Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), one of the most outspoken anti-gun liberals in the Senate, tweeted Saturday that he supported the Second Amendment – just not the same one that gun-rights supporters believe in.

“I support the real 2nd Amendment,” wrote Murphy, “not the imaginary 2nd Amendment. And the real 2nd Amendment isn’t absolute.”

A day or two prior, commenting on the latest horrific school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas, Murphy said: “Let’s call it like it is: the horrifying inaction of Congress, slaughter after slaughter, has become a green light to would-be shooters, who pervert silence into endorsement.”

Ah. So Murphy is saying that the killer at that high school went into his rampage on Friday thinking: Well gee, Paul Ryan and the Republicans haven’t passed any gun control laws since Parkland…so that must mean they WANT me to kill my classmates!

We can’t know for sure what was on this psycho’s mind when he opened fire on his fellow high-schoolers, but we can say to a near-certainty that Congress’s “horrifying inaction” was not among his thoughts. Hey, we could be wrong.

Assuming that Murphy is using this shooting as a cheap political soapbox as Democrats are wont to do, though, shall we entertain his theory? Shall we wonder what exact “action” Congress might have taken to change this shooter’s mind? Shall we explore what Democrat-driven laws would have prevented this kid from stealing his father’s legally-purchased firearms that morning?

An “assault weapons” ban wouldn’t have done it, because the kid used a .38 and a pump-action shotgun. A universal background check bill wouldn’t have done it because this kid did not buy his own weapons. Even if he had, there was no criminal record that would have stopped him. So why is the left talking about this shooting as if their views on the Second Amendment have anything to do with it?

Murphy has yet to endorse banning the guns that the Santa Fe shooter used to carry out his massacre, so what is his point? Does he have one? Or is this just an excuse to use another set of dead kids to advance his agenda in the sickest imaginable way possible?

The other possibility is that Murphy and his fellow Democrats don’t want to stop at banning the AR-15. They actually do want to ban handguns and shotguns and any other guns that might conceivably be used to shoot another human being. They don’t want to limit the Second Amendment or interpret it in another way; they want to eliminate it from the Bill of Rights altogether. And they are willing to use any tragedy, no matter how tangentially connected, to further that goal.

Maybe Murphy can explain which choice accurately defines his remarks: Is he a sick, clueless opportunist or a fascist set on eradicating our constitutional rights?

Perhaps he’s just an idiot who should learn when to shut up.