These are the gun-control bills Congress will be considering when they reconvene on 9/4.

[USNRet93]

Their purpose is to weaponize the state against gun owners, or set up a system that can be weaponized at will. The goal is to imprison innocent/well-meaning gun-owners, to "set an example" and "change the culture." The vague and arbitrary nature of some of this stuff is exactly its most desirable feature, for those pushing it.

Here's the reality of today's political environment. POTUS reacts to his (TV)audience and more often than not, his statements are either something somebody else mentioned to him, he saw it on TV or just something that came to him..but he's not great 'on his feet'..So..what he says or tweets means a whole bunch of nuthin. Unless the senate writes a bill POTUS, in advance, says he'll sign, nothin will be written. The reality of what POTUS' base wants is what will get passed by the senate BUT..nothin that the House writes will pass the Senate..nothing the Senate writes(what POTUS' staff writes) will pas the House..so nothin will come of this except hand wringing, 'sky is falling' tweets and such and lotsa of ammo for the upcoming senate, house and Presidential races..

IF the congress and POTUS become Democrat controlled..but until then...

[Tom Servo]

but he's not great 'on his feet'

If so, the argument could easily be made that he's in the wrong job, then. Inconsistency and unpredictability might make for good reality television, but they're terrible qualities in a leader.

nothin that the House writes will pass the Senate..nothing the Senate writes(what POTUS' staff writes) will pas the House

We don't know that, and we can't count on it. Several Republicans have come out in favor of background checks and "red flag" laws.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

If so, the argument could easily be made that he's in the wrong job, then. Inconsistency and unpredictability might make for good reality television, but they're terrible qualities in a leader.


We don't know that, and we can't count on it. Several Republicans have come out in favor of background checks and "red flag" laws.

Asked about prospects for a Senate vote on legislation passed by the Democratic-controlled House to expand background checks for gun purchases, McConnell said, “The administration is in the process of studying what they’re prepared to support, if anything.”

The Kentucky Republican said he expects an answer from the White House next week, adding that he wants to make sure that senators “would actually be making a law and not just having serial votes” on proposals to stem gun violence.

Backwards...Congress writes and passes the laws..POTUS either signs or vetos..

As for the first point..ain't goin' there sir...

[Tom Servo]

Backwards...Congress writes and passes the laws..POTUS either signs or vetos.

Right, but Congress looks to the President to see whether or not it's worth advancing legislation. If the President is supportive, or even calling for it directly, then they'll fast-track it.

[zukiphile]

One of McConnell's endearing traits is an ability to speak calmly in defense of politically disfavored rights. Judging by their past relationship, McConnell's posture toward DJT on Senate matters isn't deferential; he has only indicated he would let a proposal DJT wants get a vote. Put differently, he doesn't want to schedule votes that only serve as a theatrical backdrop to get media coverage for further gun restrictions, but that would (likely) be vetoed.

The current primary preparations probably militate against anything passing. It's harder to ridicule as paranoid an opposition to further restriction as simply one step on the road to confiscation when primary candidates are endorsing prohibition of all modern firearms and confiscation.

Repub support for Red Flag law funding in the states is the most likely danger; it appeals to a law and order reflex to which repubs have been congenial historically. Mike Dewine, the new governor of Ohio, was on radio a couple of days ago stumbling his way through a defense of his version of a RFL.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Right, but Congress looks to the President to see whether or not it's worth advancing legislation. If the President is supportive, or even calling for it directly, then they'll fast-track it.

In the senate and maybe..what the GOP doesn't want to do is embarrass this president into a veto, then Congress overturn. BUT 2020 getting pretty close, no telling what's going to happen.

Put differently, he doesn't want to schedule votes that only serve as a theatrical backdrop to get media coverage for further gun restrictions, but that would (likely) be vetoed.

He also doesn't want to force senators to go 'on the record' on some of these issues, which 'could' have a big impact in the 2020 senate races(for sure here in CO)..meanwhile any senators will play the 'the senator said' game..but nothing will get written.

IMHO, nothing regarding gun control will get written or passed in the Senate..nothing will go to 'the guy in the big chair's desk..

[Metric]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

The current primary preparations probably militate against anything passing. It's harder to ridicule as paranoid an opposition to further restriction as simply one step on the road to confiscation when primary candidates are endorsing prohibition of all modern firearms and confiscation.

Indeed, the pro bill-of-rights camp is holding all of the cards, from the Senate to the POTUS to the timing. Any gun control push was completely DOA, and not even a news-worthy topic. It drives me up the wall that POTUS single-handedly put all of this back into play.

Of course there is an outside chance that this is all a "4D chess" move, designed to put vulnerable democrats on the record for massive gun control, leading into the election, just in time to energize the base. But I'm not banking on it.