Gun Debate Separating Conservatives From CINOs

0 Shares

The Senate gun-control debate is drawing a distinct line that is separating conservatives who still hold some aspects of the Constitution in respect from those who see it as a nuisance standing in the way of their move toward tyranny and suppression of the people.

Thirteen “conservative” Senate Republicans signed a letter that was delivered a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Fascist-Nev.) expressing their promise to block the Senate from considering gun-control legislation that includes more background checks. Conservatives in name only (CINOs) like the progressive neocon John McCain say they can’t understand why their colleagues wouldn’t want unConstitutional legislation discussed.

Another supposed conservative has gone squishy. Senator Pat Toomey, a Tea Party darling, is working with Democrat Joe Manchin on a compromise background check bill. Toomey and the other CINOs don’t understand that when liberty and tyranny compromise, liberty is lost. When the 2nd Amendment is gone, there is nothing left to keep the others in place — even marginally.

Bob Livingston

founder of Personal Liberty Digest™, is an ultra-conservative American author and editor of The Bob Livingston Letter™, in circulation since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

  • independent thinker

    “Thirteen “conservative” Senate Republicans signed a letter that was delivered a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Fascist-Nev.) expressing their promise to block the Senate from considering gun-control legislation that includes more background checks.”
    I dissagree with that action. They should have said nothing and just started the filibuster without warning.

    • http://www.facebook.com/pballard1 Pete Ballard

      I agree but they needed to call Harry Reid’s and O-vomit’s bluff. Reid knew he was not going to get enough votes to pass everything [expletive deleted] wanted so then he broke it up into different pieces and demanded a vote on each piece. You need to remember here that ANY progress towards confiscating our gun rights is seen as “progress” towards their end goal. I have told my reps (Ted Cruz and John Cornyn who I am VERY proud to say are doing the right things) repeatedly that they should give the progressives NOTHING on this or any other issue.

      • Michael Shreve

        A RIGHT can ONLY be surrendered or infringed WITH our cooperation. We have ALLOWED the Second Amendment to be eroded over time in exchange for a FALSE promise of security, and MANY are willing to do so again. We MUST take back what is ours by birth, the RIGHT to keep and bear arm, for it is THIS right that SECURES all our other rights.

  • Deerinwater

    Good! The GOP has needed a defining issue that separates the passengers from the Hyjackers on the “Conservative Train”. Maybe this is it?

  • poocholiz@yahoo.com

    We can now see more clearly those that are dishonoring our constitution, and making light of it. By seeking to pass new laws, and restrictions on gun owners is bringing about a saying by J F K, “THOSE WHO MAKE PEACEFUL REVOLUTION IMPOSSABLE, WLII MAKE VIOLENT REVOLUTION INEVITABLE”. If what I am seeing is correct, they are seeing how far they( the progressives ) in our government, can go, as far as taking away our freedoms and rites, before the people rise up against them, and if we do, then they will call for martial law. With 100 years of ammunition, and thousands of armored vehicle’s being bought by our government, what do you think their getting ready for? It`s late in the game, how er, the constitution has given us the tools to fight against tyranny in our governments throughout the land. It`s time to hold our elected officials feet to the fire, and I mean that, the time fun and games are definitely over! We the people had better wake up, their will be no tomorrow if we don`t. I, for one, have been emailing the elected officials in my state, and I Hope you will do the same, the _ _ _ lady hasn’t sung yet, we still have time,and we have to fight ourselves, not waiting on the next guy to do it. Well we waited in the past, and look what the next guy has done to our country, need I say any more??? We just can not trust every one in government any more. Sad as it is, hopefully this is a wake up call for the majority of Americans. We need to pray for some truly Godly leaders once more to lead us back to our founding principles, and vigorously fight to reestablish our constitution, to eliminate the restrictive, and unnecessary laws that have put us in chains. Weather we are Black, White, or Brown, now is the time too stand together. United, we can do this, divided, we die alone ! Johnny G.

