Sellout Tom Coburn Criticizes Rand for Defending the 2nd Amendment

[Brett85]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/04/06/1830921/top-republican-criticizes-rand-paul-for-threatening-to-filibuster-gun-bill-he-hasnt-even-seen/

[GOP]

I don't get this guy. He has some serious liberty schizophrenia.

[Brian4Liberty]

He sounds jealous of Rand's success.

[supermario21]

Tom Coburn is just mad that he's been upstaged by a whole crop of liberty-oriented Senators.

[Christian Liberty]

It doesn't matter WHAT is in the gun bill at this point. In a more sane society, with a more sane government, I might understand trying to disarm violent felons, but I don't trust this government to even consider it. They will NEVER stop at anything that could be reasonably constructed as sane. Last I checked, nukes are banned, and that's really the only "gun" control we need. That leaves a bit of repealing to do.

[Brett85]

It doesn't matter WHAT is in the gun bill at this point. In a more sane society, with a more sane government, I might understand trying to disarm violent felons, but I don't trust this government to even consider it. They will NEVER stop at anything that could be reasonably constructed as sane. Last I checked, nukes are banned, and that's really the only "gun" control we need. That leaves a bit of repealing to do.

And the real issue here is the 10th amendment, not the 2nd amendment. Tom Coburn doesn't seem to understand that the 10th amendment is supposed to prevent the federal government from even addressing this issue at all.

[anaconda]

How is there a chain of custody if the seller does not need to retain a record of the transaction?

[Christian Liberty]

And the real issue here is the 10th amendment, not the 2nd amendment. Tom Coburn doesn't seem to understand that the 10th amendment is supposed to prevent the federal government from even addressing this issue at all.

The 2nd amendmnet is an issue to, I think, but I often tell people that even if they insist on invoking the militia clause in the 2nd, gun control at Federal level is still unconstitutional because of the 10th amendmnet.

Is the NY SAFE Act constitutionally just because it was a state? No, because that issue is addressed in the constitution already. The 2nd amendment bans gun control at any level.

[Origanalist]

Should the Republicans proceed to filibuster on the motion to proceed to the gun package, Reid could take advantage of a new Senate rule “by promising each party two amendments on the legislation.” “Under that scenario, Paul and his allies would still get a chance to raise their objections on the floor for hours on end, but they couldn’t stop the Senate from starting debate on the bill,” Politico reports.


"New Senate Rule"?

[Christian Liberty]

This should be easy. Throw in an amendment that abolishes all gun control. Or better yet, an amendment that legalizes the execution of President Obama on the spot. Either one would certainly be defeated...

[Brett85]

Is the NY SAFE Act constitutionally just because it was a state? No, because that issue is addressed in the constitution already. The 2nd amendment bans gun control at any level.

No, I think that the New York law is unconstitutional since it actually bans certain types of guns. At the same time, I don't necessarily think that every single state gun regulation is unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment prohibits government at any level from banning firearms, but I don't necessarily think that the 2nd amendment would prevent a state government from requiring a background check. I think that the 10th amendment prohibits the federal government from requiring background checks.

[Christian Liberty]

No, I think that the New York law is unconstitutional since it actually bans certain types of guns. At the same time, I don't necessarily think that every single state gun regulation is unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment prohibits government at any level from banning firearms, but I don't necessarily think that the 2nd amendment would prevent a state government from requiring a background check. I think that the 10th amendment prohibits the federal government from requiring background checks.

As a matter of principle I don't necessarily disagree with you. My feelings are still a little mixed as you could probably tell by my response to James Madison. Its not so much that I have a problem on principle with stopping violent criminals from having weapons, its that I simply don't trust the government to stop there.

That said, I still don't see how even that is truly constitutional. Isn't the felons rights to carry being infringed? I understand why that seems a little ridiculous but that seems to be exactly what the 2nd amendment says, for good or ill.

