PA's Tomey selling us out
- Thread starter ladyT
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
df53141
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2012
- Messages
- 164
- Reaction score
- 85
Read this:
>>Toomey remains close to House Republicans who represent the suburbs of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, some of whom have said that they are open to striking bipartisan compromises on gun legislation in part because support for new gun laws is strong in those areas of the state.
Obviously Pennsylvanian did not pressure him enough this time, as you know, all politician will change their stance once they read the political wind back home during the spring recess!!!!
2A is doomed!!!
>>Toomey remains close to House Republicans who represent the suburbs of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, some of whom have said that they are open to striking bipartisan compromises on gun legislation in part because support for new gun laws is strong in those areas of the state.
Obviously Pennsylvanian did not pressure him enough this time, as you know, all politician will change their stance once they read the political wind back home during the spring recess!!!!
2A is doomed!!!
"Don't panic."
The first rule from the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" applies here.
Also, NEVER read or believe anything from the Wash Post or the NY Times. They are the American versions of Pravda and are simply Democrat Party propaganda.
Now, don't you feel better?
The first rule from the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" applies here.
Also, NEVER read or believe anything from the Wash Post or the NY Times. They are the American versions of Pravda and are simply Democrat Party propaganda.
Now, don't you feel better?
USAF385
US Veteran
Well we still have the senators who pledged to filibuster any gun control laws. Lets see if they pull through.
For what it's worth, Pat Toomey has been completely silent when E-mailed about the bills currently in the Senate. At least Sen. Casey gave me boilerplate responses until I reminded him that I met him in person and shook his hand years ago before he became Senator. I also expressed that I thought he was an intelligent and well-reasoned individual but was extremely disappointed when I learned that he sided with Feinstein on the AWB redux. His office has been dead silent since then.
You want my opinion? Don't trust either one of them and watch the Senate roll calls very, very closely.
You want my opinion? Don't trust either one of them and watch the Senate roll calls very, very closely.
jtpur
Member
Chris Wallace got Asa Hutchinson former congressman from Arkansas, head of DEA and under sec of Homeland to agree that background checks for all gun sales were a good idea at gun shows..Then Hutch backed off a bit, but just shows you that once these clowns hit the Chabliss and cheese parties in DC they turn into the elitest stateists they are. totalitarians bent on consolidating power in the government.
baldeagle8888
Member
I just finished sending Tooney an email with a promise of a contribution to anyone running against him in his next election cycle.
baldeagle8888
baldeagle8888
pingman274
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2008
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 3
I did the same.
Keep a couple things in mind: 1) We haven't seen the proposal yet; that'll happen later today, so keep calm. 2) Allowing something to go to the floor for a vote isn't automatically selling out: if you're quite certain it won't pass, you're forcing pros and antis to declare a position (a good thing, in my opinion); ditto if you think it may pass but know it won't get through the House -- either way, the legislation ultimately loses by way of the democratic process, a huge actual and symbolic loss for the antis.
That's extreme. Here, don't read or believe this:
Kathleen Parker: An impotent gun-control solution - The Washington Post
df53141
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2012
- Messages
- 164
- Reaction score
- 85
You will find out he is a real politician, willing to sell out anything for political gains!
From what I heard this morning, right from Sen Toomey's own mouth, he should no longer be rated A+ by the NRA. He just snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, to get along with the Democrats on background checks. I guess we have to see the exact wording of the final bill, to see how bad it will be. If you are purchasing a firearm from a dealer, it probably won't change anything. Still, I wonder what he would be willing to compromise on in the future, when the next tragedy occurs. Of course then, from the usual drones, you will hear the familiar chorus of we need more, as the background checks were ineffective, and we need to build on that. Another nail in the coffin. Guys, keep up the pressure on your own Senators, as we still might be able to stop this yet.
Last edited:
stumper
US Veteran
What concerns me about the so called "universal back ground check" **** is just "HOW" can it be implemented. This is yet another piece of feel good legislation that may very well get passed without any idea on how to actually build a system to make it work. The current system that FFLs use (that is usually overloaded) requires the calling FFL to provide his number. How will this work for an individual? Who can call in? Who can they call in about? What system will they use to validate that a person is requesting a background check on another person for a gun sale? I can see it now, neighbors calling in about neighbors to see if they have any skeletons in their closet, jamming up the system with frivilous calls....
You will have to go to a FFL holder and pay them $50, or whatever to perform this check. Kind of expensive if you were buying a $50 .22 rifle. Apparantly along with that, you will have to fill out a form 4473. Irregardless of what the government says, your gun will be defacto registered. We will get more information later on the nuts and bolts of this compromise legislation. Maybe it won't be quite this bad?
