Sell Out Republicans

The Senate Minority Leader voted against cloture, as did the Senate Minority Whip.

It is not system failure but basic failure of people is society to consider and discuss another persons differing point of view. What is happening now is people interact and consider points of view of individuals that think just like themselves.

InkEd said:

Does anyone else feel the Republican that have sold out on gun control should lose the endorsement of the party?

Does anyone else agree that NRA contributions to the Republican party should. E earmarked that they cannot be used for these candidates, if the keep their party's endorsement?

PERSONALLY, I FEEL THEY SHOULD BE DROPPED LIKE AN EMPTY MAGAZINE!

Tow the line for Obama, Feinstein and other freedom haters; they can get the heck out of office.

Click to expand...

Ed if you vote people in based on ONE issue the country will keep getting worse and worse to live in.

Why does anyone think that summarily booting these 16 senators out of office would mean that the replacements would necessarily be more friendly to out cause? I would think very hard about the consequences of replacing Republicans with Democrats until all of the consequences were known and understood, and all of the votes on these issues were known and examined.

Here are the sellouts in the Senate.

Call them, and if you are like me, tell them that you are actively seeking new employment for them in either the food service industry or in the ever expanding Hotel Housekeeping Industry.


• Lindsey Graham (SC) (202) 224-5972
• Lamar Alexander (TN) (202) 224-4944
• Kelly Ayotte (NH) (202) 224-3324
• Richard Burr (NC) (202) 224-3154
• Saxby Chambliss (GA) (202) 224-3521
• John McCain (AZ) (202) 224-2235
• Tom Coburn (OK) (202) 224-5754
• Susan Collins (ME) (202) 224-2523
• Bob Corker (TN) (202) 224-3344
• Jeff Flake (AZ) (202) 224-4521
• John Hoeven (ND) (202) 224-2551
• Johnny Isakson (GA) (202) 224-3643
• Dean Heller (NV) (202) 224-6244
• Mark Kirk (IL) (202) 224-2854
• Pat Toomey (PA) (202) 224-4254
• Roger Wicker (MS) (202) 224-6253

If I wasn't clear enough in my previous post (not being snarky, I actually think I was unclear), I'm going to reserve judgement until after the debate on which ones need to go.

I won't fault them for playing politicking games to get the TV spotlight because it's become a necessity ever since it was decided that Senators should be elected democratically, instead of appointed by State legislature.

PabloJ said:

It is not system failure but basic failure of people is society to consider and discuss another persons differing point of view. What is happening now is people interact and consider points of view of individuals that think just like themselves.

Click to expand...

I will discuss another persons views, and have many times and in many places. I don't have to agree with someone to appreciate their views. There have even been times that I was wrong and the other view was wrong, but the discussion caused both to realize that a third option was the right course. However in the Senate every time something is discussed the media fully supports the left, the right gives in on some issues, and a slightly less extreme version of communism passes. The media then points out how the right blocked the key features and therefore blames the failure on the right. This leads to the right taking blame for the failures of left wing policies and moving this country farther toward communism. The only way to stop this slippery slope, downward spiral, progressive march to communism is to stop the debate on left wing issues before it starts. Take action to repeal the policies in place. The left has placed itself in position to always come out ahead in discussions on the Senate level, so discussion in the Senate leads to more communism. The right is never afraid to argue but it is this broken system that leads us to a problem. So yes the SYSTEM is broken but people built the system, so it is a failure of people by allowing the left to take over the system.

RX-178 said:

I won't fault them for playing politicking games to get the TV spotlight because it's become a necessity ever since it was decided that Senators should be elected democratically, instead of appointed by State legislature.

Click to expand...

Yes changing the way the Senate members are appointed/elected was a big mistake and constitutionally wrong, but I find it has little to do with this argument. For example both Corker and Alexander from Tennessee voted for closure (with the Democrats.) But they are republicans from a very red state. So by voting with the Democrats they have ticked off their voting base. If they were unaffected by public opinion would they not be more likely to thumb their noses at the voters? The simple fact here is that Washington is so out of touch with the people that they represent the representatives don't care what the people they are representing think. They get in Washington, sometimes with good intentions, and are influenced by the media, and their peers in Washington. I am only suggesting we vote out these politicians that only consider themselves, their power, media opinion, rather than what the people that put them in power want.

