Skip to comments.
Isakson: Gun bill deserves an up-or-down vote
The Hill ^
| 04/09/13
| Justin Sink
Posted on 04/10/2013 8:09:40 AM PDT by Mozilla
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
1
posted on
04/10/2013 8:09:40 AM PDT
by
Mozilla
To: Mozilla
And what percentage of the people of Georgia,Mr Isakson,do you think support any further erosion of Second Amendment rights? A third? A quarter,perhaps?
2
posted on
04/10/2013 8:12:52 AM PDT
by
Gay State Conservative
(Leno Was Right,They *Are* Undocumented Democrats!)
To: Mozilla
I truly think this needs the Supreme Court.
To: Mozilla
The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL . NOT . BE . INFRINGED.
I WILL NOT vote for Pro-Abort or anti-gun politicians.
Let the chips fall where they may, but I WILL NOT vote for them.
Haven’t sent a dime to the GOPe in years, either.
4
posted on
04/10/2013 8:14:35 AM PDT
by
Westbrook
(Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
To: Mozilla
“”We have not seen the final draft of the legislation that was produced, I understand, last night, but I think it deserves a vote up-or-down,””
Long-time donor, volunteer, and supporter. All of that time and money will now go towards whomever runs against him in the next primary.
This “why not just give it a vote” BS was something I heard during the ObamaCare days. It’s a ruse.
You don’t debate human rights given to us by God.
5
posted on
04/10/2013 8:14:52 AM PDT
by
Noamie
To: Mozilla
Are we going to have up or down votes on the rest of our rights as well?
6
posted on
04/10/2013 8:17:47 AM PDT
by
SampleMan
(Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
To: Mozilla
Isakson is an ugly man inside and out. He is a disgrace. He lauded those politically-used parents from Connecticut and basically said he could not stand up to their gaze.
7
posted on
04/10/2013 8:18:42 AM PDT
by
Monterrosa-24
(...even more American than a French bikini and a Russian AK-47.)
To: Mozilla
Spineless and ugly—inside and out.
Since Chambliss has decided to retire, I figure he’ll be there at the dinnner for the food.
BOTH need to be put out to pasture.
8
posted on
04/10/2013 8:20:12 AM PDT
by
Mortrey
(Impeach President Soros)
To: Mozilla
Hey, genius (Isakson), glad you weren’t around in 1776.
9
posted on
04/10/2013 8:21:56 AM PDT
by
madison10
To: Monterrosa-24
Where was Isakson and his fellow turncoats when the previous president said very qualified minority members (a Hispanic and a black woman, as I recall) deserved an up-or-down vote to their circuit court nominations?
Back then they didn't think it was right for the majority in the senate to trample on the rights of the minority led by Harry Reid if they felt so strongly about the filibuster.
And don't give me this crap about conscience. Most of these Jackwagons have none.
10
posted on
04/10/2013 8:24:18 AM PDT
by
Vigilanteman
(Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
To: Monterrosa-24
Dahum!
Coincidental, huh?
11
posted on
04/10/2013 8:24:52 AM PDT
by
Mortrey
(Impeach President Soros)
To: Gay State Conservative
Tyrant Kim Un Hussein must be very pleased that his efforts to FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are progressing so easily.
12
posted on
04/10/2013 8:25:59 AM PDT
by
Graewoulf
(Traitor John Roberts' Commune-Style Obama'care' violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
To: Sacajaweau
I truely thinkg the Supreme Court would vote 5-4 on it (flip a coin as to which side gets the 5).
13
posted on
04/10/2013 8:26:42 AM PDT
by
DManA
To: Mozilla
What is in the law to make criminals have a background check before purchasing a gun?
14
posted on
04/10/2013 8:27:44 AM PDT
by
ex-snook
(God is Love)
To: Mozilla
I, as a sovereign man, forbid congress to strip me of my rights. They’ve been granted by God, are a self evident fact of nature, and may not be taken away without subjugating me. In the face of any infringement, I will continue to exercise my rights, and seek to reestablish my dominance over my servants. By what means, I’ve not yet figured out.
15
posted on
04/10/2013 8:30:57 AM PDT
by
demshateGod
(The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
To: ex-snook
The filibuster would occur when a cloture vote is called. Involking cloture means no debate. Dems want no debate. The filibuster would at least allow some related topics to be brought to the public’s attention.
16
posted on
04/10/2013 8:31:17 AM PDT
by
Kanzan
To: Mozilla
Isakson also said he could be open to expanding background checks if done in a way that protects free access to guns and mental health privacy.
***Yeah, and if he believes that I’ve got a bridge to sell him.
17
posted on
04/10/2013 8:32:00 AM PDT
by
Kevmo
("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
To: Mozilla
No it doesn’t.
Shall not be infringed.
They do not have the authority to even consider bills like this.
Period.
18
posted on
04/10/2013 8:39:18 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(I will not comply.)
To: Mozilla
the Senate gun control bill Is there a bill?
Has Isakson read it?
If not, how does he know what it deserves?
19
posted on
04/10/2013 8:40:33 AM PDT
by
Jim Noble
(When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
To: SampleMan
Are we going to have up or down votes on the rest of our rights as well?Only the ones they dislike.
20
posted on
04/10/2013 8:47:27 AM PDT
by
Puppage
(You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson