you re talking about private gun shoels, gun sales. and i ll tell you what. these are 90-10 issues, but let s even talk about a tougher issue, the military-style weapons like ar-15. that s going to be hard to pass that ban in congress. but why can t we, joe, why can t congress figure out a way to make it so much harder for let s say, an angry, aggrieved person who wants to use an ar-15 to shoot up schools, make it so much harder for them to go through the process to get that to get that done? it can still with legal, but it can be a lot harder to get that, because let s face it.
that voted against certifying the results and voted against honoring those police officers, the police officers that protected them, i know that they re deeply offended by the use of the term insurrectionist or sedition, but if you actually look at the federal statute that got passed by congress on the definition of what a conspiracy to commit sedition is, it falls right in line with that, michael schmidt. it falls right in line with people committing violence or taking action to try to stop a constitutional action by being enacted by congress or other members of the united states government. and these images are extraordinarily stark. the video that you just played highlighted and reminded me of one of the most important things i think i learned in my
city hall beat during the giuliani administration from 1992 through 2011, willie. good luck with that argument. joe, you can t help but think as you watch that video about a d.c. metro police officer being beaten, that another officer, michael fanone walked the halls of congress and can t get as much as a handshake from republicans up on the hill. they re still insisting many in the insurrectionist caucus are insisting that it was just, you know, just regular tour groups. you, of course, have a united states senator who from wisconsin, who is saying that he didn t feel in danger at all. there was no threat. that these were peace-loving people, and it s just not the case. these were people that were leading an insurrection. if you look and i know people in the insurrectionist caucus
they see legal arguments that don t visit their view of the law. and in this case, we re talking about whether or not the case should have been brought in the first place, and they re saying, these guys don t have a reason to bring this case because they weren t armed by anything. if you go back to the time where the trump administration joined this case, some of his own lawyers told him not to. they told him this was a loser case, not because of the standing issue, but the merits, that the court didn t even get to. some of them told trump 9-0 against him. the merits of the argument were actually the merits of the arguments was the law couldn t stand if you took out that tax penalty. without tax penalty, they had removed, as steven cobarrett mentioned in 2017, that the law would fall. congress did vote on keeping the rest of the law, even as it got rid of that tax penalty.
rivals love to see us divided, love to see us fighting each other. we re really playing into their own hands when we do that. you are part of a problem solver s caucus. mika talked about a problem with the republican party, but there actually are republican members in that problem solver s caucus. talk about your relationships with them and what ll together are trying to do to move legislation forward that s bipartisan and for the good of this country. well, let s everybody know first that the problem solver s caucus is 29 democrats, 29 republicans. we meet on a regular basis, sometimes two or three times a week and we tried to find common ground with each other. i have a lot of great personal relationships with members of the congress, both the democrats and the republicans. and even on things that we disagree upon, we ve tried to build trust over the past several years to understand why i disagree with you, based upon