While I am presently a bit overloaded to ask this question in multiple public forums, it is definitely worth asking Senator Schumer why he is able to "waive the rules" to pass his gun ban through the Senate -- but not willing to "waive the rules" to pass UAFA, the MREA, or a DOMA repeal through the Senate.
Taking Chuck on from a pro-2nd-Amendment perspective (however right it is) won't embarrass him and divide up his support base, it will simply make him happy. Taking him on by questioning his priorities (and listing causes he claims to support that we also can get behind) is the wedge that cracks through the Demopublican doublespeak.
Incidentally, cliché-embracing conservatives take note -- if Schumer's bill does eventually pass (and gets signed by a future president), it will be an "activist court ruling against the will of the people" that stops it from becoming enforceable law (or repeals it), as a result of its violation of the Second Amendment. "Constitutionalist" arguments that undermine the Bill of Rights as it pertains to the people won't only get the "terrorists," gays and other GOP-targeted groups in trouble -- it will get the GOP and its constituents in trouble once President Hillary assumes office in 2008 with a strengthened House and Senate majority (and all those new presidential powers the Bush administration and prior GOP majorities generously created for her).