House not backing away from gun control...

[cwo2lt]

I used to vote for the person and it was strictly based on their position on gun control. Congress has now become so partisan, where a member will lose their committee assignments if they don't vote the party line on these issues, I will no longer vote for anyone belonging to the party that seems to be most likely to ban guns.

I also find that for the most part a supporter of the 2A will vote the way I prefer on most other issues as well.

 

[Ignition Override]

My wife suggests that Univ. Background Checks or another compromise should be passed by the GOP, in order to curry enough favor with various voters in order to have a better chance at winning back a Senate majority in the '14 elections.

She is pro-gun in general and has only watched tv commentary (and heard mine), although she has no interest in shooting.

I simply told her that caving in on a UBC would be appeasement, and 'we' could expect nothing in return from the anti-gun factions.
She feels that some fairly minor compromise would be a good public relations move for the GOP, and would be better than having the GOP as the Senate minority.

From my perspective, this would be a risk with no measurable return at the ballot boxes.
Once you give ground to an enemy, I'm unable to see the benefit when such a compromise might not be correctable later.

 

[Diamondback6]

Don't forget, on part-line issues Boehner has demonstrated he is willing to court Democrat votes to make it happen over the objections of most of his own caucus. The so-called "Hastert Rule" about not advancing legislation not supported by the majority of the majority party is officially dead...

This isn't a D vs. R political comment, it's a "what's been happening under the Crapital dome the past five months reality" comment about a turncoat leader with an agenda who places that agenda more important than the causes and people he's nominally supposed to support.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The article mentions the Manchin-Toomey companion bill in the House has 160 total sponsors, and that according to Pelosi, there are others in both parties who support the bill but are afraid to cosponsor it.

3 of the 160 are Republicans. Pretending that the two parties are equivalent based on those proportions is ridiculous.

Look, I want the Democrats to support the Second Amendment. I welcome Democrats like Heidi Heitkamp who actually support the Second Amendment and don't just make mealy mouthed platitudes about it. I respect Max Baucus for not kneeling to party pressure and voting against gun control even though he decided to retire. I would very much like to see more Democrats like that because the Second Amendment must have bipartisan support if we are to be successful.

Having said that, I'm not foolish enough to confuse my wishes with reality. The Democrats are pro gun-control as part of their platform. If something happens to Harry Reid, then Chuck Schumer is likely the new Senate Majority Leader. Are there Republicans who support gun control? Yes; they are a minority and none serve on committees that hear gun laws. Are there Democrats who support the Second Amendment? Yes, they are a minority and none of them are in leadership.

 

[berettaprofessor]

Not sure they (Congress) will have the time or energy for this; they have to get through Libya, AP taps & the IRS matters first and those 3 will take a while

All those are just reasons why they need "gun control" as a distraction to the real problems. Politicians have learned to use magician's tricks to distract the public with emotional issues while they mismanage the important ones. Not that "gun control" isn't important, but it sure draws attention from impeachable acts.

 

[Pilot]

All those are just reasons why they need "gun control" as a distraction to the real problems. Politicians have learned to use magician's tricks to distract the public with emotional issues while they mismanage the important ones. Not that "gun control" isn't important, but it sure draws attention from impeachable acts.

Spot on. Watch the Matador, not the cape. Look at voting records, and actions, not what they say.

 

[Zeke/PA]

The sad part is that all these proposed "measures" will do absolutely NOTHING to combat Crime or prevent mass shootings.
HIPPA rules prevent backround Mental Problem checks in spite of the fact that a Mental Health question is a part of Federal Form 4473.
Our "Lawmakers" just cannot absorb the fact that until Gun Crime, using existing legislation is punished quickly and severly, they are peeing into the wind.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

Anybody know the House bill number

 

[alsaqr]

Anybody know the House bill number

i can find one US House bill on universal background checks. That bill is H. R. 1565, sponsored by Republican Peter King of NY. It now has 162 co-sponsors.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.1565:

 

[zxcvbob]

The sad part is that all these proposed "measures" will do absolutely NOTHING to combat Crime or prevent mass shootings.
HIPPA rules prevent backround Mental Problem checks in spite of the fact that a Mental Health question is a part of Federal Form 4473.
Our "Lawmakers" just cannot absorb the fact that until Gun Crime, using existing legislation is punished quickly and severly, they are peeing into the wind.

What makes you think they are intended to stop mass shootings? (or violent crime, or whatever)

You've fallen into the "gun crime" trap.

 

[Bruno2]

They want the registration. If the AWB was more important than UBC to them they would still be beating the AWB drum. However, the AWB was just a red herring or distraction to get us focused on something besides UBC. Since that didn't work they are now scrambling to try to push it back through before the fallout from the next election is public. Once they see whats going to happen to the antis up for re election in 2014 gun control will be a dead issue again.This is why we keep hearing that they will pass it before the end of the year.

 

[jerkface11]

At this rate they'll be too tied up with impeachment proceedings to pass a gun control bill.

 

[arizona_cards_11]

I would almost always vote for the Constitutionalist or Libertarian candidate.

 

[berettaprofessor]

Think so Jerkface? The following link just proves my earlier comment; they'll use "gun control" to distract the public to their benefit:

Holder promises gun control: http://www.redstate.com/dloesch/2013/05/15/embattled-eric-holder-promises-gun-control/

 

[Zeke/PA]

What makes you think they are intended to stop mass shootings? (or violent crime, or whatever)

You've fallen into the "gun crime" trap.

It's ALL in what the politicians want John Q. Public to believe.
The politicos hate us Gun Owners because of the impact we can have at the polling place many times disrupting Self-Serving adgendas so they use a Sandy Hook type incident as a "soapbox".
The Liberal News Media certainly fosters the whims of our "Leaders"!