Speaker 1: We have been seeing mass shooting after mass shooting after mass shooting made national
headlines recently. And we have polling that suggests to us, hey, you know what,
Americans really are hungry for some gun safety regulations. They want them. And there is a very
interesting a poll from Pew Research compiled by Vox, and we're going to put a Vox graphic up
on the screen. And when you look nationally, yes, led by Democrats, but Republicans also
we see greater than 85% support for some mental health restrictions on who can own firearms. We
see more than 80% support for background checks, what we would call universal background checks,
meaning there is no situation where a gun is sold that would be exempt from a background check. We
see about 78% of the country against open carry without a permit. There are some states where you
can open carry with no permit. And even the less popular stuff like banning assault style weapons
or banning high capacity magazines, even those provisions have close to two thirds support,
right around 65%. So very clearly Republicans have seen the polling. Republicans are now
understanding, hey, a lot of these things are popular with Americans. We as Republicans can't
just be the party of saying do nothing, arm teachers and eliminate doors or
whatever they've been talking about. So now Mitch McConnell and some other Republicans are saying,
you know, we are we are okay. We're supportive of the framework that's been established for this
Senate gun safety deal. So we're going to look at a clip. But I have to tell you, I am so skeptical
of everything that's going on here on both sides. And I'll explain all of that in a moment. But here
is Mitch McConnell yesterday making headlines. Wow. Republicans being reasonable. They support
that way. Do they support the bill or they do they support the framework? Well,
that's a key distinction. Take a listen to this. Speaker 2: Senator Cornyn, who is, you know,
asked to be the point person on our side to see if we can come to an outcome after these horrible
school shootings. And his teammates indicated, as you have reported, a coming together kind
of behind a framework which hopefully can be turned into legislative language and passed
for myself. I'm comfortable with the floor and work. And if the legislation ends up reflecting
what the framework indicates, I'll be supportive. Speaker 1: Right. So a number of ifs in there.
Right. I'm supportive of the framework which hopefully will get us to a bill. And if the
legislation reflects what's in the framework, then it is hopefully something that we can support.
Now, there's two sides to this. This is a great opportunity for Republicans to say this and then
oppose it either because while the legislation ended up being different than the framework
or we're disappointed in what Democrats ultimately put here. But there's another aspect to this,
which is the bill itself is pretty damn crappy. Now, I don't want to just listen. I am not I am
okay with incremental change and taking steps in the right direction. And if this is all that can
be passed, well, we've got to pass it. I'm going to tell you what's in this framework,
but it is pretty damn weak. Very, very weak. There are a few different things here. So first of all,
there are red flag provisions that are in the framework, meaning that you have a process
that will allow you to do sort of some kind of for those individuals who are believed to have
mental health conditions that should prevent them from having a firearm. This is a framework that
would allow some of those to be established. There are 19 states in Washington, D.C. that
already have some version of that, and that's something that would be in the bill. And listen,
Republicans have been talking about this is a mental health issue. So that's something they're
generally supportive of, although some Republicans are saying you're kind of eliminating due process
instead of actually saying, well, you are now a felon and you can't have a firearm, which would
be due process. Some Republicans are against these red flag laws saying you're basically just saying
some psychologists can sign off and then you don't you don't get your constitutional right to
a firearm. So that could be a problem. They want a more rigorous process for background checks,
specifically on people between 18 and 21, which would include an enhanced review where you contact
state and local law enforcement if you have criminal records that could be disqualifying.
There's a proposal about who should have to register as a firearms dealer for the purposes
of conducting background checks. There's some squishiness to that where you can be a dealer.
You and I would look at it and we would say, this is a dealer, but they don't currently have to
register as such and thus don't have to comply with background checks laws. There should be
no question of that. Every sale should require a background check no matter where it happens.
They also want new penalties penalties on straw purchasing of firearms to improve the prosecution
of traffickers. This is where someone who can legally get guns buys a bunch of them and then
sells them to people who cannot legally get guns. Those are called straw purchases, and then they
want money for mental health services as well. So there's nothing remotely controversial here
in the framework. Any sane country would do all of these things and much more. But that's exactly the
problem. Number one, the bill is so milquetoast that it doesn't do almost any of the things that I
outlined in my framework for what should be done. And at the same time, Republicans still might not
support it. So this is yet again, it's a good chance maybe to show that Republicans will block
even the weakest gun safety provisions, but at the same time, maybe Republicans will support it
because it does so little. And then they can say, look, the Democrats put together a bill,
we supported it, and we still have gun violence, which, of course, we would have because this
bill has absolutely no teeth. So it I hate to say it, it all seems like it's a great setup
for the Republican Party. Here's a bonus clip. Here's Mitch McConnell being asked why people who
can't legally buy cigarets should be able to buy semi-automatic weapons. Mitch McConnell supported
raising the age at which you can buy tobacco from 18 to 21. And Mitch McConnell does not answer.
Speaker 3: Why should. Speaker 4: Americans who
are 18 years old should not be allowed to buy cigarets, which is something.
Speaker 3: That they should be allowed to buy. Speaker 2:
Good try. I've already told you my view. Speaker 1: It's not really a
try. It's a good question. Speaker 2: Framework. If it leads
to a piece of legislation, I intend to support it. I think it's progress for the country,
and I think that the bipartisan group has done the best they can to get total support and the
background check enhancement for that age group. I think it's a step in the right direction.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's so weak. A background check enhancement just for those 18 to 21. So Mitch, not
falling for any trick questions like why should you be able to get an AR 15 but not Cigarets?
Which is really not a trick question. It's a good question. Let me know what you think is
the fate of this bill. Find me on Twitter at David Pakman. We'll take a quick break and be right back