We are living in history, ladies and gentlemen of this great nation, and how we tread in the coming days will steer our future in ways that we maybe have never imagined before.

After a series of mass shooting took place around the nation last week, members of Congress have been under extreme pressure to do something, anything in order to prevent similar attacks from coming to fruition.  For many, the answers lie in so-called “red flag” laws that are meant to sniff out potential mass shooters before they strike.

The President seems on board.

Trending: President Trump Leaves Minneapolis Hanging After City Requests $16M in Assistance

“I’m looking to do background checks,” Trump told reporters as he departed the White House on Wednesday to visit the two violence-stricken cities. “I think background checks are important.”

take our poll - story continues below

Should the Government be Mandating Masks?

• Should the Government be Mandating Masks?  

• Should the Government be Mandating Masks?*
  • Yes
  • No
  • It should be left to each individual to decide
• Email*
• Phone
  This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Completing this poll grants you access to Liberty Hub updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

While he said there’s not enough support in Congress to re-enact what was commonly known as the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, he indicated he would discuss the idea with lawmakers. “I will certainly bring that up,” he said.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has refused so far to allow a vote on House-passed legislation that would expand background checks and hasn’t indicated whether he’s reconsidering after the shootings, which killed at least 31 people.

“I think we can bring up background checks like we’ve never had before,” Trump said.

Trump previously stated that he has no “political appetite” for an “assault weapons” ban, however.

The move for stricter background checks won’t be without adversity.  Many believe that any impedance to owning a firearm is an infringement on the Second Amendment, and a slippery slope that will allow the Government to enact further restrictions in the future…particularly in the case that a staunch, anti-2A liberal president were to build upon what is done now.

You Might Like