Politico has an article up about the difficulties both sides of the legislative battle over gun control are having, and the author makes some good points.

On one side, Senate Majority Leader and President Obama, despite constant and intense appeals to emotions, are having trouble getting even all of the senators in their parties caucus to support gun control bills.  At the same time, the prospect of legislation that fulfills any of the President’s goals passing the House are not looking at all good.

On the other side of the aisle, several Republican senators are wavering on the issue and may join the Democrats.  Some are even making deals that would allow them to vote for the Mancin-Toomey-Schumer ‘compromise’ without it impacting their constituents.  16 Republicans voted with the Democrats to block a filibuster of the bills, preferring to go over to negotiation, amendment, and horse-trading.

The money quotes from the article are pretty good:

It also, once again, displays the competing interests in the Capitol: A Senate attuned to national politics, and a House consumed with local, gerrymandered, constituencies.

Honestly, that’s the way it’s supposed to work.  The Senate was originally envisioned as being the chamber that included senior statesmen, who had the breadth of experience and wisdom to look at large issues and act accordingly.  The House, on the other hand, has always been directly elected by the people, and is supposed to be the place where the wants, needs, and opinions of the common person mean the most.  The two chambers are set in this juxtaposition to try to find an equilibrium between the power of the upper levels of society and power of the masses of common people. This tension between the two chambers makes sure that neither those on top or those in that big squishy middle can run off the edge of the world.

Let’s change a few things here.  Right now, we have a Democrat president and a slight Democrat majority in the Senate, coupled with a slight Republican majority in the House, all of whom are considering gun control legislation because of a horrific, graphic, and public shooting in a school.  Let’s flip that to a Republican president and Senate, with a Democrat majority in the House, a scenario that is quite likely when you consider how thinly divided the American electorate is these days.  Let’s give that scenario something controversial to consider, like federal restrictions on abortion being pushed because of a horrific, graphic, and public scandal at an abortion clinic.  While the President might be able to ram some sort of legislation through the Republican Senate, the Democrat House would probably not go along with it, since they know where their constituencies fall on that issue, and that they will be taken to the woodshed in primaries and elections quite soon after voting to restrict abortion. 

The purpose of the House is to force the Senate to take the will of the people into account, and the purpose of the Senate is to force the House to think about what’s good for the country as a whole.  Sometimes they can come to an agreement, but the process forces both chambers to consider the other.

The other quote gets my back up a bit, though:

Late Monday night, the New York Times reported that Manchin and Toomey are considering a possible revision to their bill that would exempt residents in rural areas living hundreds of miles from licensed gun deals from some of the requirements of the bill.

The revision, which would be added only as amendment if the Manchin-Toomey proposal is adopted, is designed to appeal to Begich and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), said aides familiar with the issue. Manchin huddled with both Alaskan senators on the floor after a vote Monday night.

Here’s my response:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Emphasis mine)