We were sold out

[R_Bert]

But the thing is the next vote only needs 51 to pass. Our two Senators did a lot of damage today. I will not forget when they come up for election the next time.

[R_Bert]

this. now only 51.

[Guest uzzi]

I called Sen. Corker's office, I could hear the phones ringing off the wall, I expressed my disappointment and a staffer told me that the vote was only to bring the matter to the floor and that Sen.Corker would vote against it............guess we will see.

 

I was not aware that the 2nd Amendment was up for a vote.  These guys have been voting to the left.  Remember Bob Corker's commercials when he was running?  About how Conservative he was?   I do. 

Edited April 12, 2013 by Dolomite_supafly

[Dirtshooter]

Trust a politician and this is the sort of stuff that happens. Currently I am a Mississippian but will be a Tennessean as soon as I retire. 1 of our Senators voted with the Tenn boys and I can tell you the Mississippi folks are irate as well. I said it 25 years ago that the 2 party system is like a ping pong match, 1 side blames the other, then the other side blames them and on and on. I think a NO party system is what we need. Vote for the man that WILL do what he says. Everyone needs to contact the NRA and tell them to not support any politician that votes for any gun control. Also these 16 clowns need to have their A ratings changed to F- immediately. Send them e-mails, letters, calls and like WInston Churchill once said Never, ever, ever give up!

[Oh Shoot]

...I said it 25 years ago that the 2 party system is like a ping pong match, 1 side blames the other, then the other side blames them and on and on...

 

Ever read my sig?

[Oh Shoot]

You, Sir, are very wise.....Believe it or not, I see as you do....

 

Well, that's debatable, I'd be the first to admit...

 

But I do see the whole mess not so much as a problem of politics or "evil", but as more of an inevitable progression of population vs.resources,  environmental economics as it were. In essence, we have an upside down pyramid of too many people competing for too few resources, and like all human endeavor in modern history, problems will be first translated into economic woes. Mother Earth will simply eventually raise the rent too high to afford, especially when we're already paying with funny money in the first place.

 

And of course the US, being the most conspicuously over-consumptive society ever to exist on the planet, completely dependent on finely tuned non-localized JIT supply, will likely fall quicker and farther than any other also.

 

The bright side is that once the worst happens, "we" (not "me") will likely have a chance to reboot for the better. For a while. ;)

 

- OS

[mikev]

So true David and my exact point of view...

 

I don't recognize my country anymore since the "messiah" got voted in...

 

 

And therein lies the problem.  I believe we have finally reached the tipping point in this current democracy where the lazy slobs sucking at the tit of government now outnumber the voters who work hard and hold to traditional values.  The dregs of society keep voting into power the people who will support their habits, and the rest of us keep footing the bill and forfeiting our freedoms.

 

In short, we're screwed.

Edited April 12, 2013 by mikev

[Guest scott4813]

I was lucky and called as soon as the list came out. I reached both offices and let them know I was disappointed and pissed off. I too was told it was only to get to the floor. I told them it was wrong and that it would show by my vote at the next election. I then sat down and really took the time to give them my opinion of their political ass kissing.

[jughead]

 for this old man one was out and corker was on the fence. looks like he fell off on the wrong side for me and mine

[Dennis1209]

We don't need to quit the Republican Party, but we need to fight and re-take the party with conservative and constitutional Tea Party candidates. Third party has a long losing history of 150 years or longer. Let's get a primary candidate to run against Alexander who will pledge to uphold the Constitution. If we can beat Alexander then we can take back the R party, and then maybe the WH. I'm not-gonna quit and surrender yet.

 

IMHO, this is the best course of action. Throughout history, be it political, financial or infrastructure, it's much easier and more efficient to take something over and rebuild it, rather than destroying it and starting something over from scratch again.

 

I don't see any viable threat to the established two party system as that's where all election campaign money flows.

 

Liberals tend to stick together and vote Democrap and those offering more out of the public treasury. Conservatives (working values driven people) tend to split based on degree of conservatism and other values and split their votes between Republican, Independent, Green, Constitutional, etc.

 

IMO, this is the reason the Democraps have such a strangle hold today? A house divided (conservatives) can not stand.

[East_TN_Patriot]

We don't need to quit the Republican Party, but we need to fight and re-take the party with conservative and constitutional Tea Party candidates. Third party has a long losing history of 150 years or longer. Let's get a primary candidate to run against Alexander who will pledge to uphold the Constitution. If we can beat Alexander then we can take back the R party, and then maybe the WH. I'm not-gonna quit and surrender yet.

The establishment Republican Party will not let this happen without a fight and they control the resources of the party to pick candidates, support their campaigns, and discredit those they don't want in office. Like I said earlier, I strongly suspect the vote was not in support of gun control, but the establishment Republicans' way of taking those who won't toe the line out to the woodshed. Screw taking back the party! Move to a party that fits your beliefs and run the Republicans out of town. The Republican Party *wants* you to believe "taking back the party" is the only viable option. Then they give you just enough lip service to keep you from totally abandoning them and continue their statist policies.

