Sedalia Dave Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 (edited) Why Gun Owners Should Oppose John Cornyn as Senate Minority Leader Tell Ted Cruz and John Cornyn that you oppose John Cornyn ( a RINO ) for Senate Minority Leader Edited March 9 by Sedalia Dave 2 Quote Link to comment
Eyesa Horg Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 It wouldn't let me send the message! Apparently I'm not a constituent! Quote Link to comment
Texas Jack Black Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 What exactly did he do to erode gun rights ? Please be specific. Best Wishes Quote Link to comment
John Kloehr Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 25 minutes ago, Texas Jack Black said: What exactly did he do to erode gun rights ? Please be specific. I would dig deeper, but took a quick look and found this: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/23/senate-john-cornyn-bipartisan-gun-deal/ 2 Quote Link to comment
Blackwater 53393 Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 2 hours ago, John Kloehr said: I would dig deeper, but took a quick look and found this: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/23/senate-john-cornyn-bipartisan-gun-deal/ That should be specific enough for anyone!! Cornyn is a sellout!! He is no friend to the Constitution!! 2 Quote Link to comment
Rip Snorter Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 More https://crimeresearch.org/2024/03/at-the-federalist-if-you-like-the-second-amendment-you-dont-want-john-cornyn-anywhere-near-senate-leadership/ 2 Quote Link to comment
Texas Jack Black Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 Still nothing specific. that would violate the 2nd. 1 Quote Link to comment
John Kloehr Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 I took a second look. "Cornyn" is mentioned 4 times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Safer_Communities_Act Negotiations in the Senate over narrower bill On May 24, 2022, Senator Kyrsten Sinema met with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Whip John Thune for advice on which Republican senators would be willing to negotiate a gun control bill. They directed her to Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis. Thirty minutes later, Senator Chris Murphy texted Sinema to join the negotiation, as Murphy had been one of the Senate's most prominent gun control advocates since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in his state in 2012. Cornyn, Murphy, Sinema, and Tillis began negotiations the next day.[7] ... On June 12, a group of 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans came to an agreement on a framework outlining the provisions of the bill.[8] Provisions regarding "red flag laws" and the "boyfriend loophole" were contentious during Senate negotiations, and Cornyn walked out during talks on June 16.[9] The text of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act was released on June 21.[10] ... Reception During negotiations, Cornyn was booed at a Republican Party of Texas convention for his involvement in the bill, and the RPT adopted a resolution against his involvement. Following the release of the text, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed support for the bill while the National Rifle Association and many other groups opposed it.[10] The bill was endorsed by President Joe Biden[16] and by gun-control advocacy groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety.[10] Newsweek journalist Jake Thomas praised the law, while also stating that it was weaker than the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban due to its lack of bans on "so-called assault weapons,"[17] that being AR platform rifles and other firearms made to look similar to machine guns. Reason journalist Jacob Sullum criticized the law, saying it "would unjustly deprive Americans of their second amendment rights" and would subsidize "state laws that suspend gun rights without due process."[18] 2 1 Quote Link to comment
John Kloehr Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 1 minute ago, John Kloehr said: Reason journalist Jacob Sullum criticized the law, saying it "would unjustly deprive Americans of their second amendment rights" and would subsidize "state laws that suspend gun rights without due process."[18] That is the Red Flag provision of the bill. The bill includes funding for states which choose to implement Red Flag legislation. 1 Quote Link to comment
Blackwater 53393 Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 (edited) On 3/9/2024 at 4:28 PM, Texas Jack Black said: Still nothing specific. that would violate the 2nd. SO!! What part of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” do YOU not understand?? Cornyn obviously views the Second Amendment as a privilege, not a RIGHT! Not someone that I’d want leading ANYTHING having to do with any kind of legislation!!! Edited March 11 by Blackwater 53393 1 1 Quote Link to comment
Texas Jack Black Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said: SO!! What part of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” do YOU not understand?? Cornyn obviously views the Second Amendment as a privilege, not a RIGHT! Not someone that I’d want leading ANYTHING having to do with any kind of legislation!!! With all due respect These rights are not absolute. We have forms to fill out when we buy we have age restrictions etc. Best Wishes 3 Quote Link to comment
