But could that change?
Sure it could, and it's important to go back to a major school shooting from 1989, where five children were killed and 30 wounded in Stockton, California, to see how the Congress reacted.
In May of 1990, the Senate was working on a wide-ranging anti-crime bill. Democrats were talking about moves on gun control, but the conventional wisdom at the time was that they could not get a majority in the Senate on an assault weapons ban.
But Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) got agreement to hold a vote on an amendment that would ban a series of specific types of weapons.
"The gun used by Patrick Edward Purdy on that day was not a hunting rifle designed for sportsmen but a combat weapon made in China for use by Communist troops," said Metzenbuam on the Senate floor.
"Why should children in a schoolyard be killed for no purpose at all? Because somebody has a gun that can shoot so many bullets so rapidly?" argued Metzenbaum.
Most Republicans were opposed to the plan, arguing it would wrongly limit Second Amendment rights.
"I state at the outset of this debate that the only real assault these so-called assault weapons provisions make is on the legitimate rights of law-abiding Americans," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who is still in the Senate today.
"The chief of the Los Angeles Police Department has testified that such weapons should be legislated out of the hands of killers because they turn our streets into battlefields," countered Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA).
"Are you going to tamper unnecessarily and needlessly with the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the United States," asked Sen. James McClure (R-ID), who argued to Democrats that the Second Amendment should not be abridged.
"Mr. President, we all know what is at issue here. It is a question of safety and security," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), who labeled attacks by the National Rifle Association, "hogwash."
In the end, the assault weapons ban prevailed by the narrowest of margins, 50-49, with 7 GOP Senators joining 43 Democrats.
It was a huge surprise.
I remember running down the hall in the Capitol immediately after the vote to find Senators to interview; it was one of those rare days when something happened that wasn't really supposed to happen.
Those Democrats voting "Yes" back in 1990 included some from states more likely to support gun rights, like Sen. David Boren of Oklahoma, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, and the Senate Majority Leader, George Mitchell of Maine.
Among the Republicans voting for that plan that day, Sen. Al d'Amato of New York, Sen. Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas, Sen. John Warner of Virginia and Sen. Pete Wilson of California.
There were also a dozen Democratic Senators that day who opposed the assault weapons ban, many of them southerners with names like Hollings, Heflin, Breaux, Sanford and Johnston.
But one name in the Democratic "No" column also stands out almost 23 years later - Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, now the Senate Majority Leader.
What will Reid do on the President's plans in 2013?
If you look for clues on Reid's campaign website from the 2010 elections, there is a page that's all about Reid's support for gun rights.
And there's a big quote right at the top of that page.
"I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Senator Reid in our fight to protect the Second Amendment," said Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association.
Will the NRA still be willing to say that about Reid a few months from now?
So, while I look at the lay of the land right now in Congress and wonder how these plans from President Obama might fare in the Congress, history reminds us that sometimes there are surprises on major issues.
We'll see whether these plans from the President go anywhere or not.
About the Author