In response to the post above this one, this isn't rebuilding from scratch. The Libertarian Party has been out there for almost half a century. I can't count the number of fed up Republicans who say they like the libertarians, but won't support them because "a vote for a Libertarian candidate is a vote for the Democrats." If all of these people would actually vote against the Republicans, one of two things would happen: 1) you would see the Republican Party actually start to change in response to the losses at the polls, or 2) some Libertarians would actually get elected and change things though their policies and this would start the momentum.

I simply don't understand the logic of those complaining about statist Republican establishment policies, but then running to the polls to vote for candidates selected and backed by the Republican Party. Also, many Libertarians are former Democrats. I also hear the same rhetoric from them. They can't vote for a Libertarian because that's really a vote for the Republican candidate. There are lots of "independents" out there and most of the voting population is in the "mushy middle." Why are they in the middle? Usually because they have libertarian-like values, but are so brainwashed into the two-party system that they don't vote for a third party like the Libertarians, whom they would likely find to be the very middle ground they are seeking. People dream about a Mr. Smith to rise up and go to Washington, but then refuse to vote for him because they have been hoodwinked by establishment parties.

Never forget your history. The Republican Party was started by a bunch of pissed of Whigs and in less than a decade they put Lincoln in the White House. Edited April 12, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[Chief07]

RINOS that voted yes today for gun control

 

New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte

Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss

Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn

Maine Sen. Susan Collins

Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake

Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson 

Arizona Sen. John McCain

Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker 

North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr 

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven

Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham

Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander

Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker

Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey

Nevada Sen. Dean Heller

 

 

We have to vote out these guys

What the heck is wrong with Corker and Alexander?

I think they have been in Washington way too long. They have been corrupted by the

so called ruling class. Time to retire them both. 

I met Corker at the out door museum near Knoxville when he was first running.

There was something sneaky about him. I couldn't put my finger on it.

Now it makes sense.  :stunned:

[Wingshooter]

From Corker's website:
=========================
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., made the following statement on the Senate proceeding to debate on S. 649.

“I don’t understand why any senator wouldn’t want to debate these issues, but in the end, I will not support any legislation that violates our Second Amendment rights.”
=========================

I sent him a few emails today explaining that his oath was to DEFEND the constitution and not debate it. Heck, why not debate the 1A, 4A, 5A, 22A by that logic?

I also tried to call him and Alexander again today (actually got through yesterday, but I'm calling again). Phones were busy all day long. I wouldn't doubt it anymore if they just took them off the hook. At the very least, I plan to annoy their aides for a while. Edited April 13, 2013 by Batman

[chances R]

Today was not a yes or no on the bill itself, this vote was a parliamentary procedure to not allow a filibuster and begin debate on the bill.

 

The filibuster idea was bad politics. 

 

A filibuster would have been used as a giant political sledgehammer (via the media) against the Republicans and would cause far more long-term damage than good. Let's not forget that Democrats (and their media friends) are far better at lying than Republicans. The more votes that are taken to amend this bill, debate this bill, comment on this bill, the better. They all need to be put on record, especially regarding Feinstein's amendment on the AWB & magazine size limits.

There is a very good chance that even with a scaled back version of background checks - - - this bill won't pass the final vote, which would be a

 

total humiliation for Obama.

 

Even if it narrowly passes, so what - - -  Anybody see the House even working on a bill?

 

BUT we should definitely burn up their phone lines, fill their emails inboxes and let them know what we think of this bill.

 

THIS X2       The Topic headline is not accurate.  This vote had nothing to do with being for or against gun control.  IMO Corker nor Alexander, or the other 14 for that matter, have not forsaken the 2nd Admendment with this vote.  It is right to continue to be vocal, but to label our Senators traitors to the cause is premature...and hopefully not the case.  Time will tell.

[DMark]

..... his oath was to DEFEND the constitution and not debate it. Heck, why not debate the 1A, 4A, 5A, 22A by that logic?

 

Which is what will happen now.

 

This closure vote Will FORCE the Dems to speak against the 2A and the Bill of Rights.  Those Dems in Red states that face re-election in 2014 will be on the record in these debates.

 

This could be a major factor in the GOP taking back the Senate in 2014.  Dem Senators speaking against the 2A and then getting voted out in 2014.

 

With a GOP majority in the Senate & House, Obama becomes a Total and Complete Lame Duck for his last two years!

 

Make Obama powerless - - - That is how to defend the Constitution!  

Edited April 13, 2013 by DMark

[GoneBallistic]

IMO, this is the reason the Democraps have such a strangle hold today? A house divided (conservatives) can not stand.

Exactly. To me, the problem seems to be democraps-at-heart running as Republicans (McCain and the like). They get a lot of votes just because they're well known and they're under the Republican ticket. But when they get in, they're just another liberal vote most of the time. There's a HUGE difference in the words "Republican" and "Conservative".

