Contact your congressmen/women and tell them NO COMPROMISES

[indygunguy]

Done.

 

[halfmileharry]

They really don't care what we think. If they did they wouldn't be so willing to violate their oath of Office. I worked for the NRA back in the 90s and dealt with "politicians". Did you know that every one of them have response letters already printed up - one for each side of every issue. Numerous times they would stupidly send you the wrong one. They are all lying scum because that's how you get ahead in the political world. Wake up people. Sending them messages has no effect whatsoever on these people. It didn't work with King George 200 years ago and it won't work now either. You may not accept "compromise" but I assure you all of them do every day. It's a game to these people. So long as they make the rules and are willing to violate them any time they want - they will win.

When they gave their selves immunity we lost control of our lawmakers.

 

[jamil]

They really don't care what we think. If they did they wouldn't be so willing to violate their oath of Office. I worked for the NRA back in the 90s and dealt with "politicians". Did you know that every one of them have response letters already printed up - one for each side of every issue. Numerous times they would stupidly send you the wrong one. They are all lying scum because that's how you get ahead in the political world. Wake up people. Sending them messages has no effect whatsoever on these people. It didn't work with King George 200 years ago and it won't work now either. You may not accept "compromise" but I assure you all of them do every day. It's a game to these people. So long as they make the rules and are willing to violate them any time they want - they will win.

Yeah, they all do the form letter. And it's unlikely that a given congress critter even sees what you write. It's probably just an intern that glances over each letter just enough to determine which canned response to reply with.

However, I do think the congress critters do get tallies on pros and cons. Letting them know which side you're on does help. Not that they care so much about representing you, but the do care about keeping their jobs. If their constituents flood them with opinions against gun control legislation, they'll get the idea.

And because they really don't get much more than a tally, it's more efficient just to use the online forms for sending your opinion. I wouldn't waste my time drafting a wordy appeal because no one's going to read it beyond the point where the lowly intern can guess which side you're on.

 

[jamil]

When they gave their selves immunity we lost control of our lawmakers.

I think someone suggested that legislators should not have the power to vote legislation for themselves. If they want a pay raise, it has to be approved by referendum. If they want to except themselves from laws, it should be approved or disapproved by referendum. I like that idea. Having the president decide doesn't really provide checks and balances because it makes it too easy to get stuff passed by quid pro quo.

 

[Libertarian01]

I called both this morning. I hope they get the message!

Doug

 

[reno]

I called both senators.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Screw the government! All four failed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...or-gun-control-showdown-likely-to-go-nowhere/

 

[Drail]

"Screw the Government!" Words to live by.........

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Kill all they send, until they send no more.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So, the NRA went 4-0 last night and we don't have any NRA hate posts? What's wrong with INGO?

 

[Expat]

Maybe they are sleeping in this morning.

 

[foszoe]

You are the expert, but I thought the NRA supported the Republican proposal on the terror list that included due process so I scored them 3-1. I admit I didn't read them that closely.

However as a NRA Lifer, I am proud and amazed of the effort the organization puts into preserving our rights.

So, the NRA went 4-0 last night and we don't have any NRA hate posts? What's wrong with INGO?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

So, the NRA went 4-0 last night and we don't have any NRA hate posts? What's wrong with INGO?

I hate that they keep sending me letters saying it's time to renew my membership when it's not due until 4/30/17. How's that?

 

[turnandshoot4]

So, the NRA went 4-0 last night and we don't have any NRA hate posts? What's wrong with INGO?

The republicans proposed anti gun bills, or did I miss something?

You've said it best before and I didn't see this.

When they attack, we attack.
When they retreat, we attack.
This was not an attack.

My whole issue is these democrat lawmakers are so terribly stupid. I'd gladly trade "a shoulder thing that goes up" for the Hughes amendment. The NRA won't touch the Hughes a 10,000' pole though.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Two of the bills were democrat and two of them were republican offerings. Note that Donnelly voted YEA on all four and even Rand Paul, Lee, and Cruz voted for the republican versions.

Here are the senators who just voted against closing gun-purchase loopholes.

 

[turnandshoot4]

To think the NRA did anything one would have to believe they convinced the Democrats the two bills weren't strict enough and convince the Republicans the two bills were too strict.

 

[MCgrease08]

Funny how democrat politicians say inaction is inexcusable and we must "do something," yet even after their own proposed legislation down in flames, many of them voted against the Cornyn and Grassely proposals which would have "done something."

It's a good thing the GOP is the only side playing partisan politics.

 

[jamil]

Funny how democrat politicians say inaction is inexcusable and we must "do something," yet even after their own proposed legislation down in flames, many of them voted against the Cornyn and Grassely proposals which would have "done something."

It's a good thing the GOP is the only side playing partisan politics.