    • http://www.facebook.com/elizabeth.perfecto Elizabeth Perfecto

      YES!!!!!!!!!!! I
      TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Dave

    The NRA has made it clear through their actions who they support that they want to weaken background checks, weaken law enforcement and put any gun on the street with zero reguard to the consequences just to make more money for gun manufacturers and to keep Wayne LaPierre and his ilk in their 6 figure salary.
    The NRA are extremists and most people in this country favor the common se4nse measures put forth by Obama, CT, RI, PA etc.
    The loughmouth miniority may have the db’s but commmon sense has the numbers.
    Nobody wants your guns, we just want sanity when it comes to people getting guns, their use and storage.
    Pity the conservatives only know fearmongering….

    • fsa0033

      Dave, don’t know where you are or how you were brought up but I sense that you have never encountered criminals. I sense that you’ve never lost your freedom to protect yourself or found yourself in a position of helplessness against an adversary much stronger than you or against many intent on doing you harm. A defense weapon is the only thing standing between you and life. I’ve had my weapon for over 31 years now. Had to pull it twice but never fired. Law abiding citizens will train for years maybe for a lifetime never havng to present or use their skills. It’s an insurance policy that the president and other gun-grabbing official want to take away. If there is a policy make it against the criminals. Universal background checks do nothing but harass and endanger law-abiding citizens. The background checks now are not helping. Broadening them is just another way to let the government know what you have and who has them. It also legitimizes the law to imprison citizens for every day transactions. It’s a dangerous law.

      • Dave

        Keenan,

        Nothing Obama is proposing is coming for your guns. You have handguns, shotguns, rifles… so there goes one of your arguments.

        background checks cover 60% of all gun sales. THAT is dangerous and also leaves thepolice short-handed in soving crimes. Sorry if the delay in getting a gun hurts your feelings…But if you are a law-abiding citizen, the purpose of these proposals is not aimed at you. The Gov also knows what kind of car I drive. I also must stop at red lights even though I am a really good driver and have really good eyesight and good common sense…
        If people did not purchase guns in a fit of passion and kill a person whom they have a disagreement with, maybe these laws would not be needed… Or of a mother did not allow her son with mental problems to have free access to an arsenal of weapons including military weapons with large capacity magazines while playing first person shooter games and then the kids goes to the local elementary school to act out what he saw in the game, maybe these laws would not be needed.. But alas… these people are out there so laws are passed to protect the public and lessen the possibility of crimes. Nothing is a 100% cure besides changing the nature of our society organically.
        If you have to submit to a background check for the 40% of gun transactions that do not require, I am truly sorry for the inconvenience. If you are worried the gov coming and taking away all your guns, I would say you need a little bit less Beitbart, fox news and Rush Limbaugh. I will let you in on a little secret… Our military is an all volunteer force that is overseen by layers of civilian control so the odds of the military going to war against our own people is so remote, getting struck by lightening is more plausable. And here is another secret… The military has nukes, chem weapons and air power so even if the most bizarre conservative fantasy were to come true, 1 50 Cal machine gun won’t make any difference.

      • Dave

        One last thing Keenan, If these proposals save even one life… its worth your “discomfort”

      • Michael Shreve

        Why not “use a gun for crime, go to prison for a lifetime.”

        • Jeff

          Because it’s a bumper sticker and not a serious proposal. Maybe for someone with priors, that would be appropriate. There’s a big difference between a kid who’s desperate and uses a gun to stick up a liquor store to get his next fix and a gang member who thinks he owns the city and has the right to shoot anyone he pleases.

    • Jacobite2

      I know one person who won’t be able to pass a mental-health background check.

    • KroekerMom

      Dave, you’ve been listening to too many Liberal talking points. The NRA isn’t radical, it only cares about its own power. They don’t even really stand up for our gun rights. They are currently supporting compromise legislation that will require background checks on all gun sales and transfers. In every country that goes to universal checks/registrations of guns, they eventually confiscate some or all guns. The NRA is worthless. If you care about gun rights don’t give your money to the NRA. Give it to the NAGR or GOA. They actually defend your rights.

