Trump, Gun Control and Politics

President Trump is a different fellow.  We could count the many ways that statement is true, but for today let's concentrate on one, the one that actually matters.

Do you recall all the time that we referred to him in the 2016 campaign as a "businessman", and talked (and I wrote) about the implication of that?  Well, we generally referred to his business background in the sense of balancing budgets, getting projects done ahead of time and under budget -- that sort of thing.

And to be honest, that's been the case.  Starting from negotiating with Lockheed Martin to get the cost down on Air Force One renovation, to the way the border wall is being pursued, all of that reflects a concern for taxpayer dollars that aligns with what a successful businessman would do.

But what I really want to focus on is the business notion of getting things done.  That's incredibly relevant, because Washington does not get anything done, ever, and has the "deep state" or "swamp" culture of not getting things done.  It's ingrained in them; they send things to committees, they pass continuing resolutions to fund government without a true budget, and nothing changes.

That is anathema to President Trump.  He detests when people do their jobs perfunctorily, just to survive in their jobs, and not to, you know, accomplish anything.  I get it; I hate that too, and especially when our elected leaders do that, the ones we pay.  But that is the swamp for you.  He measures success by accomplishment, not by continuity or tenure.

He is also not an ideologue.  He is a conservative, I think, certainly in the fiscal sense and in global affairs, so that would say he is "conservative" there.  But he is also a social moderate in the sense of his tolerance of differing points of view on issues like religion, gay rights and that sort of thing.

And, very possibly, firearms legislation.

It has been the normal process in the past, after a mass shooting, that people have pointed fingers for weeks, the event is mostly forgotten, ultimately, and nothing has gotten done.  That makes perfect sense in the recent climate, because Democrats don't actually want to do anything that might remove a talking point for them, and Republicans don't want to do anything that isn't going to work.

So, Trump.

Now, I have to concede that, as a past NRA member, my views were formed long ago.  But they are fairly moderate for an NRA member, I think.  First and foremost, I oppose any legislation that will not achieve its desired end based on history (e.g., any law on the books in Chicago).  The desired end, of course, should be to keep firearms out of the hands of people who can be expected to use them in a felonious way.

So I am fine with tight background checks for purchase, as long as there is a very short time limit for the government, whatever government we are talking about, to approve or reject them, and a reasonable appeal process.  That would reasonably be expected to help keep firearms out of the hands of some people who shouldn't have them.  As long as our data on criminals and mentally uncertain individuals is current enough to turn those decisions around quickly, I can work with you.

I'm certainly OK with illegalizing bump stocks, and can easily be convinced that magazines above a certain count should not be sold.  Such notions are certainly consistent with the Second Amendment rights of Americans.  We have already banned fully automatic weapons, so there is at least some precedent.

And President Trump seemingly could get on board with such things.  More importantly, they could become law in his administration, if Congress were willing to stop deflecting and actually consider legislation.  And what, my friends, would happen if they did, under this president's leadership?

From a political standpoint, and I have to stress that I hate to make it political, this is a tremendous opportunity for President Trump.  After all, the Democrats held the White House and both houses of Congress with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for two years, and did nothing about firearms legislation (or immigration, or infrastructure, or ...).  Nothing!  They could have done anything they wanted, which can only lead you to the conclusion that they didn't want to fix the problem.

So suppose that President Trump proposes, and Speaker Ryan and Leader McConnell go along with, a bill that includes tighter background checks to weed out criminals, metal misfits, illegal aliens, etc., guaranteeing a quick turn on rulings; that includes a ban on bump stocks; and limits magazine sizes.  Something like that.  Suppose it goes to the floor and Congress actually votes on it.

All of those are things that Democrats have wanted, at least when they talk (which is all they do, of course).  How do they not vote for such a bill?  How do most Republicans not vote for such a bill, which would address the concerns they have, would be expected to do at least some weeding out of people who shouldn't have a gun, and prevent some guns from becoming WMDs -- and would be an actual step taken?

Such a law would not hurt, and might do some good -- OK, I'm not sure it would, and since it would be preventative, we'd never actually be sure what it had accomplished -- but it would be reasonable and popular.  Congress would have been seen as doing "common sense" legislation for once, and could not be accused of not having done anything "common sense."

More importantly, President Trump, who very likely supports all those things, would be properly seen as having led the debate and having gotten something done, which no president before him had.  It would be a dramatic win for him and for the Republican approach to governing.

The Democrats would want to fight hard, because they cannot afford to let President Trump win on anything after their disastrous loss on the tax-cut bill and the bonus aftermath.  But what are they opposing?  The things they're saying we have to have now, they'd be in the bill!  The Democrats would either have to vote for it, which would not only make this president look like a consensus-builder but a leader, or they could oppose it, and flood the media with idiocy like they did with the "crumbs" disaster.

Gun control legislation is actually a winner for this president and this Congress.  They can do it and they need to, especially in a tight, well-structured piece of legislation.  Heck, even I could write that kind of law, and Congress could pass it.

Imagine the 2018 campaign if they do.

Copyright 2018 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.