Yes the Senate was to represent the state, and the House the people, but I don't see how that screw up years ago effects this current debate.

Since this point was lost when posted earlier, I'll highlight it for you all.

JRH6856 said:

It is ironic that many of the same gun owners (an not just on this forum) who complained loudly that many congressmen know little or nothing about how guns work, are now demonstrating that they have even less knowledge about how Congress works.

Click to expand...

If Harry Reid wanted this to come to the floor of the Senate, he could have done it in January.

Harry Reid and the Democrats did not want this to leave committee.


This is theater. They know the only thing that will be accomplished is that some Senate Democrats will be forced to cast a vote that either keeps them out of hot water in their home district, or keeps them out of hot water with the DNC. They can't serve both masters on this one.

Whatever leaves the Senate won't get past the House, and they know it. Those Democrats are reluctant as hell to be forced into that corner when nothing good will come out of it. And that's what these Republicans just did with their vote.


Sell outs over a prodecural vote that will harm some Senate Democrats in gun-owning states?

C'mon people.


Now Toomey on the other hand. I intend to see that he doesn't make it past his primary in 2016.

Walkalong said:

Just because they will let the GC bill get a vote does not mean they have turned. With any luck, forcing politicians to vote on the gun bill(s) will help unseat some who vote for more gun control when they come up for re-election in 2014

As always, check the voting record on actual anti gun bills and vote accordingly, Democrat or Republican.

Click to expand...

... or Libertarian. Or Green Party. Or... Or... Or...

There are 35 political parties in the US (not all of those are currently active, but most are) not including regional parties or independents.

I vote Libertarian when I have the option. I refuse to play their dog and pony game, and I refuse to vote for "the lesser of two evils". I vote with my principles. If someone from one of the two major parties fits that, then they get my vote. As a voter it's my DUTY to be informed on the candidates and their stance on issues important to me. Uninformed voters are a problem.

United we stand................well, you know the rest.

Sav .250 said:

United we stand................well, you know the rest.

Click to expand...

So in other words, vote for the same people everyone else votes for or you're helping to destroy our nation, even if the person you're voting for is a traitor, a liar, a thief, or just plain incompetent?

Personally I think we should eliminate all political parties completely, institute campaign funding caps, prohibit corporations, banks, lobbyists and non-voters from contributing to campaigns, force equal media coverage of ALL candidates, and force candidates to run on their voting record and merits rather than on telling people what they want to hear and doing what they want. We should also institute hard line term limits for ALL offices, with one term exceptions allowed by a direct vote of the population. (these are only some of my ideas. I have others.)

Sure my ideas would make political campaigns boring, but it would certainly have a positive effect on the election as a whole, I believe.

These ideas would bring the actual issues and what the candidates plan to do about them to the forefront, rather than the deceit and lies we suffer with now every time elections come around.

This would also have the side effect of letting even the most uninformed know where each candidate stands on the issues important to them. For us, it would let us see just where each candidate stands on gun rights based on their voting history.

Now I know we can research all of that now, but if voting record and personal merit is all the politicians are allowed to run on, we won't have all the backbiting, mudslinging and divisive garbage we have now (to a point - of course everyone has their own beliefs - these ideas just let people make more informed decisions without all the smoke and mirrors.) - If our POTUS had to run for re-election based on his voting record/signing record and his personal merits alone, he never would have gotten re-elected (ignoring the gross voter fraud that has been rampant in our elections for the past several elections).

I vote Libertarian when I have the option. I refuse to play their dog and pony game, and I refuse to vote for "the lesser of two evils". I vote with my principles. If someone from one of the two major parties fits that, then they get my vote. As a voter it's my DUTY to be informed on the candidates and their stance on issues important to me. Uninformed voters are a problem.

Click to expand...

All very well, but do understand that some of candidates you support are unlikely to win at state or higher levels. The vote you deny to one of the two major parties who are most likely to support gun rights may mean that the other party - which takes an opposite position, is more likely to win. This gains us nothing.

While it is far from ideal, it is more productive to become more actively engaged in a major party that best represents what you see as what's best, and try to move them in that direction.

The so-called "Tea Party" is not a true political party, but they have managed to get candidates they support elected by working with or through one or both of the major parties, and as a consequence have more influence then they're numbers would suggest.