      • Jeff

        You are correct in saying the NRA doesn’t care about your rights. Wayne La Pierre makes more than a million dollars a year lobbying for gun manufacturers. If it sells more guns, it’s good in Wayne’s World. That’s all that counts.

        • Mark

          I heard today their are 32 guns sold every minute. Obummer reelection has been awesome for gun sales. Hmmmm, I would say take a moment and look who is backing obummer. Can you say the banks. I care not who makes the law as long as we control the money! Think!!!!!

          • Jeff Samuels

            The big banks and Wall Street all supported Romney. No matter how much money they make, they don’t like the idea of being regulated. They apparently want to return to 1929 and crash the economy all over again. As for the guns and Wayne LaPierre, ask Bobby Jindal about following the NRA’s advice. He supported their proposition last Fall and it passed. Now, the Courts have interpreted it to mean the state can’t prohibit violent felons from owning guns, even AK-47s. I think Jindal now understands what it means to ride the tiger. Talk about the Party of Stupid.

            http://www.humanevents.com/2012/11/11/louisianna-voters-choose-gun-rights/

          • mnkysnkle

            They (banks and wall street) supported Romney, Cain, McCain, Perry, Palin, Santorum, Bachman and the big Zero. They didn’t support Paul or Johnson. GEE….I wonder why? The NRA compromises. The 2nd. cites there is no compromise. GOA, NAGR, and the JFPOF back the 2nd. 100%, no compromises. All of this information can be found by using a simple internet tool called Google, so don’t ask me to provide the effort for you.

          • mnkysnkle

            Maybe you should read the article in that link you posted. Talk about stupid.

          • Jeff Samuels

            It used to be said there’s one born every minute. I guess that’s the impact of inflation.

    • $20888627

      Dave, I know yr a hopelessly brainwashed hypocritical Obumma zombie Libtard but I’ll ask you anyway: DO CRIMINALS OBEY LAWS? Then who are these laws for?????

      • Jeff

        The proposed laws are not for criminals to obey but for gun sellers who, presumably, are not criminals. If a career criminal is intent on getting a gun (or stealing your car), he’ll do it, but why not make it as difficult as possible? And most of the people doing the mass shootings are not career criminals; they’re troubled kids with access to guns. Take away the gun access and they’re just troubled kids.

        • Michael Shreve

          Criminals STEAL guns, from the police and military among others, HOW do you propose keeping ANYONE who want a gun from acquiring one. Gun ownership is PROHIBITED in MEXICO , but the criminals are as well armed as the military.

          • Jeff

            We’re not talking about organized crime here. Most of the people doing the mass shootings are kids or young adults with no particular criminal background. Concerning gang members with guns, I’d like to see the police enforce what laws are available, but I don’t know that they aren’t doing that now. I do know the NRA nonsense is making the police’s job more difficult. Witness what just occurred in Louisiana where Prop. 2 that passed in the Fall with the backing of the NRA and Gov. Jindal has been interpreted by a Court to invalidate the state’s prohibitions against violent felons possessing guns, even assault rifles.

            The bottom line is: the more guns in circulation, the more will get into the hands of the bad guys. You can yell and scream, but you can’t argue with math.

      • Dave

        Lets have a moment of silence for all the victims of background checks…
        Even though you are a hopelessly brainwashed Extremist NRA jack-booted fascist “conservative” (Another term for moron). I will answer…

        No criminals do not obey the laws but gun resellers should, the police should have better tools to do their jobs and our mental health infrastructure should be strengthened to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people like yourself.

        Unlike conservatards like you, I think we should actually do something about violence in this country besides giving more money to Wayne LaPierre and his band of thugs.
        Sorry if like at red lights, you are delayed and inconvienced for a better society. Not that morons like you care about anyone but yourself.

