Don’t you even care? Or is this politically strategic incrementalism that you simply can’t state out loud at this point?
Is full gun control “abridge too far” that might be accomplished with two separate bridges done sequentially?
If so (and it is), then this demonstrates political opportunism at the expense of the children killed (and it does).
If you really think banning gun types helps reduce these incidents, then banning ALL guns is better than only certain types.
I think republicans have opened a door here with the 1950 era law prohibiting protests outside a judges home. Seems like incremental change to the 1st amendment is ok with your party. Why not the same for the 2nd amendment. You know, precedent and such.
(no message)