Multiple tragic mass shootings have once again gripped the nation and thrown Americans in a tizzy of debate about gun control. These latest tragedies have managed to get bipartisan support for new gun control measures with president Donald Trump, prominent Republicans and Democrats coming out swinging just hours after the shootings.
Echoing the famous sentiment of Rahm Emmanuel of "never (letting) a serious crisis to go to waste," Trump came out aggressively this week noting that "We must have something good, if not GREAT, come out of these two tragic events!"
Following his Tweets, Trump gave a speech at the White House calling for stricter gun laws.
“We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process,” Trump said at the White House during a statement responding to the weekend massacres that killed at least 31 people in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. “That is why I have called for red-flag laws, also known as extreme-risk protection orders.”
Trump's remarks are on board with new gun legislation proposed by democrats which has bipartisan support from ostensible supporters of 2nd Amendment rights on the right. This is not, however, pro-gun rights.
Republicans pushing for controversial red flag laws should come as no surprise, however, as it has long been on their agenda. As TFTP previously reported in February of 2018, after the tragic shooting in Parkland, FL, President Donald Trump took to national television to betray his oath to the Constitution and his supporters and famously said, "take the guns first, go through due process second." While this was largely ignored by his base and downplayed in the media since then, that's exactly what's been happening. Trump has simply rebranded it as "rapid due process."
But would grabbing guns from people deemed a risk by the state actually have any effect on mass violence? Not likely.
Stronger background checks would have little to no effect on mass shootings as most of the mass shooters acquire their guns legally and pass the background checks. As Reason points out:
The elements of that legislation are mostly window dressing that would do little or nothing to prevent attacks like these. The most frequently mentioned policy, "universal background checks," is plainly irrelevant to these particular crimes, since both the El Paso shooter and the Dayton shooter purchased their weapons legally, meaning they did not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records. Nor do the vast majority of mass shooters, who either passed background checks or could have. Neither requiring background checks for private transfers nor creating "strong background checks," as President Donald Trump has proposed (perhaps referring to the same policy), would make a difference in such cases.
But what about red flag laws that take guns from people deemed a risk?
Citizens who are targeted by these laws will be deemed guilty first and only after their guns are taken, will they have a chance to defend themselves in court. This is the de facto removal of due process.
As Reuters reports, under the legislation, a family member or law enforcement officer could petition a judge to seize firearms from a person they think is a threat to themselves or others. The judge could then hold a hearing without the targeted person being present and grant a temporary order for 14 days.
Under the fifth and fourteenth amendments, due process clauses are in place to act as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law.
Recommended for You
In spite of what officials and the media claim, when a person is stripped of their constitutional rights, albeit temporarily, without being given the chance to make their own case based on what can be entirely arbitrary accusations, this is the removal of due process. And, it doesn't work.
We've seen this play out before already. Earlier this year, a tragedy unfolded in California as a deranged gunman, Kevin Douglas Limbaugh, walked up on an innocent woman, officer Natalie Corona, pulled out his guns and began shooting her repeatedly until she died. Limbaugh then fired several more shots at others before turning the gun on himself and taking his own life. Had more people been nearby, Limbaugh would've likely carried out a mass shooting.
Limbaugh's case is important to bring up due to the fact that -- before he killed a cop -- he was subject to California's "red flag" laws in 2018. Limbaugh was given a high-risk assessment that ordered him to turn in his registered weapons to police, the only one being a Bushmaster AR-15. On November 9, Limbaugh turned in the weapon.
Despite being banned from possessing a weapon, he still obtained one illegally and used it to commit murder.
What's more, there were already laws on the books that should've stopped Nikolas Cruz, the murdering psychopath in Parkland Fl, from ever getting a gun as well. But none of them worked.
Citing Cruz as the reason for advocating the erosion of the 2nd Amendment, the anti-gun activists are claiming he should've had his guns taken which would have prevented the tragedy. Sadly, however, they are ignoring the fact that he was accused of multiple felonies by multiple people—and should've never been able to purchase a gun in the first place—but law enforcement failed to act on any of it. These threats included specifically saying he was going to carry out a mass shooting and threatening to kill individual people.
The reactionary nature of disarming Americans because deranged psychopaths kill people is dangerous and only serves to keep the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens as the above two cases illustrate. Moreover, deranged psychopaths don't even need guns to cause mass death.
According to a 2015 study, even if all guns were removed from America, in a ten year period, 355 people still would've been murdered in mass killings.
From 2006 to 2015, 140 people were murdered by arsonists in mass fires, 104 were stabbed in mass stabbings, and 92 people were beaten to death in mass killings. To reiterate, these are deaths in which four or more people were killed.
"People sufficiently enraged to commit such crimes may also be motivated to find other ways," criminologist James Alan Fox of Northeastern University points out.
Despite all this information to the contrary, the left and the right seem hell bent on refusing to let this tragedy "go to waste," and are using it to further erode the rights of the 99.9999999 percent of the innocent people who are not murderous psychopaths. And all of it will be "legal" — due process and innocence be damned.