I'm so livid with Pat Toomey right now. I can't believe I voted for that sorry piece of @#%. I don't care if I have to risk a Democrat. He's getting fired next time I vote.

While I was in favor of keeping it from coming to a vote to begin with, having talked to some "political operatives", there is a lot more going on than is reported in the news.

Don't be stupid and react in a knee jerk (with emphasis on Jerk) manner!

Wait and see what happens in the debates and committees.

The earlier comment about gun owners not understanding politics is very relevant. There are an awful lot of Democrats who don't want to be forced to vote on this, and it has forced President Obama out into the open as a gun banner. Considering the number of his defenders on this forum in the past, that means something.

One might want to remember the story of Brother Rabbit and brother Fox and the Tar baby.

Yeah, both my Senators (Isakson & Shameless) turned with the other Rep Sens. They both now have a sweet little disclaimer on their websites talking about how they want all the others to publicly vote on their positon AND to be able to PASS other amendments to strenghten the 2nd.

I called and asked exactly what amendments they intend to propose and get passed in the Dem Senate. SILENCE OF THE SHEEPLE. Still waiting on an answer.

I don't want compromise with schumer from my Senators. I want them to stand up and freaking fight for the Constitution and to uphold the oath of office they took before GOD Almighty.

They can sell the rest of that crap to the marxist, left wing media.

I will take the judgement of Sen Ted Cruz over the 2 wussies from my state any day.

Old Fuff said:

All very well, but do understand that some of candidates you support are unlikely to win at state or higher levels. The vote you deny to one of the two major parties who are most likely to support gun rights may mean that the other party - which takes an opposite position, is more likely to win. This gains us nothing.

While it is far from ideal, it is more productive to become more actively engaged in a major party that best represents what you see as what's best, and try to move them in that direction.

The so-called "Tea Party" is not a true political party, but they have managed to get candidates they support elected by working with or through one or both of the major parties, and as a consequence have more influence then they're numbers would suggest.

Click to expand...

I've attempted a few times to formulate a response that keeps this "high road" material, but I'm unable to discuss this much further without getting political.

To put it simply, your contention that "a vote for anyone but A or B is pointless" is incorrect. It's simple math, and the votes of others are irrelevant to my choice of candidate. Implying that I wasted my vote by voting based on my beliefs and principles is a copout that allows you and everyone else that spouts that nonsense to feel better about yourself for compromising your own principles if those exist (because let's face it - not everyone has the same principles, and not everyone has principles at all). If more people voted based on the issues at hand and the candidate's voting history rather than based on what they're being promised (and NEVER delivered, EVER), I strongly believe the Libertarian party would have more chance and voting for them would be more "productive". Thus I make every attempt to educate others regarding liberty, and regarding the candidates they support as well as those they simply don't know about because the mainstream media refuses to give anyone but A or B any kind of coverage (because they're bought and paid for the same as our politicians are by corporations and special interest groups).

You're welcome to continue voting for the lesser of two evils, but I contend that voters like you, who compromise and vote for the least bad candidate of the two main ones are the problem, not voters like me, who consistently make educated and informed votes, based on candidates' actual voting records, and on the principles our nation was built on: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Compromise has destroyed our nation. It's eroded our 2nd Amendment rights since the late 20's. Compromise is the core of socialist/communist beliefs, and simply cannot work. It's been tried in dozens of other nations and societies, and every single one of them has eventually failed with the exception of China (and I'm not informed enough on China to really make a call as to whether communism is working for them or not).

NEVER compromise your principles. That's part of what being American is about. NEVER give up a little freedom for the illusion of safety.

And don't EVER tell me I'm wrong for voting against two traitors who both openly support gun control measures that do nothing but disarm law abiding citizens.

Well I expected an explosion - and got it.

Trouble is you missed my core point, which was:

While it is far from ideal, it is more productive to become more actively engaged in a major party that best represents what you see as what's best, and try to move them in that direction.

The so-called "Tea Party" is not a true political party, but they have managed to get candidates they support elected by working with or through one or both of the major parties, and as a consequence have more influence then they're numbers would suggest.

Click to expand...

I don't believe they're any members of the Libertarian Party in either the Senate or House of Representatives in Washington. However there are some that hold Libertarian beliefs. Hopefully we will get more, but if so it will be because they worked through the two-party system.