Letter to my Senators, regarding UBC
Courtesy of GOA, I sent the following just a few minutes ago. I find it quite interesting that there's been no mention of the issues with the new proposals that GOA points out, specifically on the HIPAA and mental health ramifications.
"April 10, 2013
[recipient address was inserted here]
[recipient name was inserted here],
The Toomey-Manchin sell-out is worse than the Feinstein gun ban, which
will reportedly be tied to it on the same amendment tree.
Toomey and Manchin will claim that their bill only covers "gun show sales"
and Internet sales. But if you've ever talked about your gun and /or let
it be known you'd like to sell or buy a gun on the Internet, this language
covers you. If you advertise your gun in the church bulletin and the
bulletin is put on the Internet, you're covered.
The only exemption is for sales that are sold exclusively by word of
mouth. The increased number of background checks would likely exacerbate
the system breakdowns (inherent to NICS) which have shut down gun shows
over and over again. It would mean that Americans who were illegally
denied firearms because their names were similar to other people's would
effectively be barred from owning a gun. (We would never tolerate such
delays for voting rights or other freedoms that we are guaranteed.)
And for those Republicans who think they're going to be able to offer
their useless amendments, guess what? Reid is reportedly going to use an
amendment tree to block out all amendments. And there are plenty of
Senators standing in line to make sure that the Senate doesn't give
"unanimous consent" to set that blocking effort aside.
So if you live in a rural area, you're effectively barred from selling or
buying a gun - or it at least becomes very, very difficult.
Incidentally, the Toomey-Manchin "national registry" language is full of
holes. There will be a national gun registry as a result of this sell-out.
But that's not the worst part. Under an amendment in the bill to HIPAA,
you could have your guns taken away because your private shrink thinks
you're "dangerous" and could send your name directly to the FBI Instant
Check system.
Did you think it was terrible that 150,000 military veterans had been
added into the NICS system because they'd seen a VA shrink about their
PTSD? Well guess what? Now it's going to happen to the rest of the
population ... by the millions!
And the next step, of course, will be to begin to sue psychiatrists that
don't send every single patient's name to the Instant Check system, and to
make sure that their lives are ruined if they don't send a patient to NICS
and anything goes wrong.
The bottom line: "See a shrink; lose your guns."
All of this will reportedly be on an amendment tree with the Feinstein gun
ban and magazine bans.
In addition, Toomey no doubt unintentionally agreed to repeal one of the
most important protections for gun owners that was included in the 1986
McClure-Volkmer Act - the provision that would allow you to take an
unloaded, locked-up gun through states like New York without being
stopped. Under a new subsection (c), the Toomey-Manchin bill would
require you to "demonstrate" to the satisfaction of New York police where
you were coming from and where you are going to. And, if you don't do
that to their satisfaction, they can arrest you.
Please understand that nothing in this bill would have stopped the Newtown
dirtbag from killing his mother and taking the firearms that she owned and
perpetrating the horrible crimes that he committed.
Nothing is this bill would actually make children safer at schools. There
is nothing that will actually keep bad guys from stealing or illegally
acquiring guns, but there's plenty that will threaten our gun rights!
Please vote against cloture on the motion to proceed to the "see a shrink;
lose your guns" / Feinstein gun ban amendment tree.
Sincerely,
2hawk"
Maybe most telling, Schumer seems pretty happy about this. That tells me it is bad for gunowners, no two ways about it.
Let your reps know where you stand, we still have battles ahead!
Courtesy of GOA, I sent the following just a few minutes ago. I find it quite interesting that there's been no mention of the issues with the new proposals that GOA points out, specifically on the HIPAA and mental health ramifications.
"April 10, 2013
[recipient address was inserted here]
[recipient name was inserted here],
The Toomey-Manchin sell-out is worse than the Feinstein gun ban, which
will reportedly be tied to it on the same amendment tree.
Toomey and Manchin will claim that their bill only covers "gun show sales"
and Internet sales. But if you've ever talked about your gun and /or let
it be known you'd like to sell or buy a gun on the Internet, this language
covers you. If you advertise your gun in the church bulletin and the
bulletin is put on the Internet, you're covered.
The only exemption is for sales that are sold exclusively by word of
mouth. The increased number of background checks would likely exacerbate
the system breakdowns (inherent to NICS) which have shut down gun shows
over and over again. It would mean that Americans who were illegally
denied firearms because their names were similar to other people's would
effectively be barred from owning a gun. (We would never tolerate such
delays for voting rights or other freedoms that we are guaranteed.)
