Why is President Donald Trump pushing gun-control measures in the wake of the Florida school shooting?
Townhall reported that the administration is “supportive of efforts to improve the federal background check system.”
What would these so-called improvements look like?
Lawmakers introduced a bill last November called the Fix NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) Act, which would give states and federal agencies incentives to upload the records already required under current law.
Background checks seem reasonable and already occur, but would passing this specific bill signal a willingness to concede to gun grabbers every time a tragedy happens? Who could end up caught up in the gun-ban net?
The president also asked U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions to outlaw “bump stocks,” devices that modify semi-automatic guns to render them automatic. (Congress already banned automatic weapons. Is this an empty concession?)
Fox News reported that the president has signaled “an openness to the idea of raising the minimum age for purchasing certain firearms.”
The danger in conceding any ground on an enumerated, fundamental right to protect ourselves with firearms, of course, is criminals don’t obey the rules. The rights of law-abiding Americans — if they want to remain law-abiding — are at stake. No gun tragedy trumps an individual American’s constitutional right to protect himself or herself from being a victim of such tragedies with a firearm.
Awareness starts at the local level, not the national. Aren’t neighbors the ones who see their fellow neighbors in trouble first?
“He wasn’t a mean kid in the sense that he would try and be hurtful to people,” Guerra said. “He was just a kid that I feel was looking for a friend and no one was there for him in a time that was rough for him.”
How would infringing on an individual’s right stop someone determine to murder others, regardless of the reason or the weapon used to kill?
It’s not the president’s, national legislators’, or any gun lobby’s fault when someone uses a gun to murder people.
The point of contention in the “gun debate” isn’t that people are necessarily opposed to stronger background checks, for example, but where concessions end. Gun-rights proponents are rightly concerned. The result of a disarmed populace is a defenseless populace.
Is the president supporting too many concessions to the gun-control lobby?