Dems pressure House Republicans into caving on guns

“House Democrats look to force Republican majority to act on gun reform,” The Washington Post hopefully relates. That mandated infringements contravening the Bill of Rights are painted as “reforms” should be all anyone needs to understand that this supposed “news” story is, in fact, a citizen disarmament advocacy piece.

They’ve prepared three discharge petitions, one to trigger a floor vote on an “assault weapon” ban and two to “increase” background checks. The problem is Republicans won’t allow a vote unless a House majority, 218 members, sign on.

“If all Democrats sign on to each bill, the minority party would only need the support of five Republicans to force a vote,” the story explains.

“Force” implies Democrats have leverage. What is it?

“Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) announced the intention of House Democrats to put Republicans, particularly vulnerable lawmakers on notice,” the story elaborates. In other words, extort them. Considering his position as “whip” for the Congressional Black Caucus, a coalition that, per the National Center for Public Policy Research, “has deep leftist ties and shares a similar agenda to the Communist Party of the United States of America,” that makes ominous sense.

ISSUE 1: Why Ohio's Constitution should be hard to amend

Whether any of the Vichycon Republicans are actually gutless and dumb enough to believe that the prudent play is to listen to the commies and betray their base remains to be seen. While the urge to believe they won’t be is strong, we’ve seen “moderates” snatch defeat from the jaws of victory before. While they might not cave on everything, their baffling propensity to give up “something” and showcase an aptitude for “bipartisan compromise” is a factor that can’t be ignored.

Then there are the outright enemies of the right to keep and bear arms embedded within the GOP, like Pennsylvania’s Brian Fitzpatrick, actually proud to be endorsed by Giffords, yet who nonetheless reportedly still has the political juice to get fundraising support from NRA A+-rated Speaker Kevin McCarthy. And there’s Florida’s Brian Mast, once endorsed by NRA, who then couldn’t wait to sell his supporters out on AR-15s.

The reality is, if all the Democrats need are five Republicans, they may already have them, if not for the “assault weapon” ban, then at least for prior restraints being shilled for as “increased background checks.” A look at Republican representatives who voted for the so-called “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022” shows they have the turncoats needed among the ones who voted for the act and then went on to win reelection: the aforementioned Brian Fitzpatrick, Tony Gonzales of Texas, Dave Joyce of Ohio, Maria Elvira Salazar of Florida, and Michael Turner of Ohio.

That’s five and Democrats can count. And more, that’s five who showed a willingness to “compromise” and suffered no political repercussions. What message does that send?

And who has confidence the Democrat majority Senate won’t be able to apply a force of its own in the event of a filibuster, especially with the likes of the usual suspects all itching to give something else up, from “mental health” restrictions to red flags and more?

In-your-face Democrats are counting on the GOP being intimidated by fighting words:

“Rep. Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.), one of the lawmakers leading the push, told Axios in a statement Republicans are ‘too cowardly to even vote on an Assault Weapons Ban. The weapons I carried in combat are killing our kids and wreaking havoc on our streets… now Democrats are stepping up so the American people can know where their Representatives stand.”

Semiautos, right. What a liar. But more voters will hear his words than hear the correct ones.

Besides, we’re entitled to the weapons he carried, and he knows that. He just won’t admit it because he’s vested in control and the power to dictate.

“I’m willing to help this process play out, however long it takes,” Democrat Rep. Lucy McBath of Georgia promised, and in this case, we should believe her. Doing things incrementally, gaining a piece at a time, has been the strategy that continues to move the prohibitionists closer to their end goal, a monopoly of violence.

It’s been that way from the start, when Nelson “Pete” Shields of the Brady predecessor, the National Council to Control Handguns, revealed in 1976:

“We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. ... [W]e’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal—total control of handguns in the United States—is going to take time… The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.”

Fold on anything and that’s one less obstacle the grabbers need to overcome on their way to everything. Any Republican who doesn’t realize we’re dealing with liars who want it all is willfully deluded. Any Republican who does realize it and “compromises” anyway is ultimately on their side. And anyone who thinks enough GOP politicians won’t fold if there’s a mass casualty event in a gun-free zone before the next election is whistling in the dark.

While it’s comforting to think Bruen will then “save us,” that presupposes a Democrat presidential win won’t be able to make significant changes to the composition of the Supreme Court, and that they won’t revisit the issue.

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalism awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a longtime gun owner rights advocate. Republished with permission of Ammoland.