135 republicans vote Yes on Red Flag gun confiscation…

[donnay]

https://citizenfreepress.com/breakin...-confiscation/

[Invisible Man]

This is the same NDAA bill that also included requiring girls to register for the draft.

[jmdrake]

https://citizenfreepress.com/breakin...-confiscation/

Thanks Donald Trump.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/red-fla...eform-measure/

Edit: From the link at the OP. Apparently some "held their nose" and voted for this version of the NDAA to get protection for vaccine refusniks to not get dishonorably discharged and working to get the red flag portion stripped later. I HATE how legislation is passed in this country. And it sounds like the red flag portion only apply to those who fall under the USCMJ. Still sucks.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CUOeDRrD...eo_watch_again

[Matt Collins]

Several of the Congresscritters are saying that "they had to vote for it in order to kill it" LOL

[Sammy]

Matt Gaetz is dead to me

[Brian4Liberty]

...

Edit: From the link at the OP. Apparently some "held their nose" and voted for this version of the NDAA to get protection for vaccine refusniks to not get dishonorably discharged and working to get the red flag portion stripped later. I HATE how legislation is passed in this country. And it sounds like the red flag portion only apply to those who fall under the USCMJ. Still sucks.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CUOeDRrD...eo_watch_again

Never heard of that guy, but he seems a bit naive. They use that tactic all the time in Congress. Wrap everything up into a huge Omnibus, then tell people like him that the military will shut down if he doesn't vote “yes”.

[oyarde]

Kind of disturbing that congress , a group of mostly sub par humans is making law for the UCMJ in the first place. The country is pretty far removed from a time when most in congress had at least filled a role and done some training with a local militia or were combat veterans . We are in a time now where few are combat veterans , most who have served were administrative officers and the vast majority have no basic understanding of military operations or about anything more advanced than dressing themselves.

[jmdrake]

Never heard of that guy, but he seems a bit naive. They use that tactic all the time in Congress. Wrap everything up into a huge Omnibus, then tell people like him that the military will shut down if he doesn't vote “yes”.

This is a LOT more nuanced. Yes we know ultimately they're going to pay the soldiers. But it's not a given that those who don't follow the vaccine mandates won't get dishonorably discharged. So do you vote against a great pro freedom position just to vote against an anti freedom position that get stuck in there with it? Perhaps. Then again the red flag provision only applies to the military. So the very people you're trying to help with the pro freedom amendment are the ones possibly hurt by the anti freedom amendment that will likely get stripped out anyway.

[TheTexan]

Get many ropes

[TheTexan]

One of the congress critters I don't remember which, claims that the only reason he voted for the NDAA with this amendment, is that Democratic and Republican leadership "guaranteed" him that the amendment would be removed before it was finally approved in the senate.

It's a slimy $#@!ing excuse and doesn't excuse the vote, but it will still be interesting to see if he is right. (I highly doubt it)

[Brian4Liberty]

One of the congress critters I don't remember which, claims that the only reason he voted for the NDAA with this amendment, is that Democratic and Republican leadership "guaranteed" him that the amendment would be removed before it was finally approved in the senate.

It's a slimy $#@!ing excuse and doesn't excuse the vote, but it will still be interesting to see if he is right. (I highly doubt it)

Lying is SOP, especially with Congressional leadership. Of course they lied to him. If it did get dropped, it would have nothing to do with him, it would be because some powerful crony interests wanted it dropped.

[CCTelander]

This goes here:

With Friends Like These ...
by L. Neil Smith


As anybody concerned with firearms issues is all too well aware, from his first Presidential campaign, when he held up that tiny, stainless .22 revolver in disdain and disgust, to his import ban on semiautomatic weaponss, REPUBLICAN George Bush repeatedly betrayed the interests of the gun owners who helped put him in office.

It's highly probable, given the number of single-issue voters involved (some 3-5 million) that this miserable performance cost him the election -- or at least contributed heavily to his well- deserved loss. But has the "Grand Old Party" learned anything from its experience? Is it paying any attention to the facts? Judge for yourself:

Sarah Brady, principal advocate of gun control in America, and her sideshow-exhibition husband still call themselves "conservative Republicans".

