That's one for 'Don't filibuster,

make the Democrats own it.'
Which reminds me of the Obamacare mess: in that case the Democrats controlled both Houses and could have passed it, but they desperately wanted some Republicans to share blame.  Here they probably can't pass it in the Senate without some R help, and damn sure can't in the House without the Rs going along.  And neither side wants to pay the price for it at the next election, except for the zealots like Schumer, and they're mostly in safe districts.

Speaking of which, got a e-mail from Sen. Coburn last night:
Thank you for taking the time to write me to express your opinion and concerns about the various gun control proposals. I am encouraged so many Oklahomans are making their voices heard. I have received an overwhelming number of letters, and in order to respond in a timely manner, I am writing a response that encompasses my entire position. If you have additional questions or concerns, please write me again. 

I want to be clear: I remain committed to defending and protecting our Constitution; namely the Second Amendment. I have long protected the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns. I am opposed to a ban on assault rifles and I oppose limiting magazines. I will not vote for any bill that limits the gun rights of law abiding citizens. While I support a debate in the Senate on gun related issues—including reaffirming these rights and forcing gun-control advocates to have their votes on record and be held accountable for their votes—I will not only support, but lead a filibuster to prevent the passage of any bill that limits the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. The news reports are correct that I have been involved in discussions to write legislation improving the existing background checks to enable private citizens to check a database and ensure the person they seek to sell their gun to is legally allowed to own a firearm. I believe it is good public policy to make sure that those who are mentally-ill or a felon (both are already prohibited from owning a gun), do not have access to a weapon. However, I oppose record keeping and will not agree to legislation that expands record keeping to private sales. 

The concern I am hearing over and over is not just about people maintaining their right to own firearms—it is a concern about how to preserve liberty. When our Constitution was adopted, we had just won a war fought largely by Minute Men and localized, or unofficial, militias (Sons of Liberty, etc). The first shots fired at Concord were, in part, to preserve a local supply of firearms that the British sought to confiscate. Our founders believed very strongly that the individual right to bear arms would preserve the independence and freedom won in 1781, just as they had enabled our founders to win the revolutionary war. They feared tyranny and centralized power—which is why our Constitution was established. In addition to the checks created by balancing power between a legislature and executive—and checked by a judiciary—the Bill of Rights sought to limit the federal government and clearly stated that those powers not enumerated in the Constitution and delegated to the federal government would remain with the states and the people (the 9th and 10th Amendments). 

Yet, our federal government regularly legislates on matters that belong to the states and the people. Our freedoms are being gradually encroached and choked by ever-increasing regulations, laws, agencies, and overspending. This concerns me greatly and I fight daily to rein in the size, scope and spending of our federal government. I believe the greatest threat to our Republic is apathy as our overindulgent federal government, through indebtedness, spends the money of future generations. James Madison, the architect of our Constitution, said something similar in 1788 in a speech in Virginia when he said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” I am aware of this and I work to push back on all attacks to our Constitution, including those to our Second Amendment. Congress must be careful not to legislate in a way that makes criminals out of law-abiding, gun-owning citizens. 

Thank you for being involved and allowing me these last eight years to fight to protect our Constitution. I daily think about the sacrifices of past generations and I am grateful. In these last four years, as I finish out my second term, I remain committed to protecting your Second Amendment rights and working to limit our federal government and reduce federal spending. 
Sincerely, 
Tom A. Coburn, M.D. 
United States Senator
So yes, he's in favor of UBC; he's against any type of record-keeping.  Right now I can't decide if he believes agencies like the EffingBI and BATF won't illegally keep records like they already do, or figures the Democrats won't go for the bill unless they can officially keep records.
And I have yet to figure how "Go to a FFL or police station and pay a fee and do paperwork and THEN you can buy/sell a gun" does not count as 'limits the Second Amendment rights'.  And it damn sure doesn't pass the Jews in the attic test.  As to these clowns obeying the law,
Sylvia Burwell, President Obama’s nominee to lead the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told Congress that she’s “uncomfortable” with the idea of promising to publish the Obama administration’s regulatory agenda by the legally-deadline.
“Because I don’t know the facts behind what happened, that’s why I’m uncomfortable making a commitment, because I don’t know the facts behind the issue,” Burwell told Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, today during a Senate hearing.
This is real damn simple: the law says "Publish the agenda by the deadline."  But they don't, and the nominee is 'uncomfortable' with doing so.  So tell me again why we should trust these bastards on ANYTHING?


One idea of why Obama keeps pushing this:
So why is President Obama making gun control his number one issue, when it has zero chance of becoming law, and the political impact is negative for some of his own senators? I can think of only two reasons. First, he wants to whip the Democrats’ base into a frenzy in hopes of capturing the House next year, and the base hates guns. I think this motivation accounts for much of what Obama does, but does it really make sense to endanger Democratic control over the Senate, in hopes of a long-shot victory in the House? One wouldn’t think so. Second, Obama may view the gun issue purely as a distraction: anything is better than talking about the economy. Or Obamacare. Or Benghazi. Or Iran. Or North Korea. Maybe he arrives at gun control through a process of elimination. It isn’t a great theory, but it’s the best I can come up with.
There is another: he really, really wants the commoners disarmed, and thinks it's worth the damage to the Evil Party to try. 


On the Hypocrites in the News front,
Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, keep pushing for stricter gun laws as they continue to own weapons for recreational purposes, including the same type of gun used in the January 2011 shooting rampage that left Giffords wounded.

However, the couple's 9 mm Glock holds fewer bullets than the one used the Tucson shooting spree. Limiting the size of ammunition magazines is one of the goals of a new political action committee formed by Giffords and Kelly.
Except they don't just want to ban those extended magazines, oh no, they want to ban the standard magazines just like the ones they own.
Some enterprising journalist needs to ask them if they've gotten rid of all the evil standard-capacity magazines they own and replaced them with non-evil ten-rounders.


PTR Industries is leaving CT.


And this is just... bleargh:
Campus police officers responded without firearms to multiple reports of a lone gunman at the University of Rhode Island (URI), on Thursday, due to a state policy that prohibits deputized campus police officers from carrying firearms on public campuses.