GOP senators threaten to filibuster gun control legislation

Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
1,252
Likes
1,105
Location
Just North of Boston
Feedback: 11 / 0 / 0
GOP senators threaten to filibuster gun control legislation after Reid vows to forge ahead | Fox News

"Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, are vowing to filibuster any new restrictions on guns, according to a letter the conservative trio wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid."

The best part:

"
We, the undersigned, intend to oppose any legislation that infringe on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance,"

Clearly they get it, but how much support will they get from their own party?

 
Last edited:
GOP senators threaten to filibuster gun control legislation after Reid vows to forge ahead | Fox News

"Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, are vowing to filibuster any new restrictions on guns, according to a letter the conservative trio wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid."

The best part:
"
We, the undersigned, intend to oppose any legislation that infringe on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance,"

Clearly they get it, but how much support will they get from their own party?


Even if they get 0 support, it will clearly show who is on our side and who isnt.
 
GOP senators threaten to filibuster gun control legislation after Reid vows to forge ahead | Fox News

"Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, are vowing to filibuster any new restrictions on guns, according to a letter the conservative trio wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid."

The best part:

"
We, the undersigned, intend to oppose any legislation that infringe on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance,"

Clearly they get it, but how much support will they get from their own party?


These guys are either redefining their party or defining a new one. I'd like to see 2016 have this on the ballow: Turd A, Turd A by Another Name, and Rand Paul.
 
Honestly, I'd rather them let this garbage get to the Senate floor and force the democrats to sign their name to one side or the others. Too many of the Dems from conservative states have been able to play both sides of the fence because nothing has come to the floor for a vote, they haven't had to sign their name to anything.

Prior to 1994, Democrats held a definitive command of the Legislator. In the 45 years prior to the 1994 elections, Democrats held both houses of congress all but 8 years when the Republicans had just 1 extra seat in the Senate. Pushing through the assault weapons ban in 1994 started 10 years of solid control of the legislator by the republicans. The Democrats have retook them both on a wave of anti-Bush setiment while the House swung back to Republican control after Obama's disasterious first half-term. However, there is a sizable core of "moderate democrats" whose position in congress would be jepordized by voting to support further Gun Control. A Filibuster gives them the best of both worlds - they can paint Republicans as being insensitive to tragedy while maintaining the facade they they "support the Second Amendment"
 
If I'm in NYC I drink his kool aid one 16 oz cup at a time

Bloomberg approves.

bloomb-640.gif
 
It's sad that a lot of people still won't support him because he is not an exact mirror image of his farther. That he's slightly more authoritarian than Mikhail Bakunin and Emma Goldman. I'm quite happy with him, he's not perfect, I can't think of many that are, but he's showing actual heart, and trying to change things for the better. He'll get my vote in 16 if he runs and does not go full retard by then and i'll do so with no guilt in my heart.
 
It's sad that a lot of people still won't support him because he is not an exact mirror image of his farther. That he's slightly more authoritarian than Mikhail Bakunin and Emma Goldman. I'm quite happy with him, he's not perfect, I can't think of many that are, but he's showing actual heart, and trying to change things for the better. He'll get my vote in 16 if he runs and does not go full retard by then and i'll do so with no guilt in my heart.

I didn't say I don't support him or wouldn't vote for him, I just don't go all in on a politician. I went with the lesser of the 5 or 6 evils and voted for Gary Johnson last time, if Rand is on the ballot, chances are I will take a shot in my libertarian pills and vote for him. But 2016 is a ways off and I can't see the future.
 
I didn't say I don't support him or wouldn't vote for him, I just don't go all in on a politician. I went with the lesser of the 5 or 6 evils and voted for Gary Johnson last time, if Rand is on the ballot, chances are I will take a shot in my libertarian pills and vote for him. But 2016 is a ways off and I can't see the future.

tumblr_m5pppa6iof1rvakjuo1_500.gif


I offer you only the truth. :)
 
I know some think these bills should get a vote so they can get tossed out;

1- What if they don't get tossed out (Feinstein's amendment passed in 94)
2- How about unlawful & unconstitutional legislation doesn't even deserve a vote?

I'm in for another Rand filibuster. I'll watch the whole thing like I watched the last one.
 
I know some think these bills should get a vote so they can get tossed out;

1- What if they don't get tossed out (Feinstein's amendment passed in 94)
2- How about unlawful & unconstitutional legislation doesn't even deserve a vote?