I honestly prefer the Articles of Confederation over the Constitution anyway, and I think the Federal government is way more of a threat to our liberty than the state governments. I have no intention of living in New York forever. I'm not really advocating all that much for FedGov. to stop these gun control measures. But they're absolutely unconstitutional, and I think that applies to all of them.

[economics102]

And the real issue here is the 10th amendment, not the 2nd amendment. Tom Coburn doesn't seem to understand that the 10th amendment is supposed to prevent the federal government from even addressing this issue at all.

Exactly. To make an analogy, if Harry Reid were planning on introducing a bill to regulate speech, Rand Paul would be well-reasoned to announce a filibuster, regardless of the contents of the bill.

[compromise]

Coburn seems jealous of Rand's success. For years, Coburn was the "liberty" Senator for opposing the Iraq War, wanting to cut military spending and defending civil liberties. Rand does the same thing more vocally and openly and becomes a national hero. However, unlike others like Mike Lee, Coburn's very stubborn and really dislikes being sidelined, he thinks of himself as a leader and cannot bear to have the spotlight stolen from him. He doesn't want to be an ally of Rand Paul, he wants to be Rand Paul.

Coburn didn't take part in the Brennan filibuster even though all the other Tea Party Senators and 4 of the 5 leadership Senators took part. At the time, he was having dinner with McCain, Graham and Obama.

[abacabb]

The 2nd amendmnet is an issue to, I think, but I often tell people that even if they insist on invoking the militia clause in the 2nd, gun control at Federal level is still unconstitutional because of the 10th amendmnet.

Is the NY SAFE Act constitutionally just because it was a state? No, because that issue is addressed in the constitution already. The 2nd amendment bans gun control at any level.
No it doesn't. Jurisprudence states that states and localities can regulate it. The hated 14th amendment is what extends federal protections to the local level.

[asurfaholic]

whew.. Dont read the comments.

The article struck me as funny by calling Tom Coburn a "top" Republican. Is he top? I haven't ever really heard of him, I mean, I recognize the name, but I dont know anything else about him...

[osan]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/04/06/1830921/top-republican-criticizes-rand-paul-for-threatening-to-filibuster-gun-bill-he-hasnt-even-seen/

It seems abundantly clear that Mr. Coburn is intellectually handicapped in some truly pitiable fashion as it is apparent he is somehow impaired from properly understanding Rand Paul's statement. Rand Paul did not say he would filibuster a particular bill, but only all such bills that contain infringements upon the RKBA.

Seems pretty clear that OK needs to put the Coburn unit out to pasture as it is grossly malfunctioning at a fundamental level.

[osan]

No it doesn't. Jurisprudence states that states and localities can regulate it. The hated 14th amendment is what extends federal protections to the local level.

Dead wrong. The second amendment in fact prohibits ALL infringement on the RKBA. It is a fundamental right and as such cannot be in any way limited. The right results from the fundamental right to preserve life, limb, and property. Given that right, the right to the means of exercise follows directly, axiomatically, and apodictically from it.

IOW, you have absolutely no idea what you are writing about.

Next.

[Cleaner44]

"Coburn is working on compromise legislation..."

Thanks to Republicans like Coburn, our nation keeps moving further and further left.

[Brett85]

Dead wrong. The second amendment in fact prohibits ALL infringement on the RKBA. It is a fundamental right and as such cannot be in any way limited. The right results from the fundamental right to preserve life, limb, and property. Given that right, the right to the means of exercise follows directly, axiomatically, and apodictically from it.

IOW, you have absolutely no idea what you are writing about.

Next.

That's why people think we're nuts, if we're going to say that the 2nd amendment gives people the right to own nuclear weapons and that there can't even be very limited local regulations on arms. Tom Coburn is making a mistake by not understanding that the states have jurisdiction over this issue and not the federal government. Any state regulation that actually bans any type of firearm, including "assault weapons," is also unconstitutional in my opinion. But you're not going to find a single judge who thinks that every single gun regulation is unconstitutional. But, it's possible that we could get Scalia, Thomas, and perhaps Alito to agree that every single federal gun control law violates the 10th amendment as these laws distort the commerce clause beyond its original intent.