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The establishment Republican Party will not let this happen without a fight and they control the resources of the party to pick candidates, support their campaigns, and discredit those they don't want in office. Like I said earlier, I strongly suspect the vote was not in support of gun control, but the establishment Republicans' way of taking those who won't toe the line out to the woodshed. Screw taking back the party! Move to a party that fits your beliefs and run the Republicans out of town. The Republican Party *wants* you to believe "taking back the party" is the only viable option. Then they give you just enough lip service to keep you from totally abandoning them and continue their statist policies.

In response to the post above this one, this isn't rebuilding from scratch. The Libertarian Party has been out there for almost half a century. I can't count the number of fed up Republicans who say they like the libertarians, but won't support them because "a vote for a Libertarian candidate is a vote for the Democrats." If all of these people would actually vote against the Republicans, one of two things would happen: 1) you would see the Republican Party actually start to change in response to the losses at the polls, or 2) some Libertarians would actually get elected and change things though their policies and this would start the momentum.

I simply don't understand the logic of those complaining about statist Republican establishment policies, but then running to the polls to vote for candidates selected and backed by the Republican Party. Also, many Libertarians are former Democrats. I also hear the same rhetoric from them. They can't vote for a Libertarian because that's really a vote for the Republican candidate. There are lots of "independents" out there and most of the voting population is in the "mushy middle." Why are they in the middle? Usually because they have libertarian-like values, but are so brainwashed into the two-party system that they don't vote for a third party like the Libertarians, whom they would likely find to be the very middle ground they are seeking. People dream about a Mr. Smith to rise up and go to Washington, but then refuse to vote for him because they have been hoodwinked by establishment parties.

Never forget your history. The Republican Party was started by a bunch of pissed of Whigs and in less than a decade they put Lincoln in the White House.

What you say might eventually happen. I'm just not convinced that the libertarians will get the numbers they

need to win the big ones unless they infiltrate one of the established parties. Number one threat to the right

is people like Karl Rove, who does exactly like you said in your first paragraph. It would be nice if the "ifs"

you mentioned would have actually taken place about a couple decades ago. Some heavy lifting is needed.

 

It's difficult to de-program and get people to think logically on this, isn't it?

[mikegideon]

I vote defensively. I can't overlook the fact that big money runs this country, and ALWAYS WILL. No matter who gets voted into the system, they will never be able to overpower that simple fact. They're much more likely to get sucked in.

 

We're not in the position to start gaining ground until we stop losing so much of it. Say all you want about the Republicans... we would be in DEEP shit without them. Second Amendment... GONE. It all comes down to who has the most votes. In some cases, the Republican party has too much power, and in others, not near enough. If the conservative side of the aisle fragments, we're screwed.

 

God bless Rand Paul and some of the others. We need to keep electing people like that. With that said, the number one enemy is the left. Anything we do to weaken ourselves in that fight will be far worse than what Karl rove can do.

[Worriedman]

 

Even if it narrowly passes, so what - - -  Anybody see the House even working on a bill?

 

 

Peter King is to bring the same bill up in the House today.

[Worriedman]

And to the point of the House not passing any gun restrictions...

 

From the article:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) signaled Thursday that he may continue to bypass a House Republican rule [i.e. the "Hastert Rule"] that has required any legislation being voted upon to have the support of a majority of the GOP conference…

 

He said at a news conference Thursday that he will continue to try and follow it in spirit, but also suggested he might well violate it for upcoming votes on guns, immigration and the budget.

 

“Listen: It was never a rule to begin with,” Boehner said. “And certainly my prerogative – my intention is to always pass bills with strong Republican support.”

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/11/boehner-theres-no-rule-that-says-i-need-a-republican-majority-in-order-to-pass-bills-in-the-house/

[DMark]

Peter King is to bring the same bill up in the House today.

 

This is all Grand Policial Theater.

 

King (R-NY) voted for the first AWB in 1994.  He is from New York, thus a RINO on many issues, so he can do the bipartisan act on this effort. 

 

King, along with Thompson (D-CA) will introduce the House version of whatever might be agreed to by the Senate.  Right now that deal appears to be a something that "expands" background checks for commercial gun purchases, including those made at gun shows and the internet.

 

Expand what?  That would be a good question since all commercial sales at shows and the internet already require a background check bt a FFL. 

 

The bill could draw some support from Republicans if there is a focus on mental health....., assuming it gets out of committee.

 

Already there is a "Poison Pill" ready in the House that would include nationwide recognition of state carry permits that would be a part of this bill.  The Dems would never go for that and it would force them to vote against the bill that their beloved Dear Leader Obama wants so much. 

 

Again..., its alot of Political Theater - - - A Big Farce to please the low-info voter on both sides of the issue!   

[Guest EYEMAN]

I would like to encourage all those who haven't, to go to Ruger's website http://ruger.com/index.html, click on "protect your rights" then click on "take action now". Ruger will send a well worded 2nd Amendment support letter to all of your, presumed representatives. Your support letter will be sent to the president all the way down to your district state reps, Ruger has already sent out over 5 million of these. Edited April 15, 2013 by EYEMAN

[GoneBallistic]

Done. I even sent one to Biden. Does anyone know if he can read?

Edited April 15, 2013 by GoneBallistic