And for those Republicans who think they're going to be able to offer
their useless amendments, guess what? Reid is reportedly going to use an
amendment tree to block out all amendments. And there are plenty of
Senators standing in line to make sure that the Senate doesn't give
"unanimous consent" to set that blocking effort aside.
So if you live in a rural area, you're effectively barred from selling or
buying a gun - or it at least becomes very, very difficult.
Incidentally, the Toomey-Manchin "national registry" language is full of
holes. There will be a national gun registry as a result of this sell-out.
But that's not the worst part. Under an amendment in the bill to HIPAA,
you could have your guns taken away because your private shrink thinks
you're "dangerous" and could send your name directly to the FBI Instant
Check system.
Did you think it was terrible that 150,000 military veterans had been
added into the NICS system because they'd seen a VA shrink about their
PTSD? Well guess what? Now it's going to happen to the rest of the
population ... by the millions!
And the next step, of course, will be to begin to sue psychiatrists that
don't send every single patient's name to the Instant Check system, and to
make sure that their lives are ruined if they don't send a patient to NICS
and anything goes wrong.
The bottom line: "See a shrink; lose your guns."
All of this will reportedly be on an amendment tree with the Feinstein gun
ban and magazine bans.
In addition, Toomey no doubt unintentionally agreed to repeal one of the
most important protections for gun owners that was included in the 1986
McClure-Volkmer Act - the provision that would allow you to take an
unloaded, locked-up gun through states like New York without being
stopped. Under a new subsection (c), the Toomey-Manchin bill would
require you to "demonstrate" to the satisfaction of New York police where
you were coming from and where you are going to. And, if you don't do
that to their satisfaction, they can arrest you.
Please understand that nothing in this bill would have stopped the Newtown
dirtbag from killing his mother and taking the firearms that she owned and
perpetrating the horrible crimes that he committed.
Nothing is this bill would actually make children safer at schools. There
is nothing that will actually keep bad guys from stealing or illegally
acquiring guns, but there's plenty that will threaten our gun rights!
Please vote against cloture on the motion to proceed to the "see a shrink;
lose your guns" / Feinstein gun ban amendment tree.
Sincerely,
2hawk"
Maybe most telling, Schumer seems pretty happy about this. That tells me it is bad for gunowners, no two ways about it.
Let your reps know where you stand, we still have battles ahead!
boat770
Member
Think you should change the thread name from "selling out" to sold out.
mc5aw
Member
This legislation is a ruse. It's sole purpose is to criminalize certain gun sales in an effort to prohibit long gun transactions in-person and on-line. None of these political geniuses has ever mentioned that all legal handgun transactions require a background check. Couple with the recent revised bans that NY, MD and CT have implemented, this latest move is a means to eradicate long guns from commerce, slowly but surely.
Buffalohunter60
US Veteran
Its all pretty disapointing.....but no matter what they pass....it still has to pass the "Constitutional test" that will come from the NRA and other groups that will place them before the supreme court. It hard to have any faith when you see the corruption that goes on in the system...judges can be corrupted also....but the bottom line will always be "We the People" and a republic guarantees the rights of the minority. The majority can not take the rights aways from a minority and if they want to change the second amendment...it will take an amendment to do that...and that is not a simple process. We need to look at who "sells out" and replace them next election. We all need to get involved in who is running for office and where they stand on the Constitution and second amendment because the second is our liberty teeth and without that...the rest of the Bill Of Rights is meaningless. Bottom line is....no matter what they pass.....we would still have to agree to give up our rights....and many will never do that. Many elected officals do not have to honor their Oath of Office, they can propose any bill and the little clause at the end of the bill protects them from proscution. I have more faith in our Leo's that took the Oath, our Sheriffs, Our military and our vetrens...active and retired to uphold the Oath we all took to protect and defend the Constitution...thats what it boils down to....and many will never give up their freedom, I know I will not.
It is up to us to see that we elect responsible people that will respect the Constitutional rights and work to see the right folks get elected. i know I am keeping a list of who I will work against come next election time. I will not onl;y work to elect responsible people that support the constitution....I will work just as hard to unelect the ones that trampled the Constitution and our second amendment...and we can undo...anything the can do. We allow them to govern....thats not a license to trample our rights.
It is up to us to see that we elect responsible people that will respect the Constitutional rights and work to see the right folks get elected. i know I am keeping a list of who I will work against come next election time. I will not onl;y work to elect responsible people that support the constitution....I will work just as hard to unelect the ones that trampled the Constitution and our second amendment...and we can undo...anything the can do. We allow them to govern....thats not a license to trample our rights.
