The Plan.

[mljdeckard]

How was Obamacare against ANY odds at all? They had the hat trick of both houses and the White House. That was INEVITABLE. The reason they didn't take on guns at the same time, was that house DEMS made their opposition to gun laws known in advance.

 

[Guillermo]

that Reid has agreed to table it in the senate

the word "table" in the US means "postpone" or "set aside for later consideration"

 

[Guillermo]

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) told a local television station that he opposed the proposals.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) indicated he was hesitant about supporting new legislation.

Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) said on Tuesday, before the proposals came out, that he didn’t want to see a “one-size-fits-all” approach.

the list goes on of Senate Democrats that are not interested in gun control

It seems very unlikely that there will be any gun legislation. As to fuhrer-like action from the executive branch, who is to say?

 

[Sam1911]

As to fuhrer-like action from the executive branch, who is to say?

Really? The President has already announced what he's doing as executive actions. A whole lot of nothing. "Promote this, intensify that, step up the other, look into things & stuff..." Nothing like "fuhrer-like" action.

Now it's on Congress to "do something" and it looks like they just won't be playing that kind of ball.

 

[kwguy]

The GOP has absolutely nothing to gain by agreeing to side with the left on this issue. What would they gain? The love of the liberal side of the congress? Really? Not. The left will still hate them, they will have capitulated to the left yet again on another issue, and will have lost those on the right over the 2nd Amendment (I'm using left / right for simplification, I know there are liberals who are pro 2A)

The worst that will happen if they stand fast against any of the bs legislation that they are being pressured to pass is what is already happening now. Abuse by the left wing media. Ok, what ELSE is new? If they bend, they will gain nothing from it, and will lose us as well. (I hope I'm right, and I hope that's the reality).

 

[pendennis]

President Obama was a lame duck president on November 7, 2012. As such, he automatically lost a bit of political capital he held prior to the election. All presidents lose political power in the second term.

Unless historical political rules all go out the window, the Democrats will lose seats in the interim elections. George Bush, Bill Clinton, Dwight Eisenhower, etc., are historical examples. The Democrats in picking up three seats, is owed more to the political landscape in each state, and Obama's coat tails than anything else. In Massachusetts, the choice was between a liberal Republican, and a liberal Democrat.

The Republicans will likely make gains in the 2014 elections, and there are enough vulnerable senators, that the Senate may indeed change hands. As such, incumbents will likely do anything to keep their current offices. The Congress owes their seats to the populace, not the president.

Congress will also wait out the "public furor" over gun control; allowing emotions to cool. The Republicans want to rub the president's face in the fiscal mess; budget, or lack thereof, debt ceiling, etc. Especially the more conservative ones.

 

[gc70]

I include the following reminder in every message I send to my Representative and Senators:

129 million votes cast in the 2012 Presidential election
80 million gun owners, all of whom are of voting age

 

[hso]

"The Plan" is based on a lie.

The Lie is there's an "epidemic of gun violence" in the U.S. that we must "do something" about.

The facts out of the Obama administration's own Dept. of Justice in the FBI's Uniform Crime Report is that "gun crime" has been falling. It has fallen since the AWB of '94 was implemented and it has fallen since the AWB expired in 2004. It has fallen to a new low in the past 20 years. This in the face of increasing AR sales in the U.S. while violent crime rates dropped. The Obama administration never discusses this fact, but the President clearly stated in his 2nd election debate that "part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence, because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns.”, implying at least that the administration and the President know the conclusions from simply looking at the DOJ's FBI UCR that violent crime rates have been and are dropping. A quick look at the UCR tables reveals that rifles of all type are a small fraction of the means used to commit murder (lower percentage than hands and feet!). The President implied his knowldge of this in that one statement in the debate, "they're not using AK-47s, they're using cheap handguns".

If The Plan is based on The Lie and The Lie is easily uncovered then what is the purpose of The Plan? To include the most restrictive and odious approach in hopes of any real success when the same Plan has been introduced into Congress year after year and never given any serious consideration or to introduce them with the momentum of the tragedy at Sandy Hook in hopes of getting some of the elements of The Plan through to a vote? Or is it simply politics to polarize Congress and divide the Nation by challenging our Representatives and Senators to choose sides over this issue so that each side can demonize the other as political maneuvering?

Regardless of the plan behind putting The Plan out there because we know it is based on The Lie, our course of action should be clear. Be vigilant for each piece of legislation submitted to Congress, evaluate it, work to support the ones that are based on fact and truth and work even harder to oppose those that are based on The Lie and that would restrict gun owners being able to purchase any sort of magazine, firearm, ammunition beyond the laws in place at the close of 2012.

 

[Guillermo]

A whole lot of nothing. "Promote this, intensify that, step up the other, look into things & stuff..." Nothing like "fuhrer-like" action.

currently you are correct. who is to say that the "president" will do after the congress does nothing? I have given up trying to predict the evil that he will do.

Now it's on Congress to "do something" and it looks like they just won't be playing that kind of ball.

I concur that the facts indicate that this is correct

 

[Sam1911]

who is to say that the "president" will do after the congress does nothing? I have given up trying to predict the evil that he will do.

