Republicans willing to sell us out.

[12131]

That article states the listed senators will not join a filibuster. Does that mean that they will vote to override a filibuster?

Interesting how and where they come up with Coburn on that list. Here's a letter that Sen. Coburn wrote to one of his constituents, dated April 9, 2013 (yesterday). I copied this from a member's post on AR15Armory.com, with emphasis added by me.

April 9, 2013


Dear Mr. C,
Thank you for taking the time to write me to express your opinion and concerns about the various gun control proposals. I am encouraged so many Oklahomans are making their voices heard. I have received an overwhelming number of letters, and in order to respond in a timely manner, I am writing a response that encompasses my entire position. If you have additional questions or concerns, please write me again.
I want to be clear: I remain committed to defending and protecting our Constitution; namely the Second Amendment. I have long protected the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns. I am opposed to a ban on assault rifles and I oppose limiting magazines. I will not vote for any bill that limits the gun rights of law abiding citizens. While I support a debate in the Senate on gun related issues—including reaffirming these rights and forcing gun-control advocates to have their votes on record and be held accountable for their votes—I will not only support, but lead a filibuster to prevent the passage of any bill that limits the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
The news reports are correct that I have been involved in discussions to write legislation improving the existing background checks to enable private citizens to check a database and ensure the person they seek to sell their gun to is legally allowed to own a firearm. I believe it is good public policy to make sure that those who are mentally-ill or a felon (both are already prohibited from owning a gun), do not have access to a weapon. However, I oppose record keeping and will not agree to legislation that expands record keeping to private sales.
The concern I am hearing over and over is not just about people maintaining their right to own firearms—it is a concern about how to preserve liberty. When our Constitution was adopted, we had just won a war fought largely by Minute Men and localized, or unofficial, militias (Sons of Liberty, etc). The first shots fired at Concord were, in part, to preserve a local supply of firearms that the British sought to confiscate. Our founders believed very strongly that the individual right to bear arms would preserve the independence and freedom won in 1781, just as they had enabled our founders to win the revolutionary war. They feared tyranny and centralized power—which is why our Constitution was established. In addition to the checks created by balancing power between a legislature and executive—and checked by a judiciary—the Bill of Rights sought to limit the federal government and clearly stated that those powers not enumerated in the Constitution and delegated to the federal government would remain with the states and the people (the 9th and 10th Amendments).
Yet, our federal government regularly legislates on matters that belong to the states and the people. Our freedoms are being gradually encroached and choked by ever-increasing regulations, laws, agencies, and overspending. This concerns me greatly and I fight daily to rein in the size, scope and spending of our federal government. I believe the greatest threat to our Republic is apathy as our overindulgent federal government, through indebtedness, spends the money of future generations. James Madison, the architect of our Constitution, said something similar in 1788 in a speech in Virginia when he said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
I am aware of this and I work to push back on all attacks to our Constitution, including those to our Second Amendment. Congress must be careful not to legislate in a way that makes criminals out of law-abiding, gun-owning citizens.
Thank you for being involved and allowing me these last eight years to fight to protect our Constitution. I daily think about the sacrifices of past generations and I am grateful. In these last four years, as I finish out my second term, I remain committed to protecting your Second Amendment rights and working to limit our federal government and reduce federal spending.

Sincerely,

Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
United States Senator

So, either the WaPo lies, or Coburn lies. We'll just have to see.

 

[clutch]

I have a lot more faith in Coburn than the WP. He is self term limited.

 

[Walkalong]

The Republicans have a vested interest in not filibustering the motion to proceed. If they filibuster the motion to proceed successfully, Reid has already stated he will just bring each gun control bill to the floor individually (though doubtful he has time for that). Plus they take ALL the blame for "blocking gun control supported by 90% of Americans."

I agree with Bart

 

[JFtheGR8]

I have written countless emails to RINO Mark Kirk and have gotten zero response. He is an advocate for gun control and his record proves it. He is not up for reelection in the midterms.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

While I support a debate in the Senate on gun related issues—including reaffirming these rights and forcing gun-control advocates to have their votes on record and be held accountable for their votes—I will not only support, but lead a filibuster to prevent the passage of any bill that limits the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

12131, Coburn's statement is perfectly consistent with his actions here. He is voting against the filibuster to block the debate and votes. He wants the debates and votes to happen - as do most of the Republican Senate leadership since it puts many Dem Senators in a tough spot in 2014. Coburn is promising to filibuster the amended bill if he feels it infringes on the Second Amendment.

The approach Coburn advocates is great for the Republican Party; however it has a very high probability of putting an enormous amount of pressure on a few Republican Senators who do not support the Second Amendment to defect - and the votes are very close. The chance that legislation that infringes on the Second passes the Senate whether Coburn likes it or not is higher with this approach.

And if you believe that the Senate has already resolved these issues through backroom deals and plans to hose gun owners, then you couldn't ask for a better approach to set that up in a way that lets Senators try to dodge the blame for their complicity in that process.

 

[hso]

CALL the Senators and leave a clear concise message. They're just counting the number of people that call and support for or against.

The easiest way to find a senators’ phone number, call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for your senators’ and/or representative’s office.

Remember that telephone calls are usually taken by a staff member, not the member of Congress. Ask to speak with the aide who handles the issue about which you wish to comment.

After identifying yourself, tell the aide you would like to leave a brief message. Don't leave a rambling 2A rant, it won't help and you're just taking up time that more of us can call with a simple "Please tell the Senator that I want him to vote NO on provisions of Senator Reid's bill requiring Universal Background Checks. I don't want legislation requiring me to drive 10 miles and stand around for a half hour just to pay some guy at a gun shop with an FFL to run a background check on someone I've known forever so I can give my grandfather or grandson or uncle my prized rifle/pistol for their birthday!".

 

[rondog]

Thanks for the RINO definitions, I despise acronyms! But now I know, thank you!