Blackwater 53393 Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 hour ago, Texas Jack Black said: With all due respect These rights are not absolute. We have forms to fill out when we buy we have age restrictions etc. Best Wishes This is true only because some lame brained politicians failed to properly represent their constituents and abrogated that right!! 1 3 Quote Link to comment
Texas Jack Black Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 5 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said: This is true only because some lame brained politicians failed to properly represent their constituents and abrogated that right!! Does this right have any restrictions? You said" Shall Not Be Infringed" How about Felons, Rapists, Violent individuals, Mentally disturbed people, Domestic abusers etc.? How about children Should we give Bank Robbers back there weapons after they are released from prison? After all you said" Shall Not Be Infringed" just stand in line and pass out weapons to everyone Best Wishes 4 Quote Link to comment
Blackwater 53393 Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 48 minutes ago, Texas Jack Black said: Does this right have any restrictions? You said" Shall Not Be Infringed" How about Felons, Rapists, Violent individuals, Mentally disturbed people, Domestic abusers etc.? How about children Should we give Bank Robbers back there weapons after they are released from prison? After all you said" Shall Not Be Infringed" just stand in line and pass out weapons to everyone Best Wishes Persons who are not legal citizens, persons who have been convicted of certain criminal offenses, non adults, and those who have had their rights revoked are not a part of the discussion. Your extrapolations are, or seem to be, simply an attempt to be argumentative for the sake of argument! Mr. Kloehr’s examples are certainly specific enough. If you think that Cornyn is anywhere near the best choice for leadership, I’m forced to wonder whether you support the Second Amendment, or for that matter, the Constitution as it is written and amended. 2 2 Quote Link to comment
Texas Jack Black Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 hour ago, Texas Jack Black said: Does this right have any restrictions? You said" Shall Not Be Infringed" How about Felons, Rapists, Violent individuals, Mentally disturbed people, Domestic abusers etc.? How about children Should we give Bank Robbers back there weapons after they are released from prison? After all you said" Shall Not Be Infringed" just stand in line and pass out weapons to everyone Best Wishes The point I am attempting to make is If you take the time to read the entire Constitution you will understand that there are limits placed on these RIGHTS. Best Wishes Quote Link to comment
Texas Jack Black Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 2 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said: Persons who are not legal citizens, persons who have been convicted of certain criminal offenses, non adults, and those who have had their rights revoked are not a part of the discussion. Your extrapolations are, or seem to be, simply an attempt to be argumentative for the sake of argument! Mr. Kloehr’s examples are certainly specific enough. If you think that Cornyn is anywhere near the best choice for leadership, I’m forced to wonder whether you support the Second Amendment, or for that matter, the Constitution as it is written and amended. You said Shall Not Be Infringed I am showing you that They are Infringed just like all of our rights mentioned in the Bill Of Rights. As to questioning my loyalty I suggest you look at my Service to this country check out my profile. I know the Constitution and unlike some I know its meaning. Best Wishes Quote Link to comment
Sedalia Dave Posted March 11 Author Share Posted March 11 The problem with putting limits on rights where do you stop? One person's common sense law is another persons overreach. Who gets to decide? Should a person loose all of their rights forever for committing any crime or only some crimes? Should they only loose some of their rights? If only some, which ones? Should a person convicted of involuntary manslaughter for a stupid one time mistake be treated differently than a career bank robber that never used a gun? Career criminals by definition do not follow the law. Should a person loose their rights because they MIGHT commit a crime? The problem with freedom is that it is dangerous. It means that you have to take responsibility. Our government was not set up to protect its citizens from themselves. The founding fathers did this intentionally. It was also set up to be very inefficent when it came to passing laws. This was to limit the governments powers. When we give the government too much power we loose our freedom. I'll always choose dangerous liberty over a false sense of security. 3 2 Quote Link to comment
Sedalia Dave Posted March 11 Author Share Posted March 11 RIGHTS DO NOT HAVE LIMITS. Freedom is not the right to do wrong it is the right to be wrong. There is a difference. 2 1 Quote Link to comment
