I am in general agreement that political efforts toward gun control are not likely to be successful in the congress.
I also agree that those who actively push for gun control will suffer politically as a result of such efforts (although there are too many in "safe" districts having little or no possibility of failing in elections, regardless of what they do or say).
I am also constantly amazed by the utter arrogance displayed by our president and much of the leadership of his party. I would not be surprised to see them pushing hard for very radical gun control legislation, regardless of potential consequences. Their contempt for "average Americans" is so great that anything is possible with this bunch.
I have also noted that our president has repeatedly used executive orders to achieve policy goals, thus bypassing the legislative process entirely. Declaring another "emergency" and issuing executive orders to mitigate the "emergency" could be the chosen course of action. Even if later determined to be unconstitutional, that would only happen after many have been subjected to losses of liberty and responded with legal actions to overturn the executive order. (This happened repeatedly during the FDR administration, and I suspect that the current administration is using the same road map).
"Never let a crisis go to waste". This administration views events such as the tragic episode involving Ms. Gifford as opportunities to achieve goals that would otherwise not be possible.
Another possible approach would involve cabinet-level appointees adopting regulations, even when such are clearly contradicted by acts of congress. Remember the recent EPA regulations on carbon dioxide emissions? Congress said "no" very clearly; EPA adopted the new regulations anyway, and is now enforcing those regulations with strict fines and other penalties.
My point is that avenues other than legislation can be used to achieve goals that have not passed the congress, and fighting against bureaucratic enforcement can burden those who resist with huge costs.
We must remember that we are dealing with a gang that views our constitution as an impediment to "good government", as they define the term, and are condescending (at best) and contemptuous (at worst) toward the whole concept of individual liberties.
I suspect that the MSNBC announcement was, indeed, a trial balloon launched by the administration that was intended to generate emotional response and heated public debate resulting in "emergency" measures being deemed essential.
Those who value individual liberties must be constantly prepared to defend those liberties against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The incidents at Concord and Lexington (the "shot heard 'round the world"), resulting in the Revolutionary War, came about because of heavy-handed and oppressive actions of an arrogant government. I hope that the pattern is not repeated, and that we can win the second revolution by peaceful means at the ballot boxes and in the courts. There is little doubt that we will have to fight again; only the means and scope of the fight have yet to be determined.
