I'm supporting plans in Congress to fully ban bump stock devices and prohibit the sale of high-capacity magazines.
Moments of crisis, like the shooting in Newtown, tend to produce brief spikes of popular interest in gun control. My research on media attention suggests these spikes are extremely short-lived, and that they may be decreasing in intensity.
If you talk to any of my Democratic colleagues who lost that year, they would tell that gun control was one of the major contributory factors in the loss of their seats.
I want to close the online loophole and the gun show loophole.
Can you understand why the Congress, most states and most cities refuse to pass legislation requiring the registration and licensing of any and all guns? For the life of me, I can't. We must register our cars and be licensed to drive. In many places we must get licenses for dogs and even bicycles. Being required to register firearms and show the competence and capacity to handle them hardly seems unreasonable, hardly seems an infringement of freedom. What is it that blocks such legislation? Why do they block it? How are they able to block it?
I feel like I've got feet firmly in different camps. Between the right of gun ownership and public safety.
If I were a betting man, the odds are that Obama's White House and Justice Department will double down on their gun-control agenda by edict.
We have other legislation that all of you are aware that I have been so active on, with my colleagues here, and that is to shut down the gun shows.
We should not take a Memorial Day recess until we pass a proper memorial for the slain students in Littleton, Colorado, and other school gun tragedies.
I think after Sandy Hook, when Obama went out, and he talked a lot about gun control and met with the parents, there was a sense that something was going to happen. But then, I guess, the power of special interests was greater than public sentiment.
Should the high court be able to roll back state health regulations whose efficacy was at least debatable? If your answer is yes, logical consistency should encourage you to apply this same logic to the court's consideration of state-level gun control.
If we don't get gun-control laws in this country, we are full of beans. To have the National Rifle Association rule the United States is pathetic. And I agree with Mayor Michael Bloomberg: It's time to put up or shut up about gun control for both parties.
As President Obama is inaugurated for a second time, the biggest political surprise is that gun control is now key to his political legacy.
Why can't a democrat get fired up about protecting the environment and enacting gun control legislation just as right wing republicans get fired up about making sure that children have access to assault weapons and banning 'the Catcher in the Rye' and 'Harry Potter'?
My career in Congress is a story of before Sandy Hook and after Sandy Hook.
Amazing how the White House, celebrities and gun control groups happen to repeatedly push for new initiatives in an organized fashion at the same time.
If in the script there is an argument about gun control, the most precious document you could produce at 'The West Wing' that week is a passionate, intelligent case against gun control. We know how to do the other one.
As for gun control advocates, I have no hope whatever that any facts whatever will make the slightest dent in their thinking - or lack of thinking.
I can assure the people of Mississippi that, as God is my witness, I strongly oppose the Blair-Holt Act and will fight harder than any human being alive to protect law-abiding Mississippians Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Gun owners are not buying firearms because they anticipate a confrontation with the government. Rather, we anticipate confrontations where the government isn't there - or simply doesn't show up in time.
I'd like to see a comprehensive gun control bill brought to the floor, but if we have to do it in several votes, that's fine, too. But give us the vote. Let us make our case to our colleagues on the floor and have a vote.
The question I have heard from some Democrats saying that "You know what? Push for gun control, but not now."
The Obama administration excelled at pushing its radical agenda through any means necessary. Since its gun-control agenda was not going anywhere, it decided to control ammunition, which would have had the same effect.
The assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy led directly to the passage of a historic law, the Gun Control Act of 1968.
I will consider my time in the Senate a failure if we don't pass some meaningful legislation to reduce the likelihood that Sandy Hook ever happens again.
