· President Trump’s consideration to push for gun-control measures is causing trepidations among some of his advisers who have privately raised concerns on this. Trump is aiming at taking action on the issue of back-to-back shootings in the country as well as preventing mentally unstable people from owning guns.
· Trump targets preventing lunatics from handling guns by strengthening background checks. However, some of his advisers urged him to desist from pursuing this second amendment behind any other gun control measures such as the red flag legislation. Trump Jr. has raised concerns over both strengthening background checks and the red flag legislation.
· Prominent conservatives are against Trump’s consideration and have urged the president not to take any actions on guns. On the other hand, campaign advisers requested for a one-week period to gauge the results of any actions taken or not taken on guns. The Democrats fully support the president’s proposal.
· On Tuesday, the White House staff held a meeting to determine which of the two sides of the debate have enough bipartisan support to win approval.
· Following the mass shootings in three states, background checks for gun purchases are being expanded. The president also expressed optimism that Congress can pass the legislation according to his proposal believing the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would support. However, Mr. McConnell has declined this and last week he gave an insinuation that the red flag legislation has support.
· White House officials said their conversations were beyond background checks, red flag laws, and mental health. They said they were also focused on addressing other cultural forces which influence mass shootings and finding ways to use the internet in determining possible attackers and authorizing death penalty for offenders of mass shootings.
In a surprising turn of events, President Trump has indicated his willingness to take some measures of gun control. One might argue—how couldn’t he? The sheer magnitude of tragedy of the consecutive El Paso and Dayton shootings thrusted our nation’s toxic relationship with firearms back into the lime light. As American citizens, we’ve become accustomed to the post-tragedy timeline, usually culminating in relative inaction.
Trump’s vocal consideration of expanding background checks and further preventing mentally unstable people from possessing guns is rustling the feathers of those in his corner. Understandably so—the Second Amendment functions as a conservative beacon, strapping in the support of a demographic that has a socioemotional relationship with their firearms, no matter the tragedies they facilitate. Conservatives in Washington sharing whispers about Trump’s inconvenient agenda are engaged in a different kind of firearm affair. Besides its role as a political chess piece, many conservatives make substantial sums of money by striking deals with private companies and lobbyists. Perhaps we are ought to be shocked by their willingness to shrug off the recent destruction of lives and the unraveling of the fabric of American families and communities. But should we—really—be all that shocked?
Washington D.C. attracts the unsavory. And when Trump even entertains a check on firearms, handfuls flock to squash the sheer possibility of a gun control bill ever passing. But what does that say about your party’s objectives? Isn’t the loss of American lives what we want to prevent the most? What about pro-life efforts? Can you really place a higher importance on a bundle of unborn cells, rather than protecting the lives of Americans who have worked, struggled, and built lives within our communities? Where is the logic?