you over the last several weeks we DO NOT NEED any new gun laws. Our politicians need to support the enforcement of current laws and leave the topic of gun control alone. In my opinion the government of the United States has many more important concerns and should immediately halt all discussion regarding this subject. It has been proven many times over that that gun bans, magazine capacities, and background checks will be ignored by the criminal element. I will take this opportunity to let you know that WE ARE WATCHING every vote you cast. I have voted for you for every office that you have run for and I believe you have done a good job to this point. Consider your recent vote to proceed to debate as strike one. DO NOT VOTE for any form of gun control whatsoever. I fully expect you to carry out my wishes and make all of future votes regarding this matter a resounding NO! Let me assure you that the majority of my fellow Tennesseans share my view and will vote accordingly the next time you run for office.

Sincerely,

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

This should be debated If it is left to fester only bad things would come of it.

[Badlands Beady]

Everything that concerns this nation should be subject to debate. "Question with boldness even the existence of a God," Thomas Jefferson.

[Six-Shot]

The "Bill of Rights" are not subject to debate unless there is ratification by 2/3's of ALL the states to change it.

[Tyrel Cody]

I didn't ask for a debate on whether it should be debated or not. I asked for an opinion on how my letter sounded. Regardless I went ahead and sent that letter to both of my senators, and I will continue to send letters to them for the foreseeable future.

For those that think this subject needs to be debated; well you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE NOT OPEN
FOR DISCUSSION and our politicians need to stop wasting their time and my money regarding the issue.

[Badlands Beady]

 

The "Bill of Rights" are not subject to debate unless there is ratification by 2/3's of ALL the states to change it.

 

 

You're putting the cart before the horse. Debate comes first, then comes a vote to ratify/change.

 

TC: The Bill of Rights *are* open for debate; the entire constitution is. That's the purpose of the amendment process. Mind you, I am *not* in favor of amending or repealing *any* of the Bill of Rights; if you can change or repeal one of them, then all of them are vulnerable. The Bill of Rights aren't perfect, but I fear what might take their place. Nevertheless, this is the Constitution we're talking about, not the Law of the Medes and Persians (check your Bible -- Book of Daniel).

 

Edit: Come to think of it, to forbid Congress to debate anything would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

Debate is what makes this country great.Bring it on.

[Dusty Balz, SASS#46599]

Spoken like true "Masters" of deBating,

[Mean Matt McCord, SASS #24683]

Good letter. I hope you didn't mind; I altered it a bit and sent it to my Senator. He is one of the jerks in the GOP who voted to override the filibuster attempt.

[Badlands Beady]

Stay classy, Dusty.

[Six-Shot]

  

 

You're putting the cart before the horse. Debate comes first, then comes a vote to ratify/change.

 

TC: The Bill of Rights *are* open for debate; the entire constitution is. That's the purpose of the amendment process. Mind you, I am *not* in favor of amending or repealing *any* of the Bill of Rights; if you can change or repeal one of them, then all of them are vulnerable. The Bill of Rights aren't perfect, but I fear what might take their place. Nevertheless, this is the Constitution we're talking about, not the Law of the Medes and Persians (check your Bible -- Book of Daniel).

 

Edit: Come to think of it, to forbid Congress to debate anything would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.

The Second Amendment is non-negotiable therefore there is no need for debate. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you and they understand?

[Badlands Beady]

 

The Second Amendment is non-negotiable therefore there is no need for debate. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you and they understand?

 

 

There is no provision exempting any part of the Constitution from amendment or repeal. Including the 2nd Amendment.

 

As for background checks, you are going to have to demonstrate how they would infringe on the 2A more definitely than some vague speculation about possible abuse by the authorities.

 

Do you really *want* felons and the seriously mentally ill to have free access to firearms?

[Dusty Balz, SASS#46599]

The Bill of rights were endowed by the creator and enumerated in the Constitution, how is this under debate? The government DID NOT give us the right to keep and bear arms, so they have NO RIGHT to take that away

[Badlands Beady]

Whether the Founding Fathers were divinely inspired is another conversation. However, if they were, then Article I Section 8 and Article V are just as Holy as are the Bill of Rights.

[Dusty Balz, SASS#46599]

Whether the Founding Fathers were divinely inspired is another conversation. However, if they were, then Article I Section 8 and Article V are just as Holy as are the Bill of Rights.

 

 

I missed where Article I section 8 and article V where listed in the "Bill of Rights"

[Badlands Beady]

 

 

 

I missed where Article I section 8 and article V where listed in the "Bill of Rights"

 

 

Are you seriously under the impression that the Bill of Rights is not part of the entire Constitution? I'm forced to agree with whomever says our schools suck.

[Tyrel Cody]

  

 

There is no provision exempting any part of the Constitution from amendment or repeal. Including the 2nd Amendment.

 

As for background checks, you are going to have to demonstrate how they would infringe on the 2A more definitely than some vague speculation about possible abuse by the authorities.

