Follow by Email

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Senators voting yesterday to continue to give felons and terrorists the right to buy a gun

  I guess they missed the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions a "well regulated" militia

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)

Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Gabby Giffords Op-Ed in the NY Times today on yesterday's vote.


Anonymous said...

Hyperbole aside, your analysis is off. The term "well regulated" has nothing to do with regulations. It means well disciplined or well trained. Read Heller.

Anonymous said...

Intent not withstanding, felons currently cannot purchase firearms. I understand what your trying to say, but your lede is misleading. I agree that universal background checks are a good thing, but lets not confuse the issue by giving the impression that the vote in the senate is giving felons the right to purchase regulated firearms.

HoCo Connect said...

In response to the second comment about the vote giving felons the right to purchase guns being misleading. By not requiring gun shows to do background checks we are giving felons the opportunity to buy guns even though they are breaking the law. Why give them this opportunity?

In response to the first comment on the meaning of "well regulated." The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights spent a great deal of thought on how to protect the liberty of individuals with the need have a functioning national government. These debates often were about how the government could "regulate" and "protect" individual liberties.

Anonymous said...

While that may be, that's still not what a "well regulated" militia refers to. It has a very specific meaning as I mentioned previously. This isn't my analysis, it's from the courts and historical documents.

Instead of asking what part of "well regulated" don't we understand though, how about we focus instead on "shall not be infringed"?