Dem
47
GOP
53
Donald Trump's view of the Second Amendment is pretty simple. People who support him should have all the guns they want, in any place they want to have them. The bigger the guns, the more bullets they fire per trigger-pull, the more damage they do when hitting a target, the better. By contrast, people who oppose him should have no guns at all. And if some Second Amendment spoilsport does sell a gun to a non-Trumper, then that non-Trumper should leave that gun under lock and key at all times, and should never even touch it, much less carry it while out in public.
The problem for Trump, of course, is that the Second Amendment doesn't lay things out in quite that way. Reasonable people can disagree about the meaning of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...," but whatever the interpretation of that clause is, it applies to everyone equally. And since Supreme Court jurisprudence, particularly from the current SCOTUS, has made clear that "A well regulated Militia" means "pretty much everyone," then the current state of play is that nearly any adult in the U.S. who wants a gun, and follows the local laws, can have one.
In their desperate attempts to make Alex Pretti responsible for his own homicide (see above), Trump and MAGA have tried to push an explanation along the lines of "if you're carrying a gun in the presence of police, you're asking for it." The NRA and other gun groups, to their credit, instantly pushed back against this. These groups may be rather fanatical, and most of them may be thinly veiled fronts for the gun industry, but at least they are not hypocrites. And the fact that MAGA and the NRA are on different sides here has given us one of the more interesting and unexpected squabbles in recent political history.
And if that's not weird and unexpected enough, Second Amendment advocates find themselves with a new source of reinforcements these days: liberals. There have always been left-leaning gun groups, groups that exist to serve folks who want guns for the most common reasons (hunting, self-defense, etc.) and who happen to be politically liberal, or groups that exist to help make sure that vulnerable people (e.g., LGBTQ+) are armed as an insurance policy. At the moment, and in response to the violence in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago and other cities, left-leaning gun groups like L.A. Progressive Shooters (left-wing Angelenos), Pink Pistols Twin Cities (gay Minnesotans), Grassroots Defense (liberal Iowans), the National African American Gun Association (Black people) and the John Brown Gun Club (anti-fascists/anti-racists) are seeing a massive surge in interest.
The linked article contains interviews with the leaders of some of these groups, who offer all-purpose explanations for what's going on. For example, the fellow who created the National African American Gun Association says, "People join when certain people get in office, because it scares them. People join when they see these shootings across the country, and it seems like it's just madness starting to grow more and more."
That may be partly on target, but it goes beyond that, we think. First of all, it's been well established in the scientific literature that conservatives tend to be more fearful than liberals. So, "gun sales surge in response to the election of Barack Obama"? OK, that tracks. But "gun sales surge in response to the election of Donald Trump"? It works less well and, in fact, it didn't happen. The visible increase in left-wing gun ownership, and left-wing interest in gun ownership, did not come with the first or second swearings-in of Trump (or, for that matter, after the first or second swearings-in of George W. Bush). It came after ICE was deployed as the President's personal stormtroopers.
Speaking as someone who has at least kicked the tires on gun ownership in the last few weeks, after a lifetime of never even having touched a gun, (Z) might be able to offer a bit more insight. First, a world in which the country had no guns, or few guns, would surely be safer, and therefore would be better. But that's not the world we live in, and it's not the world that is likely to exist in the lifetime of anyone reading this. And so, failure to exercise the Second Amendment right of gun ownership arguably puts someone in a self-imposed position of weakness. It is, literally, bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Meanwhile, it's not particularly true for brown people, but at least for white Americans, it has generally been the case that law enforcement would play by certain rules of engagement. In essence, if you did not break the law, and you did not directly threaten an officer's safety, you were not at risk of being shot. It should be that way for all Americans, of course, but that's not been the case. And now, with ICE, it's not that way for ANY Americans. ICE goes into places where it has no business, engages with people who are not its responsibility, and often fires first and asks questions later. And when law enforcement has gone rogue, protecting one's self becomes a much more pressing concern.
Finally, if one is going to pursue gun ownership, and is going to do so in a safe and responsible way, that takes a lot of time. You have to go through the process for actually buying the weapon, which, at least in California, involves studying for the test they give you (and passing it), then waiting for a background check, then waiting 10 days once you've passed the background check. You also have to have a Department-of-Justice-approved safe installed in your residence, with proof you've got it before you can take possession of your gun. Once you've got the weapon, then being responsible means taking a class in gun use and gun safety. That takes anywhere from 2-8 weeks, assuming you can get a slot (and they're all jammed solid for months right now). The point is that if one feels a gun is necessary, well, by the time the jackboots have occupied your city, it's too late.
It is worth noting that the response of the Trump administration to all of this has been typical. The White House could, you know, back down on the violent, and arguably radical, enforcement of immigration policy. Instead, it's trying to make its deny-guns-to-our-opponents strategy as viable as is possible. Currently, the DoJ is considering trying to ban trans people from owning guns, or to deny gun ownership to anyone who does not put their gender at birth on their application for gun ownership. So, we could soon be looking at an alliance of NRA + brown people + white liberals + trans people. That's quite the reshuffling of the political deck.
Anyhow, we are absolutely convinced that the surge in left-wing interest in guns isn't just your standard "I don't agree with the party in power" reaction, and that it is related specifically to the violent and authoritarian policies of the Trump administration. If so, that is suggestive as to what will happen with future invasions by ICE (i.e., people are ready and prepared to resist). It may also be suggestive as to what will happen at the ballot box in November (i.e., people are extremely motivated to throw as many bums out as possible).
Trump may well end up doing more to promote the Second Amendment, and the pro-gun interpretation thereof, than any president in the last century. Just not in the way that he, or the NRA, planned. (Z)