The same is true of those who vote for candidates in parties on the far left, and again, those with these beliefs and principals who succeed in getting elected do so by working within a major party. Our current president is an example.

Given my choice I would much rather see many more of the former then the latter.

Sticking by your principals is a mixed blessing. If those that "vote Libertarian" had instead supported (in some cases) Republican candidates we might not be in the fix we are now. If we kick out the Republicans it highly unlikely they will be replaced with candidates from the Libertarian Party, and it would do our cause no good if instead the leftist side took over those seats.

As I pointed out, The Tea Party did it right.

Old Fuff said:

Well I expected an explosion - and got it.

Trouble is you missed my core point, which was:



I don't believe they're any members of the Libertarian Party in either the Senate or House of Representatives in Washington. However there are some that hold Libertarian beliefs. Hopefully we will get more, but if so it will be because they worked through the two-party system.

The same is true of those who vote for candidates in parties on the far left, and again, those with these beliefs and principals who succeed in getting elected do so by working within a major party. Our current president is an example.

Given my choice I would much rather see many more of the former then the latter.

Sticking by your principals is a mixed blessing. If those that "vote Libertarian" had instead supported (in some cases) Republican candidates we might not be in the fix we are now. If we kick out the Republicans it highly unlikely they will be replaced with candidates from the Libertarian Party, and it would do our cause no good if instead the leftist side took over those seats.

As I pointed out, The Tea Party did it right.

Click to expand...

You're right, I did miss your main point.

I didn't really mean to come off like I was "exploding" - I intended it as more of a "firm statement". I really meant no offense, and I do respect you considerably for the knowledge you have, especially regarding revolvers.

I'm also very aware that there are no current libertarians in congress and there are few in state government at the higher levels. We are working very hard to put as many libertarians as we can in local and state governments already (Florida may see a libertarian governor next election, if everything goes right. Good luck Mr. Adrian Wyllie!).

It is true that some in the legislature hold libertarian beliefs. I like to hope that Rand Paul is one of them, and Ted Cruz is perhaps another. I simply find it too much to ask for that I vote for someone of ANY party that doesn't hold similar ideas on how things should be to my own (ie, the libertarian/constitutional sort of ideas). While I generally won't support a "main party" candidate, I do realize that I may end up voting for one - I didn't discount that possibility, and if Rand Paul runs for president next time around as a Republican, then I suppose I may very well end up doing that. I was just attempting to explain why I vote based on principle and voting record rather than the letter after someone's name.

Well I expected an explosion - and got it.

Click to expand...

Notice the There is no rancor here.

It is unfortunate that our schools (or at least most of them) do not teach students any background about the Constitution, its Bill of Rights, or what the founder's thinking was. It would seem that no one is required to look into the Federalist Papers in this day and age.

The founders envisioned a national government without political parties, and in that context (which in truth never really existed) candidates would run on the basis of their beliefs, and be elected or rejected by the voters. Instead we have a system of two dominate parties, and the national legislature is run and controlled on the basis of winner-take-all. The majority (even by so little as one member) gets to assign the committee chairmanships, and those individuals, with committee members from they're party, control what legislation will or will not see the light of day.

It is not by accident that the recent Obama/Democrat gun control bills went through the Senate's Judiciary Committee largely as drafted, by a straight party vote (10 Democrats, 8 Republicans). Given the circumstances there was no way opponents could stop or amend them until they reached the floor. A filibuster (which is something else the founders never considered) might have delayed the process, but ultimately not stop it.

So I will now get to the point of all this. We, as gun owners, do not have the political power to change the system, in spite of what some might think. Therefore we must work within it. To succeed it is necessary to use our votes to hopefully insure that Republicans - that at least are neutral if not in favor of our cause (with exceptions of course) - represent the majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives; rather then the Democrats who are aggressively (again with exceptions) trying to strictly control, if not eliminate the private ownership of firearms.

While I have great respect for the Libertarian Party and what it stands for, I also believe that it would be far better if they, like the Tea Party movement, would use their votes to influence and support the Republicans Party and try to redirect some thinking there. If a Libertarian-minded Republican was the present Senate Judiciary Committee Chairperson we would not be having this discussion at all.

