Trump’s Dig at Chris Cuomo Shows Arbitrary Danger of ‘Red Flag Laws’

So is our “pro-gun” president saying we must close the Meltdown Loophole? And speaking of “filthy language,” what does he want to “grab them by” again?

U.S.A. – -( “Would Chris Cuomo be given a Red Flag for his recent rant?” President Donald Trump asked in a Wednesday Twitter tweet. “Filthy language and a total loss of control. He shouldn’t be allowed to have any weapon. He’s nuts!”

He was referring to the CNN talking head’s screaming meltdown and threat of violence at a New York bar against a customer who called him “Fredo.”  His furious reaction is instructive, particularly in light of Cuomo’s elitist disparagement of Second Amendment-recognized birthrights. The well-earned Streisand Effect will no doubt follow him to the end of his days, but it by no means rises to the level of legal justification to confiscate guns.

Defenders of the right to keep and bear arms, alarmed by the president’s backsliding on promises made to gun owners to win their votes, are pointing out the obvious in their replies to the president.

“Your tweet here @realDonaldTrump is precisely why: 1) #RedFlag laws are awful policy ripe for abuse, and 2) why your personal opinion cannot lawfully or constitutionally result in another person’s fundamental human rights and property being taken from them by force (govt guns),” Firearms Policy Coalition answered back.

“With one Tweet POTUS explains how red flag laws can and will be abused,” commentator Dana Loesch weighed in.

The president is “Torn between two theories to explain his latest tweet,” Hot Air’s Allah Pundit noted. The options are the president “doesn’t understand why stuff like this will steel opposition on the right to the sort of red-flag bill he’s endorsed” or “He’s playing eight-dimensional chess, deliberately sabotaging the push for a new red-flag bill to please his base by showing immediately how it would be abused by the government once it’s law.”

That second option hardly seems likely. Trump himself notoriously argued, “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” And red herring edicts are the centerpiece of the new Republican push to capitulate on infringements, in the insane idea that there’s no amount of betrayals their desperate core constituents won’t tolerate. Hey, it’s worked in the past.

Option one is the most likely. He wasn’t serious but saw a chance to take a shot at an enemy with a “joke,” and didn’t think through who the butt of it really was, and the broader implications.

The guy with the power to destroy lives doesn’t get to joke like that, at least not with people serious about liberty. Ask yourself this: If Trump does win in spite of his presumptuous arrogance about multiple broken promises on guns, what’s to restrain him from showing “true colors” in his second term, when he doesn’t need to worry about reelection?

Undeniable betrayal is what will finally be the last straw for perhaps a critical mass of disillusioned gun-owning voters. It certainly takes the fire out of their bellies to do all the things necessary to “win” an election, particularly when it looks to be close, and 2020 is Donald Trump’s and an increasingly unprincipled GOP’s to blow.

So what can “we” do to stop the Democrats, who we know will gorge themselves on “gun laws” and pack the courts with fellow disarmament fanatics?

Perhaps the Republicans and the president believe the polls, that “gun control” is what the electorate wants, even though their premises are misleading and the people being asked only know what the media has told them about guns. Most respondents, literally, have no clue as to the fundamental truths behind what an armed citizenry represents and what they’re being conned out of.

That’s why, rather than preemptively surrendering, NRA “A”-rated and endorsed politicians, sold to us as “staunch supporters of the Second Amendment,” need to prove they weren’t just paying lip service. They need, now more than ever, to demonstrate that they actually understand why the Founders knew “the right of the people” to be “necessary to the security of a free State.”

Instead of caving and giving the gun-grabbers another incremental gain in their long march to getting it all, how about if those asking gun owners to trust them with political power use their long reaches and unique bully pulpits? How about if they explain to the public what the right to keep and bear arms is about, why it’s of paramount importance and always relevant, and how those who want to swindle that right away from them are lying?

If you agree with that, and if your rep is not a gun-grabber in a safe district/state, meaning your outreach efforts would be wasted, how about taking a moment to share your expectations with them? And while you’re at it, let the president know he’s risking everything and needs to stop with the infringements.

About David Codrea:David Codrea

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.