Democrats vow to act on gun control, but nothing is likely to happen

By Andrew Trunsky

Democrats vowed to act after the United States witnessed two mass shootings in the past week, but despite their congressional majorities the chance at any major legislative changes remains extraordinarily slim.

“This Senate will be different,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said a day after a shooter killed 10 people at a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, and less than a week after a shooter killed eight people at three massage parlors in Atlanta. “The Senate is going to debate and address the epidemic of gun violence in this country.”

“We have to act,” said President Joe Biden Tuesday, urging Congress to close background check loopholes and ban assault weapons. “It should not be a partisan issue. It will save lives, American lives.”

While the Senate will likely vote on H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446, two gun control bills that passed the House last week, they would both need 60 votes to overcome an all but certain Republican filibuster. There is even division among Democrats, as West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin came out against both bills Tuesday.

“No, I don’t support what the House passed,” Manchin told CNN Tuesday. “Not at all.”

“I’m basically where [Pennsylvania Republican Sen.] Pat Toomey and I have been,” he added, invoking a bipartisan legislative package that narrowly fell to a filibuster in 2013. “The most reasonable responsible gun piece of legislation, called Gun Sense, which is basically saying that [only] commercial transactions should be background checked.”

The Senate has not passed any expansive gun control legislation since 1994, when former President Bill Clinton signed a 10-year assault weapons ban into law. And while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said during a GOP press conference Tuesday that he was “certainly open” to discussing gun control legislation, it is unclear if any substantial bipartisan discussions will arise.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on gun control legislation, Republicans showed little interest in adopting any reform, even as polling has showed support from an overwhelming majority of Americans.

“Every time there’s a shooting, we play this ridiculous theater,” said Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. “What happens in this committee after every mass shooting is Democrats propose taking away guns from law-abiding citizens … what they propose, not only does it not reduce crime, it makes it worse.”

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/Public domain
Spread the love

8 thoughts on “Democrats vow to act on gun control, but nothing is likely to happen

  1. The real issue with UBCs is that there is no way to enforce the law without knowing who exactly who owns which gun(s). The next step the lying, cheating democrats will clamor for will be mandatory firearms registration. This is their real intent in UBC legislation. While Vermont is a lost cause (as it has been over run with liberal/socialist vermin) states can refuse to enforce the law. For example, Vermont chooses to ignore the fact that cannabis use is illegal at the federal level yet it’s use in Vermont is fine. States can tell the Biden Administration to go pound sand. The Marxists know they cannot take over America while so many of us are armed. The passage of any UBC legislation will be nothing more than another mile marker along the road to rebellion.

  2. The issue here is not GUN violence but but violence of any kind and that has been going on since Cain busted Able in the head with a rock. Every conflict between humans has the potential to end in violence. Look at all the wars of history and family abuse and fighting during sports and sports that are based on violence. Pass all the stupid laws you want look at where guns have been outlawed and nothing changes, but the method of killing and injuring each other. Jesus was right, love is the answer.

  3. So we have two new shootings Shooter #1, a ” sex fiend ” that shot up a massage parlor
    because he didn’t get his money’s worth, and shooter #2, just a local wackjob that even
    his family and police knew about his issues, but walking around free and easy……….

    So what is the first thing politicians do, yup, let’s make more useless gun laws to solve
    these issues……….sounds like crazy and crazier, is the problem !!

  4. I honestly don’t care what democrats threaten to do – they should be more concerned with the fact I fully intend to ignore anything they pass.

    • Exactly and yet they fail to understand that unConstitution usurpations does not a law make. Shall Not Comply !

      Unconstitutional Official Acts
      16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
      The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
      The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
      No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

      “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it has never been passed”.
      Norton vs Shelby County 1886 – 118 US 425 p.442

      Unconstitutional Official Acts
      16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
      The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
      The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
      No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
      “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it has never been passed”.
      Norton vs Shelby County 1886 – 118 US 425 p.442

      Supreme courts of the states and U S should give serious consideration to Patrick Henrys words as they have proven their first duty is not to the Constitutions as written.

      Patrick Henry wrote in Constitutions, Governments, and Charters: “A constitution defines and limits the powers of the government it creates. It therefore follows, as a natural and also a logical result, that the governmental exercise of any power not authorized by the constitution is an assumed power, and therefore illegal.”

      “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”

  5. For those that argue for more legislation, Colorado in January 2000 enacted Red Flag laws similar to Vermont’s.Colorado has had a firearm magazine capacity limit law since 2013.
    News reports today indicate the FBI was aware of the alleged murderer. Another story reports the suspect’s sister was concerned because he was “playing” with a gun. So concerned, she took it away from him.
    It’s starting to sound like yet more failed laws, another FBI failure and another round of false narratives to cover up the failures. Politicians can pontificate all they want, and they will- But this was a mental health issue.

    • I say this again and again, there are 20,000 state, local and federal gun laws already enacted in the USA. Murder is already illegal and a capital crime but it doesn’t stop people from murdering others. Out of the gate, the democrats jumped on the two recent shootings to call for more gun laws. If the 20,000 already passed haven’t worked and murder is already a capital crime, what will expanded background checks do? The Colorado murderer passed a background check 7 days ago to buy his weapon all while being on the FBI watch list.

      And now here comes Uncle Joe and San Fran Dianne to ban 205 certain rifles that look bad but are normal semi-automatic rifles that have been around for over 100 years. Sheila Jackson Lee rep. from Texas is requiring a psych exam an $800.00 insurance policy, safe storage and gun buy backs. Buy backs are a conundrum seeing as how the government can’t buy back something it never owned.

      Now I would like to propose a ban on lawmakers who perjure themselves when they place their hand on a bible and swear to defend the constitution as it is and lie while swearing to God. Further, some lawmakers should be required to get a license to speak. If a license is required for the 2nd amendment perhaps a background check and license to speak is also a good idea. Oh, but you say the first amendment guarantees free speech and I say the 2nd amendment guarantees my right to keep and bare arms since both are in the Bill of Rights which are not granted by and can not be legislated away by government. They are natural rights of which we are all born with. It is only despots and dictators who take them away right after they disarm you.

      The left has been trying as long as I can remember to disarm the public. They know it is the only way they can force the almighty rath of government control to rule over the people. Gun control is not about guns at all, it’s about people control. When a government fears it’s people you have liberty. When the people fear the government you have tyranny.

Comments are closed.