Posted on 04/15/2013 11:12:40 AM PDT by ColdOne
South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham announced earlier today that he will vote against the compromise amendment proposed last week by senators Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin, which would expand criminal background checks to all advertised gun sales. Graham announced his decision on Twitter, arguing that the bill is “well-intentioned” but does not constitute “a solution to illegal gun violence”:
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Linda has seen which way the wind is blowing.
I am no fan of Graham. That said I have a rule of thumb....When a politician is flipping in YOUR direction....don’t compain about it. We will need EVERY vote we can find to defeat this awful legislation.
The votes must be coming from elsewhere.
my first thought..........
“The votes must be coming from elsewhere.”
Yup, he might be figuring that the bill will pass without him. The Dems do this, figuring out who votes yes and no in case some Dem needs “cover” for an upcoming election.
No background checks. No registry. No wrong definitions. No scapegoating.
Vote NO to all of it.
Graham is facing a primary soon, right?
So he gives this tidbit to the base, and screw them on another (immigration).
Bill must not be restrictive enough for the POS.
Thanks, Goober.
It Graham wont vote for it then I can only assume he is trying to avoid a serious primary challenger.
That said, even if the senate comes up with 50 I am sorely confused about this bill.
There are actually some good things in it that we don’t have now.
But there are a few serious flaws in it that could and would lead to serious abuse. It should be defeated at all cost.
I tend to think that if Boehner imposes the Hastert rule this bill won’t get a vote in the House. We shall see.
This bill is worse than a ban on some specific models or types of guns. It trashes the 4th Amend., the 5th Amend. and the 10th Amend. as well as the 2nd Amend.
The Toomey-Manchin Kill The Bill of Rights Bill.TITLE ONE: GETTING ALL THE NAMES OF PROHIBITED PURCHASERS INTO THE BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
Summary of Title I: This section improves background checks for firearms by strengthening the instant check system.
- Encourage states to provide all their available records to NICS by restricting federal funds to states who do not comply.
By "all their available records" just what records are they blackmailing states for with that statist bilge water? "All" is a pretty big word when only a very few records are applicable to denying someone their right to keep and bear arms.
- Allow dealers to voluntarily use the NICS database to run background checks on their prospective employees.
Does that means dealers can run NICS checks on prospective employees without their knowledge or consent? I have no idea what the word 'voluntarily' means there. Does it mean dealers will be allowed to not run NICS checks if they prefer not to?
- Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).
Submissions of mental health records? Since when has it been legal to deny any American their rights without due process? Isn't it required that a person be adjudicated mentally deficient by a court of law to do that? Mental health records are entirely irrelevant except to those court proceedings. This bill sounds like Stalinist purge material.
- Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.
Is that an admission that the Bill of Rights doesn't cover veterans or an admission that it doesn't cover anyone anymore?
Was all of this gun control demagoguery really just a Trojan Horse to sneak this Bill of Rights killer into law?
Look at the precedents Toomey-Manchin sets regarding the freedom to travel.
Posted: Full Text of 'The Public Safety And Second Amendment Rights Protection Act'
(Toomey-Manchin Treason Bill)
Feinstein: All Vets Are Mentally Ill And Government Should Prevent Them From Owning Firearms
> This amendment also allows the transfer of weapons between
> family members without a background check.
It still sets up a registry and gives 0bamarx a legislative victory over gun owners.
NO . MORE . “GUN CONTROL” . LAWS!
WE should be pushing to REPOEAL every bloody “gun control” law on the books and for nationwide Vermont carry.
I am no fan of Graham. That said I have a rule of thumb....When a politician is flipping in YOUR direction....don’t compain about it. We will need EVERY vote we can find to defeat this awful legislation.
by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
by STJPII
Well, gentlemen, as they say, even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then.
I’ll take his support though.
I really wish that if politicians *have* to pass a law to show how much they care, they would simply give it a title like “A Bill to Prevent All Future School Shootings,” fill it with 500 pages of “whereas” clauses” expressing their concerns, and finishing with “we hereby outlaw school shootings.”
That way they would have a vote demonstrating their outrage, it would not complicate the lives of average Americans, and it would be 100% as effective as the silly gun control legislation they are now passing at preventing school shooting.
How about a bill that actually says gun crimes have to be prosecuted? How about stricter penalties?
As usual, the government goes after the good guys every time, and looks the other way when it comes to the misfits. Criminals with illegal guns? Poor victims. Law abiding citizens with guns? Terrorists.
Take the deficit, for example. Someone has to pay the accumulated tab for all those free lunches. Instead of doing something about the free lunch crowd, they attack the tax payers. Free lunch crowd? Poor victims. Taxpayers? Right wing extremists.
Even some of the Republicans are trying to punish the innocent gun owners for the crimes of those insane, murderous democrats. They, too, want to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. Who's side are they on? The Constitution, or the Marxist Handbook?
He shoulda supported the filibuster with Cruz and Paul.
Notice the GOP Senate amnesty team is running from the gun bill.
> He shoulda supported the filibuster with Cruz and Paul.
Exactly.
As another poster pointed out, Linda must’ve been told that there are enough votes to pass this thing coming from elsewhere, so it was safe for him/her to throw the voters a bone.
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.