National Review editor and Republican television personality William F. Buckley has endorsed the passage of the Brady Bill (just like Ronald Reagan, although he later had the sense to withdraw his endorsement).

Republican writer/theorist George F. Will called for repeal of the Second Amendment months before NBC News ex-president Michael Gartner did.

Every Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve Bill Clinton's nomination to U.S. Attorney General of the notorious Florida anti-gun prosecutor Janet Reno, following which, every Republican in the Senate voted to approve the nomination, as well.

And recently on Face The Nation, Jack Kemp, Great White Hope of conservative Republican, advocated an immediate, universal ban on semiautomatics.

It should be obvious to anyone what's happening here. Unable to cope intellectually with the quirky results of a three-way race, anxious to follow the example of a man they mistakenly believe won the election (in fact, Bill Clinton was handed the Presidency by Ross Perot), the Republican leadership have decided to "move to the center" -- and they're doing it by dumping the constituencies they consider "marginal".

How does it feel to be considered marginal?

How does it feel to be dumped?

Is there anyone with any brains, integrity, or courage left in the Republican Party?

More important, how long must we go on licking the Republican boot that's kicking us?

In times like these, it's well to remember that Wyatt Earp, the first advocate of gun control, was a Republican. And it's enough to make you wish the battle of the O.K. Corral had turned out differently.

The question is: is it enough to make you shift your support to another political party, a tiny one which, nonetheless from its inception, has viewed your freedom to own and carry weapons as an absolute natural, human, civil, and Constitutional right? One which would repeal every gun law in the country, abolish the BATF, and put the elected and appointed officials who have violated your rights -- and continue to try violating them now -- in jail where they belong?

Believe me I don't suggest this frivolously. Although I've been a Libertarian most of my life, my mom and dad were Republican and my first political efforts were expended for Florida's George Holly (1962) and Barry Goldwater (1964). But the "Grand Old Party" has deserted Barry (they criticize him for being "too Libertarian") just as it's deserted you.

Given this trend, which started well before the election, who can maintain that gun owners would have been better off under Bush? Only the same dimwits and appeasers who believe an instant police- state background check somehow -- mysteriously -- infringes on your inalienable Second Amendment liberties less than something like the Brady Bill.

Libertarians oppose both waiting periods and background checks -- or any prerequisite for exercising rights that are supposed to be guaranteed.

This is more than just inter-party bickering, it's a matter of survival. Look at the list again -- these are only the ones I know about. Think about George Bush, Sarah Brady, Bill Buckley, Ronald Reagan, George Will, and Jack Kemp -- people to whom you've given your love and loyalty in the past. People now cynically crumpling you up, throwing you away because you're no longer "politically correct".

Then write or call The Libertarian Party, Department LSAC, 1528 Pennsylvania Ave. S.E., Washington, DC 20003, (202) 543-1988.


L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of 19 books including The Probability Broach, The Crystal Empire, Henry Martyn, The Lando Calrissian Adventures, Pallas, and (forthcoming) Bretta Martyn and Lever Action. An NRA Life Member and founder of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus, he has been active in the Libertarian movement for 34 years and is its most prolific and widely-published living novelist.

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.

(emphasis in original)

https://lneilsmith.org/republic.html

The picture looks pretty much exactly the same today. Only the names of the traitors have changed.Nor is this a relatively modern phenomenon. Republicans have been betraying gun owners and generally anyone who loves and values liberty since there have been Republicans. The VERY few Republicans who don't are the exceptions that prove the rule.

ETA: The Libertarian Party isn't much better. The problem doesn't lie in which brand of politician to support. It lies in the fact that people continue to put their faith in ANY politicians.Politicians can never fix things. Only WE as individuals do that.

[shakey1]

Is there a link to the list of names?

[Invisible Man]

Is there a link to the list of names?

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021293

[Okie RP fan]

Kind of disturbing that congress , a group of mostly sub par humans is making law for the UCMJ in the first place. The country is pretty far removed from a time when most in congress had at least filled a role and done some training with a local militia or were combat veterans . We are in a time now where few are combat veterans , most who have served were administrative officers and the vast majority have no basic understanding of military operations or about anything more advanced than dressing themselves.