    • $20888627

      Dave, fearmongering??? Like Obumma and his treasonous ilk are doing??? Obumma has murdered 276 Afghani children by drone but now we’re suppose to believe “its for the children”??? Obumma and Holder gave high powered automatic weapons to a ruthless Mexican drug cartel but now he wants to act tough on guns??? You are all HYPOCRITES and LIARS.

    • mnkysnkle

      What is “loughmouth”?? You wouldn’t know “common sense” if it smacked you upside your head. What you are advocating “common nonsense”, plus you’re the one fearmongering here and you sure don’t know any conservatives. Yes, common sense has the numbers, but they are not in your corner. You need to quit parrotting “Nobody wants your guns”. That lie was debunked by all the unconstitutional assaults on the 2nd amendment by your socialist bedfellows for the past 40 years.

    • Bob666

      Dave,
      that was very well stated.

    • Michael Shreve

      The NRA exists for ONE purpose, DEFENDING the Second Amendment. To PERMIT the RIGHT to keep and bear arms to be infringed would be to Violate a trust. Give me a list of the other RIGHTS you are willing to surrender in the name of “security”

  • Jeff

    Bob:

    What is your authority for your claim that the 2nd Amendment is unlimited? Does it contain the phrase “Congress shall pass no law” found in the 1st? And do the words “well regulated” have no meaning? If you think the 2nd Amendment is unlimited, why haven’t you filed a lawsuit to overturn the machine gun ban from the 1930s? Could it be that even the most conservative Supreme Court we’ve seen since the New Deal would laugh you out of court? Even Scalia has recognized the 2nd Amendment has limits.

    BTW: You really tarnish your image by calling people fascists. We learned in college that words have meanings and using fascist as an expletive only diminishes the name-caller.

    • independent thinker

      “Does it contain the phrase “Congress shall pass no law” found in the 1st?”
      No but it does contain the phrase “shall not be infringed”

      ” And do the words “well regulated” have no meaning?”
      Of course they do they mean well prepared.

      • Dave

        Who prepares them? The NRA? No… It was the colonial gov who at the time had no standing army.

        • mnkysnkle

          WRONG!!!! Educate yourself!!

      • Jeff

        But what is it that “shall not be infringed.” What exactly is the right? To have a gun? Of unlimited killing power? Military-style weapons? Actual military weapons? If the right is to have a gun for self-defense, how can you say a ban on 100 round magazines “infringes” that right? These are the questions Courts are there to answer. And no matter how right wing the court, it will never agree that you have a right to any weapon the Army has.

        And well-regulated did not mean it ran like a watch. The “well regulated militia” clearly referred to some official or semi-official function of the State.

        • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Jeff,

          You write: “But what is it that “shall not be infringed.” What exactly is the right?” It is really quite simple and I have explained it here:

          http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/24/what-does-the-2nd-amendment-mean/

          http://personalliberty.com/2012/12/27/the-2nd-amendment-is-clear-the-founders-meant-it/

          Best wishes,
          Bob

          • Jeff

            Bob:

            Quoting from your January article:

            “According to An American Dictionary of the English Language, Vol. II by Noah Webster, published in 1828, the definition of “regulated” is this: “adjusted by rule, method or forms, put in good order, subjected to rules or restrictions.”

            I couldn’t help but notice you ignored the “subjected to rules or restrictions” definition of regulated. Do you think the framers were unaware of this meaning? Because they also used the word in the Commerce Clause where I think it clearly refers to to the setting of rules and restrictions.

            Bob, it is simply unreasonable to take an absolutist approach in interpreting the 2nd Amendment. When the Amendment was written, military weapons were crude, simple rifles and cannons that required a regiment to move. Our military weapons are now so far removed from that that you are essentially suggesting that individuals have a right to not only machine guns but to M-16s, drones, and nuclear weapons. Is this what you mean to imply because even Scalia (I’m sure one of your heroes) won’t go anywhere near that far. Or is is it more reasonable to interpret “well-regulated” as referring to the setting of rules and restrictions?