I'm in for another Rand filibuster. I'll watch the whole thing like I watched the last one.

I agree. Another Rand filibuster would do a great job of articulating the principal behind his opposition rather than allowing it to be portrayed by the media as just an obstructionist tactic.

Anything that helps to educate those who don't know/understand the issue is a benefit to all of us.
 
I didn't say I don't support him or wouldn't vote for him, I just don't go all in on a politician. I went with the lesser of the 5 or 6 evils and voted for Gary Johnson last time, if Rand is on the ballot, chances are I will take a shot in my libertarian pills and vote for him. But 2016 is a ways off and I can't see the future.

No worries, my post wasnt directed towards you or anyone in particular, I just know some people wouldnt be happy until we can hoist a black flag over the WH. Im an anarcho capitalist at heart, and Rand isnt, but this time the lesser of two evils isnt even evil IMO.
 
[cerberus];3055501 said:
Im sure McCain will be the first to step up and call them hooligans.

**** McCain and **** his service as well. There I said it. The man has gone Senile, and the voters who keep voting the trash in are just as Senile as he is.
 
Honestly, I'd rather them let this garbage get to the Senate floor and force the democrats to sign their name to one side or the others. Too many of the Dems from conservative states have been able to play both sides of the fence because nothing has come to the floor for a vote, they haven't had to sign their name to anything.

Prior to 1994, Democrats held a definitive command of the Legislator. In the 45 years prior to the 1994 elections, Democrats held both houses of congress all but 8 years when the Republicans had just 1 extra seat in the Senate. Pushing through the assault weapons ban in 1994 started 10 years of solid control of the legislator by the republicans. The Democrats have retook them both on a wave of anti-Bush setiment while the House swung back to Republican control after Obama's disasterious first half-term. However, there is a sizable core of "moderate democrats" whose position in congress would be jepordized by voting to support further Gun Control. A Filibuster gives them the best of both worlds - they can paint Republicans as being insensitive to tragedy while maintaining the facade they they "support the Second Amendment"
Agree, politically and assuming the bill wouldn't pass.
 
He's impressing me more. 4 years to fill his dad's shoes. Keep in mind, he's gone from a Romney supporter, to filling an "activist role" in the chamber in the matter of 6 months. That's light years in political time. We may yet see a Ron Paul 2.0 beta release by the next election.
 
He's impressing me more. 4 years to fill his dad's shoes. Keep in mind, he's gone from a Romney supporter, to filling an "activist role" in the chamber in the matter of 6 months. That's light years in political time. We may yet see a Ron Paul 2.0 beta release by the next election.

I am not particularly defending him, or even saying it was the right thing to do, but I am pretty sure he played ball by publicly endorsing Romney to not ruin his chances of running in the future. I would be surprised if he actually supported Twitt. I think he was just looking for some GOP street cred.
 
I am not particularly defending him, or even saying it was the right thing to do, but I am pretty sure he played ball by publicly endorsing Romney to not ruin his chances of running in the future. I would be surprised if he actually supported Twitt. I think he was just looking for some GOP street cred.

I agree. I think he realizes he needs to play the game and not be as idealistic as his father.
 
Honestly, I'd rather them let this garbage get to the Senate floor and force the democrats to sign their name to one side or the others. Too many of the Dems from conservative states have been able to play both sides of the fence because nothing has come to the floor for a vote, they haven't had to sign their name to anything.

You're assuming, of course, by calling out these traitors we could somehow oust them from office during the next election cycle. I'm not so sure of this anymore, give all of the ballot box shenanigans and abundance of low-information voters.
 
Rand Paul for POTUS!!

Finally a pol worth voting for.

Its good to know that there ae at least three people in government that understand "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
 
I think Rand may be more of a libertarian and quasi anarcho capitalist than they want anyone to know.

Ron Paul raised that man. And he is clearly an intelligent human being... Does anyone but me think it's possible that Rand may have been groomed to be just a slightly less (publicly) hard core libertarian than his father for the sake of electability? Freedom's manchurian candidate, if you will.

I think if we ever get to see Rand Paul in the whitehouse, he's going to impress us even more than he has yet. His political deals here and there to this point have been tactical feints... Convincing the sheep R's he's just normal enough not to be too scary.
 
Back
Top Bottom