Quote:

---

“I don’t understand it,” Arizona Senator John McCain said on Sunday’s Face the Nation. “The purpose of the United States senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people know where we stand.”

He said he’d encourage his colleagues not to follow through.

“What are we afraid of?” he asked. “Why would we not want, if this issue is as important as all of us think it is, why not take it on the world’s greatest deliberative—that’s the greatest exaggeration in history, by the way—but, you know, why not take it up an amendment and debate? The American people will profit from it. I do not understand why United States senators want to block debate when the leader has said that we can have amendments.”
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/04/08/mccain-blasts-fellow-republicans-threat
s-to-filibuster-gun-control-what-are-we-afraid-of/]
But now more are speaking up to question what, to me, is very questionable:

Quote:

---

The gun control debate has again been heating up recently, with a group of Republican senators threatening to filibuster any gun legislation introduced in the Senate. Joe Scarborough didn’t take well to this approach, skewering the GOP for being so resistant on an issue like background checks, which in polling has strong support. Reissuing his criticism from yesterday, Scarborough made it clear he felt his party is on the wrong side of the issue. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/scarborough-tears-into-gop-filibuster-on-gu
n-bill-is-anybody-awake-in-my-party/]

Quote:

---

...former RNC Chairman Michael Steele may have launched the most bitter friendly fire yet. On Chuck Todd‘s The Daily Rundown, Chairman Steele seemed to suggest that these Republicans are monsters, who don’t even care what happened in Newtown, when he urged those GOP Senators to “At least pretend that you give a damn about what happened.”

Chairman Steele torpedoed Russert’s theory that immigration would blot out the Newtown tragedy, and blasted the Republicans’ filibuster threat. “Even with the idea immigration is going to somehow eclipse the gun debate, it is just a boneheaded position to take,” he dais. “I don’t understand the idea of positioning the party, positioning the leadership against an issue that is a 90% issue with voters out there. At least pretend that you’re interested in it. At least pretend that you give a damn about what happened, and that you’re willing to make a step forward to resolve the concern that people have in the country about guns.”

“Regardless of where you are on the NRA and all of that, that’s not the point,” he continued, “this is some of the craziest posturing I’ve ever seen. When the country is hemorrhaging their concern on this issue, for the party to sit back and basically say ‘we’re not even listening to what you have to say,’ it’s crazy.”

Chairman Steele’s assessment of the GOP filibuster gang may be a good deal more harsh than any I’ve heard, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. Republicans have zero reason to block a vote on background checks, There is no political price to pay for allowing a vote, or even for allowing it to pass, because 90% of the people support it, and even the NRA doesn’t mind it that much. There’s also little political cost to voting against background checks, as Republicans and most independents will give them the cover of a “principled” stand. But blocking any vote at all risks great political cost, as a sense of fair play and obligation to the Newtown families could turn independents (and maybe even some Republicans) against these guys. So why do it? Maybe they are monsters. Or maybe this is not about blocking background checks at all. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/michael-steele-on-gop-filibuster-at-least-p
retend-you-give-a-damn-about-what-happened/]

Quote:

---

Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson broke with 14 of his Republican colleagues Tuesday, saying he believes gun control legislation deserves a “vote up or down.”

“I’ll speak for myself on that question,” Isakson said on CBS’s “This Morning” when asked about the filibuster. “There’s no ambivalence on the gun issue, I think everyone knows what the issues are. We have not seen the final draft of the legislation that was produced, I understand, last night, but I think it deserves a vote up or down.”

Isakson also said he could support a bill for universal background checks, depending on the language it contains.Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/republicans-gun-vote-89798.html#
ixzz2PzEbhn1n]

Quote:

---

Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, said that he supports universal background checks for all gun purchases, but even if he didn’t, he’d oppose plans to block the measure from even coming up for debate or for a vote.

“Let this come to a debate,” Mr. King said on CNN Tuesday morning. “Even if it doesn’t go down the way I want it to, I think the American people are entitled to a debate. To me, to use Senate rules to block a debate on an issue of this importance is just wrong. It’s not like something is trying to be [sneaked] through here.” More at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/9/rep-peter-king-says-sen
ate-gun-control-filibuster-/#ixzz2PzF5qvRt

---

So what ARE they "afraid" of?