Deadlines are catnip to legislative exhibitionists who like to advertise their passions by forcing the federal government to the brink of default or shutdown, and occasionally right over that brink. There's an opportunity right now as Congress confronts the Dec. 11 expiration date on a bipartisan law that funds the government.

Republicans, old pros at pressure tactics, look at the must-pass $1.1 trillion spending bill and see opportunities galore – to repeal financial and environmental regulations, "pause" the process of admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees, protest abortion by cutting federal funds for Planned Parenthood and do what they can to gut the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

From Democrats? Nothing. But what if Democrats acted more like Republicans?

With three people murdered and nine injured by a shooter at a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs, six children robbed of a parent, with mass shootings a regular feature of American life and gun violence stealing lives every day, why not hold out for tighter gun laws? In a way it's poetic justice. What could be more pro-life than trying to save lives?

No money for the government unless and until we have a truly universal system of background checks for gun buyers, one that covers purchases made online and at gun shows and keeps guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and suspected terrorists. And no money for the government unless and until Congress passes a bipartisan bill that would make sure the people who most need psychiatric help are getting it, that adequate hospital beds and outpatient treatment are available, and that families receive the information they need to help.

I know it's not in fashion these days to call on experts who have experience in a field, but this is a bill conceived by a clinical psychologist, Republican Rep. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, and a psychiatric nurse, Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. They deserve to be trusted. Their bill deserves to become law, and the sooner the better.

A parade of Republicans has used such ultimatums to demonstrate commitment to conservative causes. There's rarely a strategy to succeed. Failure is usually inevitable, by way of Senate Democrats in blocking mode or President Barack Obama with his veto pen. But that is secondary to the headlines and sometimes personal success that they achieve en route to their preordained dead end.

And you can't dismiss this as simply both parties protecting their own presidents. Republicans did shut down the government when Democrats Obama and Bill Clinton before him were president and never pulled that stunt on George W. Bush, even when they disagreed with his policies. And now Democrats, with Obama in the White House, are calling for a "clean" spending bill, with no poison-pill riders on Obamacare, refugees, Planned Parenthood or anything else.

But here's the difference: Democrats didn't challenge Bush, either. Did they filibuster in the Senate over tax cuts for the wealthy or the Iraq war, or the debt run up by those policies? No, they did not, and many Democrats in both the House and the Senate voted to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Not a surprise: It's well documented in many polls over the years that most Democrats are interested in compromise and most Republicans are not.

The most prominent example of a liberal matching conservative fervor, in fact, may have been Sen. Bernie Sanders' eight-hour filibuster in 2010 against extending those Bush tax cuts for two years. Two notable aspects: He wasn't matching GOP obstructionism, because agreements had already been reached on a tax deal and a time to vote on it. As The Washington Post put it, "Sanders wasn't actually stopping anything." In addition, Sanders – now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination – was railing against a deal worked out by a Democratic president.

So should Democrats now take a page from the Republican playbook?

They do seem to have the public on their side. Two polls in October, from AP-GFK and Gallup, showed increased support for tighter laws. Gallup found that 55 percent favor stricter laws on gun sales, while only 33 percent do not. That's a "distinct rise" of 8 percentage points from 2014, analyst Art Swift wrote, adding that "In a maelstrom of debate about guns, Americans have clear-cut views of at least some aspects of the debate."

On the other hand, there are tactics that may be more practical and carry less risk of backlash, such as state ballot initiatives that give voters a direct say. Last year, voters in Washington state approved universal background checks for gun purchasers. Nevadans will vote in 2016 on whether to strengthen background checks and there are efforts to get proposals onto 2016 ballots in Maine to require background checks for online and Internet purchases (some are now exempt); in Colorado to ban concealed weapons on public college campuses; and in California to ban large-capacity magazines and require background checks for ammunition purchases.

The odds of success in that handful of blue and purple states are much higher than holding out for congressional action in the legislative equivalent of a primal scream. And if the government did shut down for a while in a confrontation over guns, Democrats and Obama could well be blamed and take the kind of popularity hit that the GOP endured after the 1995, 1996 and 2013 shutdowns.