Good grief. You would think he voted to confiscate everything from kitchen knives to every imaginable automatic weapon. He only voted to prevent a filibuster because it is high time we had this debate on the floor of the Senate so the real totalitarian gun grabbers will have come out of the closet. Coburn is as solid a supporter of 2nd amendment rights as you will find and suggestions to the contrary are simply a means for low-information voters to self-select.
As we have all learned lately, just giving the Democrats and Republicans a chance to take away our rights and freedoms actually results in losing them.
I think the point here is that the 2nd amendment left no room for debate.
“Nothing shall infringe”
What’s left to debate? Frankly, I’m against banning automatic weapons too. The framers surely couldn’t foresee that the USG would have better technology than the average guy.
Well, as I reread, “Nothing shall infringe”, I think that maybe they did, and that banning automatic weapons was the first tread upon the slippery slope.
Now 2A is gaining speed as it goes off the cliff.
Perhaps that’s the point of everyone’s anger at these ‘statesmen’.
By suggesting that the 2nd amendment can be 'modified' by a simple law, it is indeed overturned totally, since the 'make no law' part would be null and void.
Bull!
“Good grief. You would think he voted to confiscate everything from kitchen knives to every imaginable automatic weapon. He only voted to prevent a filibuster because it is high time we had this debate on the floor of the Senate so the real totalitarian gun grabbers will have come out of the closet. Coburn is as solid a supporter of 2nd amendment rights as you will find and suggestions to the contrary are simply a means for low-information voters to self-select.”
That’s nuts. Once it gets to the floor, anything can happen and none of it will be good. The house majority is very weak on this issue—I think some gun control bill will pass the house. Then it goes to conference, where infinite mischief can occur. Too much strategery there. Just block this awful bill however you can. Get clever on something else.
If he is, and I don't believe he is, he's not showing it by explaining his action or by stating his opposition to more federal gun restrictions. I've never heard of him voicing an inclination to repeal the Lautenberg amendment, for example.
And assuming the feds have plenary power of RKBA and 2nd amendment issues, why doesn't he propose a federal law that forbids states to pass magazine size limitations? I mean if the feds can restrict, they can also limit restrictions.