Sure, but all indications -- really right from the initial burst of outcry -- seem to have been leading to an inevitable petering out of momentum. The best thing he could do with something so contentious and hard to win would be to delay and "think on it" for a while, release a few non-contentious orders that won't do anything at all and don't really get anyone up in arms, give it to his political scapegoat (Biden) to separate himself from the inevitable failure to go anywhere, blame Congress, and simply let the momentum for any action at all to die away as it always does.

If that's the plan (and it is pretty smart politics, after all) then he's RIGHT on track.

 

[skeptical_in_Ohio]

^^^ THIS. Tell your Congresscritters that if they're worried about losing their seats in 2014, they'd better worry about US! If they don't compromise on gun control, they MIGHT lose seats in 2014; if they DO compromise on our 2A rights, they WILL lose in 2014, because WE WILL VOTE THEM OUT OURSELVES!

I can well understand this sentiment, and I fully understand how voting for the lesser of "who gives a ......" is hard. This said, however, is it not plausible even likely that those replacing the bums getting the sack in this scenario would be worse? One might wish to review the strategy adopted by the other side - Mr. Obama said basically nothing about gun control until a tragedy fell in his lap that he could use, and this AFTER he'd faced the electorate.

 

[razorback2003]

The R's in the House have nothing to gain and a lot to lose if they lose NRA endorsement. Some D's do too.

The House has a 2 yr election cycle, so people don't forget if something irritates them about a House Representative.

Obama and the media will keep on slamming the House because that is just what they will do whether it is gun control or the debt ceiling.

 

[abajaj11]

If they had been smart they would have focused like a laser on NICS expansion, and disavowed any AWB or other gun grab. Then Obama could have said I will not touch any firearm, bullet, or your right to buy them lawfully. But it strikes me the anti-gun movement is really not very well put together. They've got a mix of ancient blue hairs who really have an emotional problem with EBR's and would never be willing to shut up about them. And they've got a lot of soccer moms who want "something done" but aren't clear on specifics because they don't really know anything about firearms. A few old Fudds may be willing to break ranks to toddle over and yammer about how no hunter would need one a dem black rifles, but they're far fewer in number now than they were 20 years ago, and none of them own major firearm companies now (clears throat). The astonishing sales figures tend to confirm the AR has become America's Rifle. That's tough to fight. I'd be much more worried about defections if they were looking exclusively to expand NICS. And ironically NICS itself, with the hard data it provides, has helped us show how popular the AR's are. Even our Dear Leader has heard of the figures, and blames them on the fear mongers at the NRA of course.

In the long term, I suspect we may well see a more focused effort on NICS expansion. But the Hill is already gearing up for yet another budget cliff fight and I don't see anything like that coming out of the process. Signing the raft of EO's has basically been flipping off the House.

Yes...NICS expansion or "Universal Background check" or "gunshow loophole closing" are all the same and cannot be effectively monitored if passed, unless all firearms are registered federally. At that point, confiscation is 2-3 years away at best.
PLease consider focusing only on the universal background check issue when talking to your congressman and senators, and tell them WHY you are opposed to this reasonable sounding measure.
For example, I say "No one is for selling firearms to criminals or the dangerously insane. However, Universal Background checks cannot be implemented without federal registration of firearms, and I am totally opposed to registration. hence, please do not vote for any kind of universal background checks because it will mean we will lose the 2A in 2-3 years or sooner. "

 

[Yelovitz_503]

Really? The President has already announced what he's doing as executive actions. A whole lot of nothing. "Promote this, intensify that, step up the other, look into things & stuff..." Nothing like "fuhrer-like" action.

Now it's on Congress to "do something" and it looks like they just won't be playing that kind of ball.

I agree with Sam. I read all 23 of the executive orders right when they came out because I was concerned but I really was surprised by how little teeth they had. It's all a bunch of obvious things that we already have laws for (health officials reporting threats of violence) or it's stuff we should have been doing already (making better gun locks). Only a few of the things are even 'new' ideas and those aren't really that crazy. The vast majority seemed like feel good proposals, the fact that there are a few which are executive actions to make a presidential memorandum to start a conversation about writing a letter etc. He's kicking the can, and the NRA has enough lobbying power to keep anything from happening on a national level.

What I am concerned about are the smaller scale things which politicians get away with all the time. In Oregon, individual cities cannot make gun laws which surpass state gun law.. this hasn't stopped a number of cities from banning weapons in pubic places and making laws against open carry (which violate our state constitution). Our new mayor of Portland is putting forth legislation to try to have high capacity magazines and "assault weapons" banned completely from the city. This violates our state laws but I'm sure the overwhelmingly liberal wet-blanket types here will trick themselves into thinking it's a good thing and drink that Kool Aid. The problem is that a lot of American citizens do not understand our laws on a state or national level, and what's worse is that they will believe anything that politicians tell them (never a good idea). I wonder what will make that change.

I always tell people that if our rights will be lost, the first to go will be guns. After that what will you do to protect any of your other rights? Good luck defending the first amendement using only harsh language. I hate the slippery slope argument, but sadly that's the way it seems we're headed. I have hope that people will wake up, and that enough people are paying attention but we can't slow down because lord knows the people who oppose our rights have not, and will not be slowing down in their efforts.

 

[alsaqr]

Serious gun control legislation will not pass the US congress. Folks in several states need to wake up and realize the gun control wolf is breathing heavily on their doors. The states of CT, CO, DE, MD and othere are considering new gun control schemes. Theres a very good chance that more than one of these states will enact NY style gun control laws this year.