Stuff like this would have an increased chance, be it 1% or 25%, if Congress had a better representative ratio than what it does now (435 House members for 330 million people). It can easily be argued that we should be up to at least 600 by now. However, I've heard the argument that the 600+ number starts to introduce inefficiencies through sheer size to where literally nothing gets done (which would be a great thing right now). I'm not sure what examples were being considered in that.

Even so, we now go back to this country's political system is utterly broken on so many levels that it is beyond repair. Try to tell some libertarians this and they gnash their teeth at you and insist the LP can save it all. I was one of those until I started really assessing the numbers and how most libertarians can't even have a simple family cookout without starting some of the most ridiculous arguments with one another.

The U.S. needs to be broken up OR, at the very least, city-state type solutions need to be introduced in some form. Not going to happen, sadly, without some type of revolution or completely wiping out the existing crop of politicians in Congress and replacing them with people who will consider these things.

[Invisible Man]

Stuff like this would have an increased chance, be it 1% or 25%, if Congress had a better representative ratio than what it does now (435 House members for 330 million people). It can easily be argued that we should be up to at least 600 by now. However, I've heard the argument that the 600+ number starts to introduce inefficiencies through sheer size to where literally nothing gets done (which would be a great thing right now). I'm not sure what examples were being considered in that.

Even so, we now go back to this country's political system is utterly broken on so many levels that it is beyond repair. Try to tell some libertarians this and they gnash their teeth at you and insist the LP can save it all. I was one of those until I started really assessing the numbers and how most libertarians can't even have a simple family cookout without starting some of the most ridiculous arguments with one another.

The U.S. needs to be broken up OR, at the very least, city-state type solutions need to be introduced in some form. Not going to happen, sadly, without some type of revolution or completely wiping out the existing crop of politicians in Congress and replacing them with people who will consider these things.

600 would be hardly any change from the current 435. To see a difference it would need to be a much higher number. If we still allowed states to have up to 1 representative per 30,000 citizens like the Constitution says, that would result in a House of over 10,000 members.

Such a large Congress probably would be much less efficient. And that would be one of the greatest advantages of doing it.

[Matt Collins]

Is there a link to the list of names?

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021293

[Occam's Banana]

Stuff like this would have an increased chance, be it 1% or 25%, if Congress had a better representative ratio than what it does now (435 House members for 330 million people). It can easily be argued that we should be up to at least 600 by now. However, I've heard the argument that the 600+ number starts to introduce inefficiencies through sheer size to where literally nothing gets done (which would be a great thing right now). I'm not sure what examples were being considered in that.

600 would be hardly any change from the current 435. To see a difference it would need to be a much higher number. If we still allowed states to have up to 1 representative per 30,000 citizens like the Constitution says, that would result in a House of over 10,000 members.

Such a large Congress probably would be much less efficient.

And this goes here:

Is America Too Big?
Is America too big for democracy? Too big for its traditional republican form? What does it mean if the answer is yes? This video series proposes that the source of our biggest social and political problems is our SIZE.

Like the obese, 600 pound man who experiences heart failure, diabetes, and dozens of other ailments, so too does America, only its diseases go by the names Debt, War, Entitlements, Gridlock, and Corruption. Our problems cannot be fixed through any change in ideology or bi-partisan agreement in Congress, because those are not the root of our problems. The source is our size. As America's population increases, the level of representation and control each voter has must inexorably decrease. As power centralizes in a federal government, literally out of the hands of its citizens, conflicts and problems mount. What can be done? Please watch and join the conversation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCNd7h0fsdE


(Unfortunately, no non-YouTube alternative is currently available. Because to hell with YouTube.)

And that would be one of the greatest advantages of doing it.

I don't think it would matter that much, because Congress isn't really relevant anymore. It's just a dog-and-pony sideshow.

The vast and unaccountable federal executive plantation - for which POTUS is merely a figurehead overseer - is the real problem.