Turns Out Democrats Are Reduced to Stammering Incoherence When They're Asked About the Most Difficult, Wing-Demanded Parts of Their Agenda, Too

From HotAir.com:

Via John McCormack, this makes twice in less than a week that a prominent, proudly pro-choice congressional Democrat has been reduced to stammering non sequiturs after a question about late-term abortion. Last time it was Nancy Pelosi, who explained the difference between what Kermit Gosnell did and what Republicans are trying to ban by mumbling something about her faith and then quickly moving on. Today it’s abortion warrior Diana DeGette, co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus and ardent gun-control advocate. (You might remember DeGette from the post-Newtown debate for suggesting that magazines can’t be reloaded.) Simple question for her: Given what we now know about what Gosnell did, why not endorse restrictions on late-term abortion so that other viable babies aren’t serially murdered? “If it saves just one life” was good enough to justify a big gun-control push. Why isn’t it good enough to justify, shall we say, an abortion-control push? Her answer, transcribed by McCormack:

“Many Democrats, when they were arguing for gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting said even if this saves one life it will be worth doing. Why not support this bill then, if it undoubtedly will save lives of babies that have been carried throughout 5 months of pregnancy?

DeGette said, “Well, this is, this is. … We already have laws in many states of this country. This bill is blatantly unconstitutional.”

“And, and if you look at the perceived—if you look at the stated reason of doing this legislation the Kermit Gosnell case, that gentleman was convicted of murder and sentenced to life,” DeGette said. “Any other questions?”

When CNSNews.com tried to follow up, DeGette said, “No, excuse me. Any other questions?”

 So it turns out that constitutional rights do trump if-it-saves-just-one-life imperatives. Imagine that.

So Congresswoman DeGette, since the Supreme Court has ruled in Heller, that owning a handgun is a constitutional right, as they did in Roe, doesn't than mean that Congress CAN NOT pass any restriction on handgun ownership, since it would ALSO be UNCONSTITUTIONAL?  I mean, all one is asking for is consistency when regarding constitutional right.

Or does that only apply toward liberal approved rights and ruling?