 

Do you really *want* felons and the seriously mentally ill to have free access to firearms?

No I don't want felons and seriously mentally ill to have Firearms! Guess what.......

 

WE ALREADY HAVE A BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM AND IT HAS NOT STOPPED ANYONE DETERMINED TO GET A FIREARM FROM GETTING ONE.

[Guest Gunner Gatlin]

Whether the Founding Fathers were divinely inspired is another conversation. However, if they were, then Article I Section 8 and Article V are just as Holy as are the Bill of Rights.

 

"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" (Declaration of Independence - a founding document) ~ says it all - Our rights are God given and whether you, me, Joe the Plummer or the liberal mindless beleive that or not it really doesn't matter

 

and every right listed in The Bill of Rights, included the 2nd Amendment, is God given...is unalienable. Sure, the Constitution itself is conceived with Judeo-Christian principles and values in mind, but I never have referred to it as 'Holy' ...that term is referred for the Word of God - The HOLY Bible - or God himself. Ne'er have heard of the 'Holy' Constitution

 

GG ~

[Dusty Balz, SASS#46599]

  

 

Are you seriously under the impression that the Bill of Rights is not part of the entire Constitution? I'm forced to agree with whomever says our schools suck.

 

 

I shall take the advise of the great Mark Twain regarding this argument

 

(BTW, I attended Harvard Business School, I I do agree with you, our schools suck)

[Six-Shot]

&

 

Do you really *want* felons and the seriously mentally ill to have free access to firearms?

It's already illegal for felons to own or posess firearms. Felons don't abide by the law. Only law abiding citizens do. There are already thousands of laws to go after felons and mentally ill people with. Make law enforcement (go harangue them and leave us alone!) enforce them and leave our God given, inherent, constitutionally guaranteed rights alone. That's what you "libs" don't get. That's why we call you "libs" (because you liberally interpret the law which is against the law!).

[Col. Nathan C. Riddles, SASS # 7462]

Ya'll tell me if this sounds alright. I have sent canned emails and such to this point; couldn't find anything just now that expressed how betrayed I feel. I'm going to send something very close to this via email and regular mail weekly going forward.

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr. Alexander/Corker,

 

I have written many letters to you over the last few weeks asking you to vote AGAINST any new gun control laws. I would like for you to know that I am EXTREMELY disappointed in your vote to allow debate on S. 648, the Firearms Bill; THERE IS NO NEED DEBATE THIS SUBJECT!

As myself and many other law abiding gun owners have pointed out to you over the last several weeks, we DO NOT NEED any new gun laws. Our politicians need to support the enforcement of current laws and leave the topic of gun control alone. In my opinion, the government of the United States has many more important concerns and should immediately halt all discussion regarding this subject. It has been proven many times over that gun bans, magazine capacities, and background checks will be ignored by the criminal element. I will take this opportunity to let you know that WE ARE WATCHING every vote you cast. I have voted for you for every office that you have run for, and I believe you have done a good job, to this point. I consider your recent vote to proceed to debate as strike one. DO NOT VOTE for any form of gun control whatsoever. I fully expect you to carry out my wishes and make all of future votes regarding this matter a resounding NO! Let me assure you that the majority of my fellow Tennesseans share my view and will vote accordingly the next time you run for office.

 

Sincerely,

Made some minor punctuation and grammar corrections.

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

I hope to heck I am wrong, but I expect the Senate to pass some kind of a gun law. Getting the House to agree will be a lot more difficult. Let us hope the Senate bill has some serious protections for individual rights in a likely expanded background check system. Problem is, an expanded background check has been sold to the American public. The so called gun show loophole has been successfully sold to the public, plus a lot of gun owners support closing the loophole and an attempt to keep those certified as mentally ill from getting guns. Of course no details are included in any public discussion or poll. The problems always come up in the details and distrust of our government's abuse of such expanded powers.

[Subdeacon Joe]

Without much hope for it doing any good, I sent my emails to Sens. Boxer and Feinstein. I included this citation:

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943),

 

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects
from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the
reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal
principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty,
and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and
assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote;
they depend on the outcome of no elections.

 

And the comment that it looks like the USSC has ruled that the entire Bill of Rights is off the table and the federal government has no power to remove, abridge, or infringe upon ANY of the enumerated rights.

[Utah Bob #35998]

Gentlemen, can we try to stay on topic here?

[Utah Bob #35998]

Gentlemen, can we try to stay on topic here?

[Badlands Beady]

 

Gentlemen, can we try to stay on topic here?

 

 

I got lost. What *is* the topic?

[Guest Gunner Gatlin]

Gentlemen, can we try to stay on topic here?

Yes we can. As you know OT things get said and get responded to either way at times. Hence my closing out my participation in this thread

 

GG

[Colonel Dan, SASS #24025]

Men, I found it necessary to do a little house cleaning of several posts on this thread and I think it's time to lock it down.

 

Soldier on...