On the long list of excuses and deflections gun rights activists use to shut down any talk of gun regulation, one critical angle comes down to numbers. Mass shootings, school shootings, gun massacres — whatever you want to call them — only make up a tiny percentage of the number of people killed every year by guns in the United States. That’s true. Relatedly, AR-15s, the mass shooters’ firearm of choice, account for only a tiny percentage of overall firearms deaths in the United States. That’s true. Indeed, some noted that the 10 African-Americans murdered in a Buffalo supermarket on May 14th may not even have been a majority of the African-Americans killed by firearms on that single day. Using these very real numbers, gun rights activists portray supporters of assault weapons bans, bans on high capacity magazines and the rest as reactive and innumerate. It’s similar to the way that gun activists sometimes try to shut down restriction conversation by noting how people horrified by all the carnage don’t know all the technical differences between this gun and that one.

I consider myself middle of the road on police and criminal justice reform issues. As I said in the new episode of the podcast just out this afternoon, high crime rates will snuff out criminal justice reform as surely as night follows day. I’d reiterate a point I’ve made at other points over the years: no one has a greater interest in low crime rates than liberals and progressives because high crime rates spawn conservative politics. They don’t just turn the tide against more humane criminal justice policies. They shift the whole political universe in a more authoritarian, conservative direction. Again, just an observable fact.

But with all this said, the narrative emerging out of yesterday’s primaries that voters sent a big rebuke to Democrats over law and order politics or that it was a rejection of criminal justice reformers is at best incomplete.

This afternoon, in response to the arrest of a man who said he planned to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Republican National Committee sent out an email with the subject heading “The Democrat SCOTUS Assassin.”

I see this as largely comic relief in contrast to the weighty issues currently coming down the pike. But it’s remarkable that these pieces still get written. The Times Peter Baker has a new piece out which makes clear that, according to Jared Kushner, Kushner washed his hands of all of the post-election Big Lie politicking and had nothing to do with any of that bad stuff. “[H]e chose at that pivotal moment to focus instead on his personal project of Middle East diplomacy.” In fact, not only did he have nothing to do with it and not do any bad things, but his lack of presence as a moderating influence meant that the post-election conspiracy leading up to the January 6th insurrection was even crazier and more dangerous than it otherwise would have been. In fact, the whole Trump presidency would have been much worse if not for Kushner’s steadying presence. This may sound like a hyperbolic summary of the article. It’s not. Read it and see for yourself. It’s based on a forthcoming book by Baker and his wife Susan Glasser of The New Yorker. I would be remiss if I didn’t note that in fact Kushner did no bad things, according to the account of Mr. Kushner provided to Mr. Baker.

You learn a lot of things when you hear from TPM Readers talking to the offices of their congressional representatives. One thing is straightforward answers to constituent questions: I oppose the filibuster; I support the filibuster. But just as interesting in some ways is the culture of different offices. Some are very solicitous of constituent feedback and questions — some even perhaps overeager to tell constituents’ what they want to hear. But others take a very different approach. So for instance, when TPM Reader DM contacted Robert Menendez’s office, a staffer simply told her they didn’t want to answer the question. Well, okay. Meanwhile a staffer in Angus King’s office walked TPM Reader PL through King’s conflicted feelings and thoughts about the filibuster.

This seems to be a result that many in Iowa expected but far fewer outside of Iowa. Michael Franken appears to be trouncing Abby Finkenauer in the primary battle to challenge Chuck Grassley. Currently 60% to 37% with an estimated 44% of the vote counted. Grassley is an institution in Iowa. It’s a GOP trending state in a GOP year. But an 88-year-old senator is always vulnerable to the charge that it’s time to retire. So always a chance.

Don’t miss Matt’s article about the “independent state legislature” theory. We’ve discussed it in passing before. It’s a borderline absurd reading of the federal constitution which corrupt judges like the ones who now dominate the Supreme Court want to use to basically rig the electoral process in the United States.

Updated at 8:47 PM eastern

As always, it’s fascinating to hear from you about what you hear from your senators on a Roe protecting bill and the filibuster. I wanted to give you a quick summary of what we’ve heard so far.

So far we have these Senators who have either publicly stated support for a Roe bill and changed filibuster rules or their offices told constituents that they did.

I’ve been leafing through your emails about contacting or not contacting your senators. I love these emails because ordinary citizens are able to find things out in a way that professional journalists often are not. But in many cases I hear from TPM Readers who say something like, Great you’re doing this but no point in contacting my senators in Generic Blue State because they’re definitely pro-choice and they aren’t crazy about the filibuster. I can’t stress this enough: It really doesn’t matter much until it’s a specific statement about this in particular: changing the filibuster rules to pass a Roe-protecting bill in the next Congress.

TPM Reader RP called up her senators in Michigan and putting Roe on the ballot in November doesn’t seem to have registered.

Thanks to Josh for yesterday’s piece, “Have You Called Your Senator?” I called Sen. Peter’s regional office in Marquette, MI to ask whether he’d go on record in favor of changing the filibuster to allow a Roe bill to pass next Congress. The guy on the phone had no idea what I was talking about. I called Senator Stabenow’s local office—ditto.