We’re in “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” mode now.

Speaking to local and state officials on gun violence, Trump says we have to look at
• the internet
• video games
• movies pic.twitter.com/OJ1MgJZJWi

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) February 22, 2018

He’s right that a whole lot of violent video games and movies have hit the market in the past 20 years. A lot, lot, lot of guns have been sold too. Annnnnnd…

The core argument of gun-rights proponents is that law-abiding people shouldn’t have their liberties limited because of the actions of a deranged few. Hard to see why the same logic wouldn’t apply for video-game aficionados and movies buffs. In fairness to Trump, he’s not talking about a ban here, he’s talking about a ratings system for violence specifically in entertainment. But c’mon: Does anyone believe the degenerate who shot up the school in Parkland would have acted differently if only “Grand Theft Auto” came with a sterner warning?

This is Trump trying to grasp his way to politically solid ground knowing that he’s caught between his base on the one hand and a huge swath of the rest of the country that wants some action on guns. What can he offer the latter that won’t totally alienate the former? How about raising the legal age to purchase an AR-15 to 21, as he suggested yesterday? Would that work? Er, no, says the NRA:

NRA Public Affairs Director Jennifer Baker said in a statement, “Federal Law prohibits adults under the age of 21 from purchasing a handgun from a licensed firearm dealer. Legislative proposals that prevent law-abiding adults aged 18-20 years old from acquiring rifles and shotguns effectively prohibits them for purchasing any firearm, thus depriving them of their constitutional right to self-protection.”

She added, “We need serious proposals to prevent violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from acquiring firearms. Passing a law that makes it illegal for a 20 year-old to purchase a shotgun for hunting or an adult single mother from purchasing the most effective self-defense rifle on the market punishes law-abiding citizens for the evil acts of criminals.”

How about expanding background checks? POTUS seems keen on that:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/966662241977360384

Dana Loesch suggested last night that the NRA might be receptive to that proposal, which may or may not be true. But it’s unclear what Trump means. Does he want to expand background checks so that all gun purchases require one, or does he want to expand the background check system to include non-criminal yet still “troubling” behavioral red flags like the ones scattered across the Parkland shooter’s past? That would be dicey constitutionally (although a “Gun Violence Restraining Order” system might survive scrutiny). Florida AG Pam Bondi raised a related idea with Trump at the White House this afternoon:

After Florida AG Pam Bondi suggests policy to take people's guns away if they're committed to a mental institution, Trump says, "you want them to take the guns, not go through the six months of a legal trial." pic.twitter.com/JsKtJjaTky

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 22, 2018

She seems to be talking about a process where you might lose your guns temporarily if you’re hospitalized for a mental crisis and then indefinitely if the local DA can persuade a judge that it’s not safe to give them back to you. That sounds a lot like a gun-violence restraining order with the notable exception that it’s the state, not the “troubled” person’s family, who’d be petitioning the court to suspend the person’s gun rights. Is the NRA cool with that?

The fact that POTUS is now tweeting praise for the group’s leaders makes me think he knows he’s at risk of a schism on the right:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/966681883206668289

He’s also been defending his proposal to arm teachers — although, he made clear this morning, not *all* teachers. Only the ones who already own guns and have received training would be encouraged to bring their weapons to class. (He mentioned giving them bonuses to carry too. Is the moral incentive to stop a mass murder while it’s in progress not enough?) I see the logic of that, and “more guns, not less” will play well with the NRA and the right, but my strong suspicion is that most of the country will balk at the idea of solving school shootings by having additional guns in classrooms. See what I mean about Trump’s difficulty in finding solid ground between the two sides?

Exit question via John Ziegler: Would a Hillary victory have been a better outcome for gun-rights supporters on their pet issue? If President Clinton were proposing new gun-control measures, the right would be unified against them irrespective of the substance of the proposals. With Trump proposing them, righties are torn between their support for gun rights and their support for Trump.