The general public hears the intended message, "We failed again to enact common sense gun safety legislation because of the gun lobby and sympathizing Republicans." I think the Filibuster, and the votes, were designed to fail from the start so that this message is what most people hear. This isn't even about the guns. That's just a convenient wedge issue. It's about tearing down the opposition to progressivism.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Finally heard back from Coats:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent terror attack in Orlando, Florida, and your concerns with recent gun control proposals in the Senate. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

As you know, early on June 12, 2016, forty-nine people were murdered and fifty-three others were injured at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. This was a horrific act of radical Islamic terrorism on our homeland, inspired by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and the worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11.

Sadly, this outrageous tragedy reinforces that the battle against terrorism and extremism will not be fought only in the Middle East. The United States is dealing with escalating security challenges that cannot be resolved through diplomacy alone. It is imperative that we address these new dangers to our country by acting to reassess and strengthen our border security and engage with leaders throughout the world to address the ever-spreading threat of terrorism. Our nation will stand strong against the violent acts of ISIS and other terrorist groups. We must understand that to be successful, we are in for a long and protracted effort that will require a resolute commitment.

Following this attack in Orlando, the Senate considered several amendments to the Fiscal Year 2017 Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill (H.R.2578) intended to prevent terrorists from accessing guns. As I reviewed each of these proposals, I considered the impact they would have on the Second Amendment and due process rights of law-abiding Americans.

First, on June 20, the Senate considered proposals introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein (S.Amdt.4720) and Senator John Cornyn (S.Amdt.4749) to restrict access to guns on the basis of an individual's ties to terrorism. I supported Senator Cornyn's approach, which would have temporarily prevented a known or suspected terrorist from purchasing a gun, while providing important protections to ensure appropriate regard for due process. The temporary halt to the gun purchase would have been made permanent once a court had ruled that the individual was appropriately designated as a terrorist. Unfortunately, this proposal failed to secure the necessary 60 votes to advance, and was blocked by a vote of 53-47. Meanwhile, Senator Feinstein's amendment would have permitted the Attorney General to deny the purchase of a firearm to anyone the federal government believes may be engaging in terrorist activity, with limited options for citizens to appeal the government's decision. I believe this approach would give the federal government too much power to suspend a fundamental constitutional right of American citizens, without adequate due process. For this reason, I voted against the Feinstein proposal, which failed by a vote of 47-53.

The Senate also considered measures related to reforming the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Currently, the background check system does not contain many of the records of individuals who are prohibited under federal law from acquiring or possessing a firearm. As a result, despite the running of a background check, these prohibited individuals are often still able to purchase a firearm. Senator Charles Grassley's proposal (S.Amdt.4751) would have addressed this serious flaw by improving NICS record sharing by state and federal agencies, and by clarifying definitions and issues surrounding the existing mental health prohibition on firearm acquisition and possession. I believe these changes are critically important, and while I supported this amendment, it did not meet the 60-vote threshold, failing by a vote of 53-47.

Senator Chris Murphy also introduced an amendment related to NICS (S.Amdt.4750), which would have expanded the background check requirement to include even gifts or sales between most family members and neighbors. The Murphy amendment would also have extended the government's ability to deny gun sales to anyone compelled to receive counseling services or medication, therefore barring a wide variety of individuals who present no threat. Under current law, a court or other lawful authority can block a gun sale only to a person who is deemed to be dangerous, incapable of handling his or her affairs, or insane for the purposes of a criminal case. Finally, this legislation would have made it a federal offense if an innocent crime victim failed to report a lost or stolen firearm. I believe that these far-reaching changes would have infringed upon the rights of law-abiding citizens, and for these reasons, I opposed this amendment, which failed by a vote of 44-56.

Finally, on June 23, the Senate conducted procedural votes on two proposals, one by Senator Susan Collins (S.Amdt.4858) and one by Senator Ron Johnson (S.Amdt.4859), aimed at blocking gun sales to known terrorists. I voted to continue considering both measures, because it is vitally important to ensure that known terrorists cannot legally buy or possess guns. These two amendments each attempted to address this issue while providing due process protections. Senator Collins' proposal would have stopped the purchase of a gun for anyone on certain narrow and high-priority terrorist watch lists, which are managed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Collins amendment also provided for expedited due process procedures to ensure that innocent Americans retain their fundamental Second Amendment rights. Senator Johnson's proposal would have delayed the purchase of a gun for anyone on the same lists, while the government considers whether to seek a court order to block the sale.

I am a proud supporter of gun rights and will oppose any gun control measure that infringes upon ownership rights for responsible, law-abiding citizens. I understand your concerns with further gun control regulations, but I believe that the amendments I supported during this debate strike a n appropriate balance between keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists and protecting the fundamental rights embodied in the Second Amendment .

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. I look forward to hearing from you in the future as the Senate continues to address these important issues.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Annnd...here we go again?

Breitbart Reports McConnell May Be Open To ?Gun Control?