So how’s that bipartisan agreement on a framework for a gun control deal going?

Let’s check in.

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn arrived at the Texas GOP convention in Houston Friday to address his role as chief negotiator for a bipartisan gun package head on — and was promptly booed for it.

“No gun control!” the crowd jeered, even as Cornyn reiterated popular Republican talking points — that Republicans would vote out President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. Audience members shouted back, “You too!”

Cornyn was speaking to the state’s most dedicated Republicans, many of whom are more conservative than the general electorate. And none were shy in voicing their opposition to the gun deal, which emerged just weeks after a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers at a Uvalde elementary school.

The senator defended his role in the negotiations, saying the compromise would not impact law-abiding Texans. The package, which is still in its early stages, would expand background checks, introduce greater scrutiny of young buyers and encourage states to pass “red flag” laws that temporarily remove firearms from people deemed a danger to themselves or others.

It also includes billions of dollars for mental health resources and school safety plans.

“Let’s see if we can find a better way of enforcing existing law and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill,” Cornyn said. “But I will not, under any circumstance, support new restrictions for law-abiding gun owners. That will always be my red line. And despite what some of you may have heard, the framework that we are working on is consistent with that red line.”

The audience members were not impressed, chanting “no red flags!”

That’s always the problem with bipartisan deals, isn’t it? They involve Republicans.

Look, whether this is a matter of Cornyn’s legacy or it’s an old familiar game of perpetually moving goalposts, one fact remains: Nothing is ever assured in the US Senate. I mean, we don’t even have a bill here. Maybe we’ll get there, and maybe what eventually passes, if indeed something passes – the default in the Senate is always for nothing to happen – we can talk about what it means and what it might do. Until then, it’s vaporware. It’s more advanced vaporware than we’ve seen before, and it’s easy to feel optimistic about that. But until we have a bill and a cloture vote, that’s all it is. Reform Austin, the Chron, and Stace, who was properly in touch with his inner cynic from the beginning, have more.

Related Posts:

This entry was posted in National news and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to So how’s that bipartisan agreement on a framework for a gun control deal going?

  1. Bill Daniels says:

    The issue here is, they are purportedly looking for compromise, looking to make a deal. The question for those GOP convention goers is, “what’s in it for us?” A deal means both sides get something they want. What do the convention goers get? Everything we’ve seen and read indicates that the negotiations are just about how much MORE they lose.

    It’s not a, “well, we’ll give you this if you give us that” kind of negotiation. Are the D’s willing to give up nationwide CCW reciprocity? Are they willing to give up nationwide constitutional carry for the law abiding? How about OTC suppressors, so America’s hunters and target shooters can protect their hearing? I’ve read nothing about anything being offered in exchange for more federal infringement on the rights of citizens.

    And to top it all off, in the midst of these negotiations, Biden is apparently intending to starve the civilian market of ammunition by stopping the civilian sale of ammo from the DoD owned, Winchester run, Lake City plant. The plant makes ammunition for our military, and sells about 30% of the production on the civilian market. This benefits military readiness. In an emergency, that excess capacity can be immediately diverted to our military. Instead, they’re going to downsize the capacity of the plant, fire workers, and lower production. In an emergency, that means the military won’t have access to extra ammunition in a timely fashion.

    So, in light of this action, and the fact that nothing seems to be proffered by the D’s to Cornyn’s ‘gang of 10,’ in exchange for giving up things, why would anyone expect GOP convention goers to be NOT upset with Cornyn?

    Put the shoe on the other foot for a minute. Say the tables are flipped, and a R controlled legislative and executive branch are pushing for abortion restrictions nationwide. They want to take, but are offering absolutely nothing in return. Are we to be happy and excited with the D leaders negotiating abortion rights away in exchange for nothing?

  2. Ross says:

    Bill, it shouldn’t be a “what’s in it for me” type of negotiation. The question to discuss is “How do we prevent future mass shootings while impacting law abiding citizens as little as possible”. One clear answer to that is to raise the age to buy semiautomatic firearms of any type to 21, when males are generally not quite as impulsive and stupid as they are at 18. Minimal impact on most people, potential for reducing the risk of mass shootings by disaffected young males.

    The Texas Republican platform was written by lunatics. It actually says that 18 to 21 year olds are most likely to need to buy a firearm quickly for self defense. I don’t believe that’s rooted in reality. In addition, the platform states the State Constitution should be amend to remove the ability of the Legislature to write gun laws. Does that mean the Republican Party of Texas is in favor of convicted felons being able to own and carry firearms?

    I am going to be generous, and assume Cornyn was sincere in wanting a bipartisan solution approach to mass shootings. If that gets him primaried, at least he tried, and actually talked to the other side. Much like Reagan and Tip O’Neill managed to find ways to work together, despite being polar opposites politically.

  3. Joel says:

    I actually can’t rell which of the above two comments is more vapid.

    “Assume Cornyn was sincere”?

  4. Manny says:

    My belief that Bill is a paid R operative is reinforced. He was missing for two years, but here he came back with an R v D election.

  5. Ross says:

    @Joel, what do you mean by “vapid”?

    I am assuming Cornyn was sincere because I don’t think he’s gone completely batshit crazy yet. If it was Cruz, I would assume he’s grandstanding because Cruz.

  6. Pingback: Cornyn’s gun control bill passes the Senate – Off the Kuff

Comments are closed.