So, I don't think it would have mattered what questions were asked; the responses would have been the same.
[[So, I don’t think it would have mattered what questions were asked;]]
My feeling is that if tucker had mentioned the second amendment in his question- then swallwell’s ‘the children are dying’ would have been seen as his liberal dictatorship attempt to thwart the second amendment ‘for the children’s sake’ to which carlson could have replied that that is not a valid reason to violate our inalienable rights, and pointed out that parents have a right to protect their children in their own homes with guns that are up to the task should multiple attackers attack- He could have also pointed out that just because a deranged individual gets his hands on guns it does not mean our constitutional rights should be violated- the problem isn’t guns, it’s mentally ill people that is the problem- you take guns away- they will use bombs which will be even more devastating- or they will use knives- like the maggot in Japan recently that killed quite a number of people-
Tucker could have made it crystal clear that people like swallwell will use any illegitimate excuse to ban guns- He could have been more effective had he listened to swalwell’s diatribes before he invited him on, and prepared his questions better ahead of time- swalwell kept falling back on ‘the military is outgunned’ which is utter nonsense- Tucker didn’t even address that lie-