Gun Grabbers Fall 3 Votes Short of Another Grab!


PDA






Bruno2
June 25, 2013, 09:40 PM
We are on a roll guys! Liberty is headlining for gun owners .
Gun Owners Score Big in the Senate
Sell-out amendment falls three votes short of Schumer's goal of 70


Sometimes victory is relative. But that doesn't make it any less definitive.

Today, beginning at 5:30 pm (EST), only 67 Senators -- three short of Chuck Schumerís 70-vote target -- voted to shut off debate on the anti-gun Hoeven-Corker-Leahy amnesty amendment. It is noteworthy that only 15 Republicans voted for cloture (to end debate), while an overwhelming majority of GOP Senators voted against it (that is, most Republicans wanted to keep the filibuster in place).


http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=62744051

Check out the link guys. It has a link to see how your politicians voted.Take a look and let them know how you feel.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Grabbers Fall 3 Votes Short of Another Grab!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tom488
June 25, 2013, 10:30 PM
I saw this earlier today, and I must say, it's one of the more ridiculous claims our side has made. Even though the cloture vote was successful, our side is HAPPY because it was three votes SHY of what they expected to get?

Great news, daddy! I'm not as pregnant as I thought I was! :barf:

lpsharp88
June 25, 2013, 10:38 PM
Maybe my Google skills are lacking, but the only thing I can find on the amendment, short of reading it in its entirety (100+ pages IIRC), is pretty much what the link says. My question is, how is it anti-gun/gun grabbing?

r1derbike
June 25, 2013, 10:41 PM
Well...It appears GOA is linking the amnesty immigration movement to immigrants who would overwhelmingly vote Democrat because of all the freebies they would be receiving (paid for by you and I), and thereby aligning themselves with the anti-gun party, knowingly, or not.

In a strange sort of irony, millions of new and future (yeah, that border is going to be sewn-up tight) Democratic voting immigrants, could certainly make a huge dent in GOP plans for the White House, House, and Senate, and have a detrimental effect on pro-gun causes.

Not pointing any fingers here, just my humble opinion.

This legislation needs to be put through several more wash cycles before it becomes law. Let's not forget what this administration is still trying to do after Sandy Hook.

I think the GOA concerns are not foolishly misguided, given the border has, and always will have huge gaps.

The Democrats trying to get this legislation passed at the speed of light should raise some red flags.

Bruno2
June 25, 2013, 10:41 PM
I am happy that Tom "Turncoat" Coburn voted against it.My state got a perfect score on this vote.

Tom, looks like both of your NJ Senators voted for it.

Arkansas went 50/50 r1derbike.

Ohio had one Nay and not voting. So they didn't vote in favor of it either.

lpsharp88
June 25, 2013, 10:54 PM
Well...It appears GOA is linking the amnesty immigration movement to immigrants who would overwhelmingly vote Democrat because of all the freebies they would be receiving (paid for by you and I), and thereby aligning themselves with the anti-gun party, knowingly, or not.

In a strange sort of irony, millions of new and future Democratic voting immigrants, could certainly make a huge dent in GOP plans for the White House, and have a detrimental effect on pro-gun causes.

Not pointing any fingers here, just my humble opinion.

This legislation needs to be put through several more wash cycles before it becomes law. Let's not forget what this administration is still trying to do after Sandy Hook.

I think the GOA concerns are not foolishly misguided.
Thanks for clarifying. This may be the idealist in me, but I'd like to think that people would be for, or against, something for greater reasons than a changing political climate/pro or anti 2A stance. But that discussion is for another forum

r1derbike
June 25, 2013, 11:21 PM
I am happy that Tom "Turncoat" Coburn voted against it.My state got a perfect score on this vote.

Tom, looks like both of your NJ Senators voted for it.

Arkansas went 50/50 r1derbike.

Ohio had one Nay and not voting. So they didn't vote in favor of it either.I saw that, Bruno2. Pryor is just trying to stay alive after Bloomberg slam ads because of his pro-gun vote, last time.

It is hard to decide whether to vote single issue or not, I'm guilty of that, it just depends on how much I have to lose. Purely selfish motives where the Constitution and Bill of Rights stand. I don't want to leave a legacy of socialist dictatorship for my kids and grand kids, under the global NWO. Who knows what the future holds?

This vote was just for an amendment to supposedly allow dem and repub fence sitters to be wooed with taxpayer money (Reid doling out the spoils) and perks to come-on-down and join the price is right on debate. The reform bill still has some tough times ahead.

Tom488
June 26, 2013, 01:40 AM
Tom, looks like both of your NJ Senators voted for it.

Shocking, isn't it?

Bubbles
June 26, 2013, 08:57 AM
I'd like to think that people would be for, or against, something for greater reasons than a changing political climate/pro or anti 2A stance.
1) GOA is a single-issue organization and as such will watch how other votes can potentially affect gun rights.

2) Unfortunately it seems like voters today prefer elected officials who give them the most stuff over those who protect their rights.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 26, 2013, 09:51 AM
1) GOA is a single-issue organization and as such will watch how other votes can potentially affect gun rights.

GOA appears to have some rather convoluted logic at time as to how certain votes are "gun votes" and start grading politicians based on votes that have at best a tenuous connection to guns. It reminds me of all those "Law of the Sea Mining" treaties that people were trying to tie to gun control.

Basically the only conceivable connection this has to gun control is that the immigration bill *might* help the Democrats and if it does, that party's leadership has historically been hostile to the Second Amendment.

I think there are a lot of problems with that approach on a strategic level. I don't think that same "Tie ourselves to one party" approach has worked well for the NAACP or other interest groups that have adopted it. GOA is never going to work with a pro-gun Democrat and no pro-gun Democrat is ever going to work with them because they know GOA will throw them under the bus for the first Republican who even talks a good game.

And I won't even get into the stupidity of the "We lost; but we beat the spread!" angle of this press release.

Fishbed77
June 26, 2013, 09:56 AM
Basically the only conceivable connection this has to gun control is that the immigration bill *might* help the Democrats and if it does, that party's leadership has historically been hostile to the Second Amendment.


It also *might* help Republicans when score of newly-minted tax-paying citizens realize how the other party loves to waste their money.

AlexanderA
June 26, 2013, 01:42 PM
A "no" vote on immigration reform by Republicans might tend to alienate otherwise-conservative Hispanic voters. Going forward, Republicans -- who are generally seen as the pro-gun party -- need to broaden their coalition. I agree that the GOA is wrong in scoring this vote as being on the gun issue. Extremely tangential at best.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Grabbers Fall 3 Votes Short of Another Grab!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!