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Jeff,

            You seem to have difficulty understanding the English language. You must be a victim of the public non-education system.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Jeff

            Bob:

            I could easily say the same of you, but I can insult anyone. I thought we could have an actual conversation, but I was mistaken.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeff.samuels.127 Jeff

            So then educate me, Bob! What is the specific right wing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? Is your right to bear “arms” unlimited? Can you own whatever the army has? Does “arms” mean all armaments or just what you can carry in your hands? If you can’t answer these basic questions, perhaps your grasp of English isn’t what you’d like to think it is.

          • Michael Shreve

            The constitution was NOT intended to be haggled over by lawyers. It says what it means. A WELL REGULATED militia (a term meaning ALL men age 16 to age 65) referred to training, NOT what weapons the ARMY (militia) was permitted or who was excluded from participation.

          • Jeff

            If they wanted to insure that all men (not women?) from 16 to 65 had guns, why not say that? Who’s to do the “well regulating”? As for the Constitution and “lawyer haggling,” I can see I’m dealing with quite an expert. How does one know if the government pays money to a religious institution whether that’s an improper infringement on the exercise of religion? How does one know if a police officer searching your car for drugs has violated your 4th Amendment right to be free of “unreasonable” searches and seizures? The answers are not in the Constitution itself but in all the cases that have been decided using Constitutional principles as guidelines. If you think any Supreme Court, even this one, as conservative as it is, is going to permit you your own fleet of drones under the 2nd Amendment, I think you’re dreaming.

        • Michael Shreve

          When the U.S. Constitution was written, the people (militia) WERE the army and were obviously as well armed as the army.

          • Jeff

            So, does that mean you think you have the right to any weapon, any “arms,” the Army has?

  • disqus_VTX6rANDeE

    the 2nd amendment not only guarantees you the right to posses firearms but also militias to be the last line of defense from a tyrannical regime to sweep across the country.To willing give up one of your rights is to open the flood gates to lose even more,in my opinion any lawmaker who goes against the bill of rights is guilty of treason.

  • Right Brain Thinker

    Yada-yada-yada. More frantic frothing at the mouth. The latest polls show that ~90% of the public want stricter background checks so that mental cases and criminals will find it harder to get guns. It’s called “common sense” gun regulation.

    The 13 senators can grandstand all they want, but the voters WILL be heard. I hope all of the 13 are Repugnants—-they DO like to destroy themselves, don’t they?—-and if they don’t get sensible about guns, they will find themselves in the same sinking boat as the crew that ignored women’s issues last time.

    • Mark

      Watch a little youtube video called The truth about gun control. The banks don’t need us armed!!! As far as 90% of the people, you are crazy and are only paying attention to the Propaganda that the banks puppets want you to. Do yourself a favor and think!

      • Bob666

        Yo Mark,

        When did You Tube become the bastion of truth???

    • mnkysnkle

      Still short circuiting on the right side? Are Ya? The truth about the 90% is that 90% of the idiots wont bother to check the facts. This is the same 90% hillary and holder claimed in their guns going across the border. If they don’t have the facts, they will make them for you. Maybe you should stick to just posting “Yada-yada-yada”.

    • Michael Shreve

      90% of statistics are made up on the spot. Ask the right question, choose your polling group carefully and provide only WORSE alternatives to get ANY response you choose. Polls are a proven propaganda tool.

  • Mark

    If we don’t stop the banks we will all relive history!

  • Liberterian

    When the last stand comes it may be a war to preserve the constitution. They continue to whittle away at its very soul. The fight for guns is the fight for survival. The politicians continue to lie and deceive.

  • r.p.

    13 heh? Seems I’ve heard that number before. Maybe history is repeating itself.

  • MOMULE

    John McCain and the rest of those turn coats need to either vote with Ted Cruz and Rand Paul or get the hell out of the Senate. Because they sure aren’t standing up for the American people. Obama and his buzzard bait jackasses won’t enforce the laws we already have.

  • MOMULE

    You don’t warn the enemy of what you are going to do.