While I understand that many members find it troubling, if not down right offensive, that Senators would gamble our Second Amendment rights on a political ploy to the advantage of a certain party, right now we still need to bebmaking friends and influencing people.

Rather than tell Senators they have already lost your vote and get angry with them, simply tell them that you understand the benefits to their party of having a debate on the Second Amendment but that you are going to hold them personally responsible for the consequences of that vote even if they do not support additional gun control but it passes anyway.

People should also realize that UBC is an idea who's time has come. Many people support it. I support it and I'll explain why. It only makes sense at this point in time that all transfers be subject to a background check. The fact that some transfers are not subject to a background check is accurately described and accepted by the public as a loop-hole and we, as a community should accept that premise and go ahead and close it.

Doing so will harm very, very few and project our image as a community that is willing to come to the table and be involved in reasonable dialog. Besides that, the horse has left this barn long ago. We have instant background checks now so why the objection to making all transfers subject to the same scrutiny?

Uniform precautions on the purchase and transfer of all firearms is common sense, that is the public perception and I also believe it to be correct.

I also see the glass as half-fill. We had a United States Congress member shot in the head and no legislation was passed. Now with 20+ kindergarteners shot and killed, we are not talking about the possibility of an AWB and hi-cap mag ban, we are talking about making background checks universal, I think its time to celebrate what a strong, pro-gun rights congress we have!

We have won, our rights are preserved, background checks impede no one from getting a gun who is lawfully able to get one and it protects our community as well, making us appear to be reasonable, prudent and having the public good in mind. I just don't understand the opposition to UBC, it seems to be an unreasonable and intractable position.

As as UBC and the barn door being open...

CA, CO, IL, NY, OR and RI already require universal background checks on sales at gun shows.

CT, MD and PA require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows.

HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC and NE require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun.

Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events.

33 states have taken no action on UBC's


Legislation is a fact of life, we a nation of laws and laws are going to evolve. We have watched two republican Presidents severely restrict gun-rights and we still believe they are our friends. GWB was on record saying if an AWB bill landed on his desk he would sign it, thankfully we have a congress who has refused to deliver any such bill but will deliver UBC and IMHO, at no harm to our community but to our benefit.

UBC is what I believe to be a moderate and effective measure, with no harm being done to the Second Amendment. Hopefully we can get a few mores SCOTUS cases decided in our favor and lines can finally be drawn on where rights end or begin but with folks still battling about how Roe VS Wade should be over-turned, I wouldn't be so hopeful. Constitutional lawyers should do pretty well the next couple decades...

And not to nor portray doom and gloom but the republican party is not in good shape and should things remain the way they are now, Hilary is going to walk into office in 2016 so its all the more important not to throw out the baby with bath water and if your representative did support the UBC I would consider giving them a pass if they DID NOT support a AWB or hi-cap mag ban, I would still consider them our friend. If our congress remains as strongly pro-gun rights AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, even President Hilary (shudder) can do no harm.

And for the record, if you are against UBC, I fully respect your right to do so, I am just expressing my own personal beliefs and hope they will be respected as well.

And for the record, if you are against UBC, I fully respect your right to do so, I am just expressing my own personal beliefs and hope they will be respected as well.

Click to expand...

If you were only selling out your own rights, I'd have no problem respecting your personal beliefs, unfortunately, you are selling out mine too.

The existing background check system is all too easy to convert into registration. The only thing missing is to get all sales into the system and that is exactly what UBCs do. 4 or 5 of the last big shooting incidents, including Giffords, went through NICS. Universal background checks will not stop these incidents and when they don't, they'll be coming for bans.

Until SCOTUS speaks decisively on the banning of firearms, people who advocate for UBCs are setting themselves up for a sucker's deal where the UBCs they support will be used to disarm them in the future (like several in NY right now) and the only slim hope they have is a SCOTUS that was 5-4 on whether you even have a right to keep a .22LR revolver in your home.

So Mike, we should get on board with this because it will make the radical anti-gunners have a change of heart about us and the guns we own?

You truly believe that?


Given those States that prohibit private sales and transfers between individuals, how does their crime rates differ from those who don't?

For that matter, of states with universal background checks, how many have proposed or passed additional gun control since they restricted private sales? Pretty much all of them right?

That is because the major purpose isn't safety but making gun ownership burdensome enough that gun owners become a political minority who can no longer defend themselves at the polls.