Alexander and Corker wavering?

[JR2ATN]

Just saw this from GOA...http://gunowners.org/a05082013.htm

 

Senate Democrats are bullying the Senators who voted correctly on Toomey-Manchin-Schumer.  Those who are under the most pressure to switch their votes are:

Alaska
Mark Begich        (202) 224-3004
Lisa Murkowski     (202) 224-6665

Arizona
Jeff Flake         (202) 224-4521

Georgia
Saxby Chambliss    (202) 224-3521
Johnny Isakson     (202) 224-3643

Montana
Max Baucus         (202) 224-2651

North Dakota
Heidi Heitkamp     (202) 224-2043

New Hampshire
Kelly Ayotte      (202) 224-3324

Nevada
Dean Heller        (202) 224-6244

Ohio
Rob Portman        (202) 224-3353

Tennessee
Lamar Alexander    (202) 224-4944
Bob Corker         (202) 224-3344

 

 

I've been guilty of letting up in contacting them since Toomey-Manchin failed in its first attempt.....guess it's time to put on more steam!

 

 

[Worriedman]

No they are not wavering, they are going about their business of reducing Liberty and Freedom apace.  SOP.

[greenego]

Doesn't Alexander play golf? :shrug:

[Grand Torino]

SOP for statists like themselves.

[Oh Shoot]

Doesn't Alexander play golf? :shrug:

 

Used to work under him, and to my knowledge, no.

 

He plays piano pert well, though.

 

- OS

Edited May 9, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[maddog909]

Sent my e-mail of to Senator Corker reminding him of his promise to defend our 2nd Amendment rights.......and reminding him that he let us down once and it won't happen again if he wants re-elected. We'll see how good his word is.

[tnhawk]

Sent my e-mail of to Senator Corker reminding him of his promise to defend our 2nd Amendment rights.......and reminding him that he let us down once and it won't happen again if he wants re-elected. We'll see how good his word is.

His voting record indicates that it's time for him to go.

[Randall53]

I've written short emails asking for support of the RTKABA's and I've written long emails with details with facts, reasons, and demands they honor their oath of office, or they will lose my vote.  I get the same canned response no matter what.

 

I'm sure it's impossible for them to answer or read their correspondence.  I've read that correspondence is commonly read by staff members who simply keep score as to the subject matter, or bill contained in the email like a score card for pro-gun and anti-gun.  So, I'm thinking maybe a very short canned email of our own asking for support of our 2nd amendment rights that could easily be sent every day for a week or two would be better than a long heartfelt one sent one time only would be much better and many more positive votes.

[Volzfan]

I've written short emails asking for support of the RTKABA's and I've written long emails with details with facts, reasons, and demands they honor their oath of office, or they will lose my vote.  I get the same canned response no matter what.

 

I'm sure it's impossible for them to answer or read their correspondence.  I've read that correspondence is commonly read by staff members who simply keep score as to the subject matter, or bill contained in the email like a score card for pro-gun and anti-gun.  So, I'm thinking maybe a very short canned email of our own asking for support of our 2nd amendment rights that could easily be sent every day for a week or two would be better than a long heartfelt one sent one time only would be much better and many more positive votes.

I'll bet that someone could send an email with the subject line being about anything, say abortion, but the content of the email being completely about the 2nd Amendment and the response would be concerning abortion proving the email was not read!

[1gewehr]

Neither one gives a hoot about our rights. 

Corker is safe this time around as he's not up for re-election until 2018.  He knows it and figures that whatever he does for the next several years will be forgotten by 2018.

Alexander is a fan of Big Government and power.  His voting record reflects a total lack of concern for any Constitutional limits on the power of the Senate.  He is an intelligent and well-read man, so it cannot be chalked up to ignorance.  He IS up for re-election, and while his voting record is mostly good, I would sure like to see him replaced by a conservative.

[Chief07]

His voting record indicates that it's time for him to go.

Exactly. :up:

[Krull]

Dear Erik,

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office to share your views about gun control legislation. Your input is important to me, and I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts.

When I ran for the Senate, I expressed my commitment to safeguarding the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens. It has been a tremendous honor to be given the opportunity by Tennesseans to weigh in on their behalf during such a critical time in our history as the Supreme Court has since provided great advances in securing the Second Amendment as a fundamental tenet of American liberty. I have never supported any legislation that infringes on the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Because we had this most recent debate in the Senate, all Senators had the opportunity to go on record with their views on the Second Amendment. I have been a consistent advocate for Second Amendment rights and I welcomed the opportunity to vote on these important issues. As you may know, I voted against the Feinstein assault weapons ban and the ban on magazines of over ten rounds.

