An audio recording has been uncovered that details a conversation between a multiple-term Moderate Republican Representative and a veteran Liberal Democrat Representative in which the topic of conversation is gun-control legislation. An exact date is unknown, but is certainly after the George Zimmerman verdict as evidenced by the conversation. A transcript is provided below:
D: So I know you’ve been supportive of some common-sense gun-control measures in the past—
R: and if you bring me some common-sense legislation I’ll be happy to look at it . [CHUCKLES]
D: Look, the President is still concerned about gun violence in this country and—
R: I hadn’t realized guns were still on his radar, what with the IRS, NSA, and Benghazi gun-running thing taking up so much of his time. Not to mention—
D: Look, if you Republicans want to keep trying talking about all these phony scandals—
R: I see you read your talking points before you came over.
D: Look, do you want to talk about this or not?
R: I’m listening, aren’t I?
D: Look, after Sandy Hook, Aurora, Gabby Giffords, Trayvon Martin—
R: Wait a second. What does Trayvon Martin have to do with gun-control?
D: I’m just saying, with all this gun violence—
R: I get that, but what does Trayvon Martin getting shot after jumping on George Zimmerman and beating him up have to do with Sandy Hook or Aurora?
D: That’s not important. I’m just trying to say that people being shot for no reason is a bad thing and we need to do something to stop it.
R: I agree, but I’m having trouble with some of your examples. People are never shot “for no reason.” There’s always a reason, but that reason is never “I have a gun, so I have to go shoot someone.”
D: Those boys in Oklahoma shot that baseball player just because they were bored—
R: Wait a second: they weren’t bored. Indications are that it was some sort of gang initiation—
R: AND, even if they had been simply bored, don’t you think that they would have done something violent even WITHOUT a gun? Do you think the gun was the deciding factor in that attack? Especially since one of them bragged of knocking out some other people. No guns involved in that.
D: Regardless, if you could just listen to some of the President’s proposals—
R: When he comes up with one worth listening to, then I will.
D: Now look—
R: Look at what? Look at the fact that all he—and the rest of your party—has managed to put forward is a rehash of laws that are already in place. You know that I don’t agree with passing legislation just to pass it. We can’t say that the current laws aren’t working—which is only because we’re not enforcing them, by the way—and then say the solution is to pass the exact same laws. That’s just stupid.
D: Are you calling the President stupid?
R: No. I’m saying that doing what you’re proposing is stupid. Smart people can do stupid things, too, you know.
D: Because if you are calling the President stupid, then I’m leaving right now—
R: I didn’t call him stupid. You’re not listening.
D: But what about these gun-control proposals?
R: Like the one from Davis and Pascrell?
R: With that ridiculous 20% tax on guns and 50% tax on ammo. Sure, the consumer panic will drive gun profits up in the short term, but what impact will that have on anyone but legal gun-buyers?
D: [UNINTELLIGIBLE] if you don’t want to be serious about this—
R: It seems like I’m the only one in this room being serious about this. Look, my next appointment is here. If you want to talk about this some more, talk to my aide outside and set something up.
R: Have a good one.