Many gun owners will support this logical idea as it will keep many illegal guns off the streets.

and doesn't change the fact that the ATF is really underfunded and I've seen no evidence the FBI considers it a priority.

We need big change, not little change. The President is right on these issues and the Republicans and chickenshit Democrats are wrong.

...why stop guns from getting into prohibited people's hands by making stronger penalties for straw purchasers when the better solution is to inconvenience mad men by making them substitute their first choice in a weapon with an almost identical second choice. And further inconvenience them by making them carry 3 ammo magazines instead of one. Yeah.

Smoke and mirrors bullshit like a new AWB is one thing. Toughening measures against trafficking, straw purchases, and so forth is another. Universal background checks, a secure firearms registry, mandatory secure storage requirements...there are many potentially effective measures that could be enacted, and which many gun owners would also support. Spending time, effort, and political capital on fluff (that has no chance whatsoever of being enacted) makes no sense when measures that might accomplish something could be pushed.

to determine who supports the AWB even though it is obvious that there are not enough votes.

At I type this I am watching Piers Morgan insisting on Senators revealing their position on gun control.

Let's say that a vote occurs on the Senate floor and an honest Democrat who supports gun rights in a Red state decides to vote against the bill. Pro-gun control Democrats in his state will do their best to defeat him the in next Democratic primary and replace him with a Democrat who supports gun control. If they succeed they will nominate a candidate who has less chance of getting elected to office than the pro-gun Democrat had to get re-elected. The incumbant in a election usually wins against a candidate who has never held that office.

You must be rather close to the Republicans to understand what they would love.
Of course with only 53% support for an AWB and 56% for magazine restrictions, it wouldn't be wise to have Republicans vote against them.

shot at over the last 40 years.

I often talk politics with them and while they often agree with many goals of the Democratic Party they usually tell me that they will never vote for a Democrat as the Democratic Party is the gun control party.

In that sense, I am "rather close" to Republicans who own firearms and target shoot on a regular basis. I get a lot of good natured razing because I am a Democrat.

I do find that most of the gun owners I know wish to see our laws better enforced and many have good suggestions on how to pass effective legislation. While they are horrified at the recent massacres we all have lived through, they refuse to believe that they are in any way responsible for the actions of criminals and those with severe mental issues.

Most of the gun owners I shoot with own "assault weapons" -- either pistols with a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds or rifles such as the AR-15. I am somewhat unusual as I don't. However I may decide to buy an AR-15 if I move to a more rural area where I might use it for target shooting and hunting feral hogs on my property. I have a dream that one day I might live far out in the country with my own gun range on my property. Unfortunately it will probably never come to be.

who would vote for a Democrat if only they would support forced childbearing.
Someone who is rabidly pro gun would probably better off voting for the Republican candidate.

That is possibly because most are not "born again" Christians. The majority would rather go to the target range on Sunday rather than attend church. I know a good number of agnostics and atheists who enjoy shooting.

Sorry if I didn't make my views clear. I think that Democrats should force the Republicans to vote on the AWB and the Magazine restrictions. Both measures are supported by a solid majority of the voters. Since this is a democratic republic, the representatives are supposed to reflect the voters views.
If someone's guns are so important that they would vote for a Republican because those damn Democrats made them shoot from a 10 round magazine and took away the pistol grip on their rifles, then they probably should.

States with large populations such as New York, California and Illinois may favor strong gun control laws but many with much smaller populations strongly support gun rights. So while the majority of Americans might support an AWB, the majority of states might not.

But some Democrats in the Senate do come from smaller Red states. The current push for the AWB by some in the Democratic Party might endanger the seats of pro-gun Senate Democrats in these states as it could rally Democratic voters to replace them with pro-gun control candidates in upcoming primaries who would not enjoy the advantage of incumbency when they run against a Republican candidate.

Consequently our party could lose seats in the Senate. Most Republicans in the Senate are known to support gun rights and proving that they do by forcing a vote will not do as much damage to them as it will to Democrats.

Currently there are 53 Democratic Senators, 45 Republicans and 2 Independents. Senators who support gun rights from small states can offset the Senators from states with larger populations so the fact that the majority of Americans wish to see an AWB pass is irrelevant in the Senate. States with large populations do not hold more power than states with low populations in the Senate.

Remember that it isn't t a Senator's job to bow to the wishes of the majority of people in the nation but to represent the views of the voters who elected him. If the majority of voters in his state that sent him to office oppose an AWB, why should he vote for one.

rule from the presiding officer's chair in the Senate that the filibuster rules are out of order, and that will break the back of the NRA's legislative hold on this country's legislative branch.

In the meantime, keep pushing at the state level for better laws like the one's signed today in Colorado, and NY's SAFE Act.

I would really like to see the Congressional law that gives the gun manufacturers immunity from civil suits challenged.

The contents of which have been replaced with S 443. See that bill for ease of reading:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:SN00443