Not really, was just wondering what makes you think there could be some support of the highest office  for an anti Second Amend agenda if the true statistic situation shows the right to bear arms plays no role or very little in most of the gun related violence tragedies?
At a time where after a terrible event, Congress is asked to look at what can be done, is it the normal course to first before trying to answer the question, try to find what the question is? I lean there. Including the NRA, who want an Amendment of the cherished Bill of Rights to be an accessory to commit a crime? I'd say no one and surely not the NRA. If a piece of legislation can be of any help, wouldn't you agree that it must be addressing the core of the weapons involved in the greater number of crimes and incidents and knowing if these weapons have an illegal origin or if the Second Amendment has turned against the People and the will of the Founding Fathers, to be the first question to answer without any back minded political agenda whether to support or fight against the right to bear arms?
If most of the weapons involved have been acquired and or detained through arm trafficking, smuggling or stolen, what good to expect from any good will legislation addressing the legal circuit of distribution, the  legal conditions of acquisition and detention?
See, I'd think I'd say that right now unless you have a better argument.