The Toomey-Manchin amendment also went too far in infringing Second Amendment rights and I opposed it for two main reasons. First, the amendment did not provide certainty about which firearms transfers required a background check and which didn't. By failing to clearly state which transfers would become illegal, Americans would not have the notice they need to be able to avoid running afoul of federal criminal law and would likely face selective prosecutions. None of us should want to put law enforcement in a position where they can pick and choose what actions are criminal.

Second, the amendment required that firearm transfers between two private individuals be conducted through a licensed firearms dealer. I believe asking Americans to find and travel to a willing gun dealer and to pay an unknown, but potentially not insignificant, fee would lead to negative outcomes. It would substantially burden the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right, which would in turn discourage transfers from occurring within the background check system, resulting largely in just over-criminalizing law abiding people. Particularly in rural areas, it was impossible to predict how far individuals may have to travel to find a dealer willing to perform this type of transfer, let alone how much they might be charged for the service.

That said, what happened last month in the Senate cannot be satisfying to anyone. We spent the balance of a week debating an amendment that, if enacted, would have had no effect on preventing the tragedies in Connecticut, in Colorado, in Arizona, or in many of the other recent mass killings, and would not have addressed the more critical issues involved in preventing that type of violence in the future.

When it comes to the many challenges facing parents, law enforcement, and our judicial system dealing with violent mentally ill people in our society, the inability to respond before violence occurs is a frustration widely known by communities across our country. The vast majority of Americans are rightly concerned that, without action, their community will suffer the consequences of this volatile status quo and be home to the next mass killing.

On mental health, there are three legs to the stool that need to be propped up. The first is ensuring that we are identifying those in our community that are dealing with mental illness and getting them to appropriate resources. Next, we need to confront the legal impediments and ambiguities that exist at the state and federal level to ensure that those that pose a danger to themselves or others can be dealt with in a way that ensures due process, but that also ensures necessary treatment is provided while clearly establishing when an individual becomes a prohibited gun owner. Finally, we need to work with states to ensure that the records of prohibited purchasers are reliably and efficiently added to the background check database.

I think most Tennesseans believe, like I do, that we also have a responsibility to try to keep firearms out of the wrong hands. I believe part of that effort should be improving background checks in a way that allows for fast and accurate checks to be easily performed by law-abiding citizens, and that prevents criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from obtaining firearms, while at the same time ensuring that Second Amendment rights are not infringed upon.

These issues are complex and implicate our most fundamental constitutional rights of personal liberty and self-defense. Unfortunately, a single amendment, Toomey-Manchin, became the litmus test for determining who wanted to prevent the type of violence that has shocked our conscience, and last month's debate was cut short before real solutions that respected the Second Amendment could be considered.

The right to own firearms for self-defense, and for other familiar purposes with my family and friends, is important to me as a Tennessean and as an American, and I encourage those who share that view to support such an effort. We owe it to all those who value our responsibilities toward the mentally ill, the safety of our communities, and the Second Amendment to get this right.

Please know, I take very seriously my responsibility to secure our constitutional rights, and I wanted to share the additional steps I have taken to protect our Second Amendment rights in the attached "Policy Points" document.

Thank you again for your letter. I hope you will continue to share your thoughts with me.



Sincerely,

Bob Corker
United States Senator

[klamb5]

Canned response I got the same

[mikegideon]

Canned response, but a pretty good one. I got the same one today.

[JGunner]

I got the same response as well today.

[10-Ring]

I'd like to have their jobs but I don't guess I'm qualified since I'm honest, always do what I say, could care less about money so long as my basic needs are met, and I hate golf.  Call me what you want but if I had an invitation to meet/ hang out with the president I would decline.  He is nothing but a threat to America, why, if I was an elected official, why would I want to go hob nob around with him?  I would feel like I had some explaining to do to my constituents after fraternizing with that piece of garbage.

Edited June 2, 2013 by 10-Ring

[Chucktshoes]

What we need are folks who will not vote for any new laws. I'd like to see someone run on a platform to only vote to repeal laws. Edited June 2, 2013 by Chucktshoes