,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
What is the evidence that HR8—the House's background checks legislation—if it had been law, would have altered the outcomes in Gilroy, El Paso, or Dayton?
As with the flawed "white supremacy is like ISIL" analogy, it seems counterproductive to neener neener over empty bills.
As with the flawed "white supremacy is like ISIL" analogy, it seems counterproductive to neener neener over empty bills.
(Also, let's assume for the sake of the hypo that the effective date of HR8, if it had passed the Senate, would have been amended to be somewhat less than 210 days it called for.
HR8 wouldn't have been in effect yet, even if it passed the Senate and was signed the next day.)
HR8 wouldn't have been in effect yet, even if it passed the Senate and was signed the next day.)
If this is accurate, then the answer to my question, would the House-passed background check legislation that Sen. Schumer is demanding the Senate hold an emergency session to pass have made a difference, is "no."
No "loophole" to close. If this is accurate.
No "loophole" to close. If this is accurate.
"Do something, anything!" is not responsible lawmaking. The job is NOT to panic.
