With President Donald Trump expected to announce his proposals to reduce gun violence this week, supporters of the Second Amendment and its protection of the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms are understandably wary.
In a way, frontal assaults upon a constitutionally protected right, such as Democrat presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke’s shouting at last week’s Democratic presidential debate, “Hell, yes,” in response to the question of whether he would confiscate some firearms, is a wake-up call. Despite the clear wording and history of the Second Amendment, and despite the Supreme Court decision (the Heller ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual, not just a collective, right), O’Rourke vowed to confiscate some guns even from private citizens who have never been charged with any criminal act.
But in contrast to O’Rourke — an open enemy of the Second Amendment —Trump was elected president vowing to protect the Second Amendment. Were he to propose restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, many of his supporters, many Republicans, and some other supposedly pro-gun-rights politicians, might just support such infringement, whereas they would strenuously oppose an open enemy of the Second Amendment such as O’Rourke and most of the Democratic field.
Trump has reportedly been conferring with two Democratic members of the Senate — Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Joe Manchin of West Virginia — and Republican Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. All three have been vocal supporters of the Second Amendment in the past, but with the recent rash of mass shootings they have begun to advocate gun restrictions such as stricter background checks. This has understandably worried Americans who believe the right to keep and bear arms is an important liberty, which we need to maintain.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
Additionally, Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, who has taken many other liberal positions, has reportedly been lobbying members of Congress to pass additional limitations on the right to keep and bear arms.
After the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Trump said we need more gun-control legislation. “I’m talking about meaningful, write that word, meaningful, meaningful background checks.” After the National Rifle Association (NRA) expressed concern, Trump appeared to back off, saying, “We already have very serious background checks.”
Trump has said, “Democrats want to confiscate guns from law-abiding Americans, so they are totally defenseless when somebody walks into their house with a gun.”
For years, gun-control advocates have protested that they are only for “common sense” gun-control legislation, not outright confiscation. But O’Rourke’s “hell, yes” remark when asked about confiscating certain weapons seems to confirm that confiscation is the ultimate goal for many gun-control advocates. Many Democrats are angry with O’Rourke for admitting that confiscation is the goal. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) said of O’Rourke’s remarks, “I frankly think that clip will be played for years at Second Amendment rallies,” lamenting that people will be using the clip to prove “that Democrats are coming for your guns.”
Trump appears to favor keeping guns out of the hands of people who have mental health issues, or as Trump calls them, “dangerous and deranged individuals.”
This means that Trump will most likely publicly support the passage of so-called red flag laws, laws in which guns can be taken away from individuals who have never been charged with any criminal wrong-doing whatsoever simply because some family member, neighbor, health professional, or law-enforcement person says they believe the person is a danger to either himself or others.
It should be noted that, as background checks have failed to stop mass shootings, it is almost certain that mass shootings will occur periodically even if red flag laws were passed in every state. Laws against murder, robbery, and rape do not stop all murder, robbery, and rape. Likewise, laws against drugs have done essentially nothing to stop the use, sale, and proliferation of drugs. And, because there will continue to be mass shootings, even with red flag laws, enemies of the Second Amendment will predictably agitate for even more laws to stop mass shootings.
At some point, the clamor to “do something” will lead to a demand for outright confiscation of all firearms from all citizens — regardless of the Second Amendment. At that point, will we be able to count on the president and Congress to defend the Second Amendment rights of Americans, or will they simply buckle to the need to “do something,” as President Trump has put it?
Whatever Trump proposes is unlikely to make much difference, except to embolden more Beto O’Rourke demagogues shouting, “Hell, yes, we’re coming for your guns.”
Steve Byas is a university professor teaching history and government and author of several books, including History’s Greatest Libels. He may be contacted at [email protected]