Blackwater 53393 Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 minute ago, Texas Jack Black said: The point I am attempting to make is If you take the time to read the entire Constitution you will understand that there are limits placed on these RIGHTS. Best Wishes Those limits are placed by the Constitution and any amendments legally made to it! The purpose of the Constitution is to remove certain rights from the whim of the majority and to protect the people from runaway government. Changes to it are to be made by the amendment process laid out in the Constitution itself! Not by simple legislation or executive fiat!! 6 minutes ago, Texas Jack Black said: You said Shall Not Be Infringed I am showing you that They are Infringed just like all of our rights mentioned in the Bill Of Rights. As to questioning my loyalty I suggest you look at my Service to this country check out my profile. I know the Constitution and unlike some I know its meaning. Best Wishes Thank you for your service! However! I know of many who served who would, and some that have tried to, take away the rights of regular citizens! 2 Quote Link to comment
Eyesa Horg Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 8 hours ago, Texas Jack Black said: With all due respect These rights are not absolute. We have forms to fill out when we buy we have age restrictions etc. Best Wishes And you think it's OK to add more????? What other right has over 20K laws restricting it? "Shall not be Infringed" is pretty specific, don't ya think? 1 Quote Link to comment
Texas Jack Black Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 2 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said: The problem with putting limits on rights where do you stop? One person's common sense law is another persons overreach. Who gets to decide? Should a person loose all of their rights forever for committing any crime or only some crimes? Should they only loose some of their rights? If only some, which ones? Should a person convicted of involuntary manslaughter for a stupid one time mistake be treated differently than a career bank robber that never used a gun? Career criminals by definition do not follow the law. Should a person loose their rights because they MIGHT commit a crime? The problem with freedom is that it is dangerous. It means that you have to take responsibility. Our government was not set up to protect its citizens from themselves. The founding fathers did this intentionally. It was also set up to be very inefficent when it came to passing laws. This was to limit the governments powers. When we give the government too much power we loose our freedom. I'll always choose dangerous liberty over a false sense of security. My point Exactly. Some rights should be restored but to say Not Be Infringed is a stretch. 1 Quote Link to comment
Texas Jack Black Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 hour ago, Eyesa Horg said: And you think it's OK to add more????? What other right has over 20K laws restricting it? "Shall not be Infringed" is pretty specific, don't ya think? Never said to add more All I said was where is this infringement and some went looney over it. Once again please read the Bill Of Rights then read the entire Constitution and learn about our system . Best Wishes . 2 hours ago, Eyesa Horg said: And you think it's OK to add more????? What other right has over 20K laws restricting it? "Shall not be Infringed" is pretty specific, don't ya think? Never said to add more 1 Quote Link to comment
Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 well think on this a bit , thugs , bank robbers , drug dealers , and the rest of them , DO NOT follow the laws it only affects those that do , the Bill of Rights , are rights , that are off the table for being restricted , about like the war on drugs , HOW IS THAT GOING Chickasaw 1 Quote Link to comment
Sedalia Dave Posted March 12 Author Share Posted March 12 5 hours ago, Texas Jack Black said: My point Exactly. Some rights should be restored but to say Not Be Infringed is a stretch. Not according to our forefathers. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Pretty plainly stated, 2 Quote Link to comment
Blackwater 53393 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Well said, SD!! I can find no place in the Constitution where the words “shall not be infringed” are contradicted with respect solely to the Second Amendment. Any exceptions to that phrase are limited to those who have had their rights revoked, to those who are not citizens, and to minors who have not attained full citizenship. The legislative infringements, the bureaucratic infringements, the infringements perpetrated by the executive branch, and those infringements allowed by agenda driven jurists are technically in violation of the Constitution and its amendments as written! Any limitations to the Second Amendment laid out in the Constitution and its amendments are also applied to all the other rights delineated in the whole of the document and in the Bill of Rights. 1 1 Quote Link to comment
Rye Miles #13621 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 On 3/11/2024 at 1:41 PM, Texas Jack Black said: Does this right have any restrictions? You said" Shall Not Be Infringed" How about Felons, Rapists, Violent individuals, Mentally disturbed people, Domestic abusers etc.? How about children Should we give Bank Robbers back there weapons after they are released from prison? After all you said" Shall Not Be Infringed" just stand in line and pass out weapons to everyone Best Wishes Criminals as you mentioned do not have constitutional rights. They gave them up when they broke the law! 1 1 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.