I said it's not "slightly more likely" because while both brands of presidents have pursued and enacted gun control, one brand does so at a rate that is more than "slightly more likely" than the other.One restrictive aspect of attempting to communicate with others is that one doesn't have free reign to redefine commonly used terms to suit his current purposes.
I'm not sure why you're pushing back on this. You do remember saying this, right?Are you now saying that you had another motive besides only providing another example of what I was talking about?
No, I responded to your post. My response has nothing to do with a previous post.
As I have said in other places, I think gun control is an election year talking point, like "border security", lowering taxes and a bunch of other baloney that doesn't seem to ever get legislated near as often as it is discussed. The real work of elected officials (when they actually do any), can't usually be articulated in a Tweet or sound bite, so they resort to this kind of nonsense to sound presidential and to appear partisan enough to the their supporters.
Which doesn't mean that I don't think Democrats won't pass gun control if they think they can, AND get re-elected. In 1994 crime in the US was high, and it isn't now. The Crime Bill AWB came and went, and no one really cared. Polls show there isn't a lot of support for a new ban.
Right now the biggest problem we're likely facing is UWBs, and that is happening state to state regardless of a national law. People in strong gun states don't have to worry about that happening in their states, but with the exception of TX many of those states have more economic problems for their populations to worry about.
This election is ridiculous. Your choices are third party candidates who can't win, a Democrat and a reality TV star. There is no good choice.