Let me begin by making one thing clear: The extreme gun control measures pushed by Democrats and leftist activists are not worth considering, let alone supporting. The Second Amendment protects citizens’ right to own and bear arms. Thus indiscriminately banning certain types of guns, such as semi-automatic “assault weapons,” is a violation of that constitutional right, just as stringent, invasive background checks are a violation of due process.
With that said, as the death tolls rise, so too does our inability to think clearly about reasonable gun control alternatives. Each gun-related tragedy brings the same debate, and conservatives are prepped and ready to respond to the Democrats’ instinctual power grab. We’re armed with statistics and clichéd talking points, ready to shut down the totalitarians who would confiscate every single gun given the chance. But in doing so, conservatives often stifle a much-needed debate.
It’s a debate we shouldn’t shy away from, especially since the gun debate tends to favor the Right. Even after mass shootings, support for Second Amendment rights remains constant. After the Parkland school shooting, a Gallup poll found that 71% of Americans did not believe the government should ban the possession of handguns, and 57% opposed banning semi-automatic guns. Popular support is on our side and has been for a long time, which means that it’s up to us to do more than deflect to fact-free video game references and shallow appeals to mental health. It’s time to propose real solutions, solutions to a problem that continues to get worse.
As it stands, we don’t have any. Perhaps that’s why the New York Post embraced the Democrats’ reactionary demand for a complete assault weapons ban. The absence of reasonable alternatives has driven even conservatives to extremes. As National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke points out, the Post’s argument is a “profoundly lazy, impressively ignorant” one “that at no point even attempts to deal seriously with the arguments that it believes it is refuting.”
Despite this, the Post’s editorial does make an important point: No right is absolute, not even the right to bear arms. Natural rights are bound by responsibility. This means that at times citizens must give up parts of their liberty for the greater good. Regulating gun rights can in some circumstances be justifiable. The question then becomes, what should that regulation look like?
For starters, automatic weapons are nearly banned, and have been for generations. This ban isn’t up for debate in either party. What other regulations would be prudent and reasonable?
President Trump is advocating for “red flag” laws, which would allow law enforcement to seize guns temporarily from people deemed to be a threat to themselves or others. Fifteen states have passed similar legislation. Trump also signed an executive order banning bump stocks earlier this year. The effectiveness of these proposals might be up for debate, but they’re a pragmatic step in the right direction.
An even better alternative conservatives should embrace is the gun violence restraining order, or GVRO. This kind of law allows a spouse, parent, sibling, or other person close to a troubled individual to petition a court for an order temporarily removing that individual’s firearms. It’s an evidence-based system that, if properly implemented, would empower citizens to be proactive and vigilant, as National Review’s David French wrote. And it safeguards due process rights by permitting the person in question to contest the order at a later date.
Of course, the National Rifle Association vehemently opposes these kinds of regulations: “Nobody wants dangerous, mentally ill people to have access to firearms, but the NRA will oppose risk-protection orders that lack adequate due-process protections and do not require treatment for people who are adjudicated to be dangerously mentally ill,” Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the group, told the Wall Street Journal.
Without the NRA’s support, the GVRO will gain little Republican support in Congress. Debate ends at the NRA’s doorstep. So, the GOP will continue to point to anything and everything else in its attempt to throw away responsibility. Republicans such as House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy will continue to blame violent video games. Other Republican lawmakers, such as Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Sens. Rob Portman and John Cornyn, will keep citing the ailing mental health of mass shooters. Meanwhile, real solutions will sit on the table untouched.
But until conservatives tackle this head-on, we’ll be stuck fending off a debate that never seems to go away and never seems to get resolved.
