Pat Toomey: Gun Compromise ‘Doesn’t Change in Any Way’ Conservative Cred

Pajamas Media ^ | 04/10/2013 | Bridget Johnson

[VRWC For Truth]

Shut up Pat, you gun grabbing a-hole.

[Nowhere Man]

I keep thinking of “Backstabber” and “Smiling Faces” from “The O’Jays.” B-P

[americas.best.days...]

RE:”If you pass a criminal background check,you get to
buy a gun.”

How about this: If you have an IQ over 80,you get to have
freedom of speech.
Which would effectively shut down the mainstream media.

I mean if we’re arbitrarily adjusting our bill of rights.

[Jane Long]

Calling Club for Growth. Are you still claiming him as one of your shining examples of membership?

Great idea.

Toomey's *star* flamed out fast.

[Mozilla]

Well the powers that be want to end the America through a backdoor way. And our side keeps having more and more traitors.
1. Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul Support Amnesty
2. Senators Pat Toomey and Johnny Isakson supports gun Control
3. Ohio Governor John Kaisch along with others caved on Obamacare mandates

[headstamp 2]

“If a background check at a gun show does not result in a definitive response from NICS within 48 hours...”

48 hrs? So gun sales at shows are effectively banned.

[supercat]

I might almost go along with background checks if

1. they were conducted by having the federal government publish the database in such a fashion that it wouldn't know who queried it and when, and
2. adding someone in the database required an identifiable employee of the federal government to stake his life on the fact that no harm would befall that person as a consequence of being disarmed. In the event that someone is killed or harmed as a consequence of being disarmed, the life of the employee who denied that person's armament would be forfeit, and anyone who killed that employee would be entitled not only to reimbursement of all consequent costs, but also a year of the late employee's salary. Absent an employee willing to stake his life in such fashion, nobody could be added to the list.

Seem fair?

[MrsPatriot]

Here’s the email I just sent:
Senator Toomey, I am extremely disappointed in your amendment to allow expanded background checks. You stated in your conference call that “doesn’t change in any way my conservative record or views.” You are wrong, wrong, wrong about that; it certainly does change your conservative record with the American people. It may make you feel better around Democrats, but we sent you to the Senate to fight for us, not to make friends in Washington, D. C.

“I thought there was an opportunity to try to find some common ground with some of my colleagues,” said Toomey on the conference call. You have seemingly forgotten that there is NO COMPROMISING WITH DEMOCRATS!!!!! You can’t make bad legislation better, you can only defeat it, you can’t make Democrats see reason, you can only defeat them!!! There is no common ground with Democrats, they will stop at nothing until they have completely destroyed America and now you are helping them do it! It is clear to me that you have been in Washington too long!!! I’ll be working against your re-election.

[RinaseaofDs]

“I took the liberty of . . . bullshitting you.”

-Pat Toomey

[SunkenCiv]

Red Steel’s got the right idea. Thanks SeekAndFind.

[FLAMING DEATH]

Here ya go.

Three free faxes per day.

Like having a printer in your Senator’s office.

faxzero.com

Senator Toomey’s Fax #

(202) 228-0284

You’ll need a “junk” email address for this, but it’s well worth it to open one up.

Light him up.

[P.O.E.]

PA Ping!

If you see posts of interest to Pennsylvanians, please ping me.

Thanks!

[IamConservative]

“I think it strikes a very sensible balance,” he added.

Just wrong headed thinking. There is not sensible balance or compromise on an absolute God given right to defend oneself.

I do actually like that Boehner is sitting back and letting the Dems in the Senate show their hand, but, we didn't need this nimrod helping.

[Iron Munro]

I might almost go along with background checks if

There is a lot to be concerned about with background checks but one thing I don't see mentioned is the content of the check itself. What are the parameters? What is considered risky or dangerous history or behavior? What can the Feds use to deny us the right to own a firearm?

Like everything else the Feds get involve in, when they declare a new right for themselves, set a new rule or acquire a new power they never leave it alone.

They immediately start pushing to expand the scope of their power.

So a "background check" today will probably be a lot different than a background check in two years, five years, ten years.

We know that Homeland Security has already identified Tea Party types and military vets as potential domestic terrorists.

Who knows if they might expand the background check to check if you are the wrong religion, an anti-gay, a military vet, a Boy Scout leader, a member of a WWII re-enactment group, be divorced, etc.

I don't trust any government entity or employee to keep the excercise of authority or power within constitutional limits.

[PA Engineer]

Primary the SOB.

Yep.

[supercat]

What are the parameters?

Even if the *only* parameter of the check were the willingness of a federal employee to publicly stake his life on the fact that a particular individual would not come to harm, and if it were clear that the public had a right and duty to enforce judgment against such employee even if the government declined to do so, how many people do you think would be denied?