President-Elect Donald Trump ran in part on gun rights. While that wasn't the most pressing issue, at least according to the polls (which I now question), it probably played a factor in at least some people's votes. 

However, Trump had a previous term, one marked by a couple of times when his commitment to the Second Amendment seemed less than ideal.

As a result, some people are questioning whether his commitment will be solid this time around.

When he spoke to the NRA in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Trump swore, “No one will lay a finger on your firearms.” Strong words, but actions speak louder than promises. Back in 2017, his administration implemented a bump stock ban. Let’s not forget his post-Parkland rhetoric in 2018 calling for stronger background checks and red flag laws. And after the 2019 tragedies in El Paso and Dayton, Trump didn’t back down on his support for more stringent background checks and red flag laws, even as many gun rights advocates pushed back hard.

So, what’s the deal? Will Trump roll back Harris-Biden’s anti-gun policies, or will we see him push for new restrictions? And, what about his promises to protect gun owners—should we trust them?

Those are fair questions, especially in light of the fact that it was Trump who put the bump stock ban in place and who also talked about taking the guns and worrying about due process later.

However, there are two schools of thought on this warring in my mind.

First, let's understand something about the bump stock ban he directed the ATF to undertake. While I didn't like it, I also understood why it happened. Las Vegas had just happened, and people were railing over the staggering loss of life. It was something none of us could comprehend at the time and it's still difficult all these years later.

At the time, a bill was working its way through Congress with bipartisan support--and significant bipartisan support--that would have banned bump stocks, but also anything that would allow someone to fire more quickly. That could easily have included aftermarket triggers with lighter pulls than factory triggers. It would have had more far-reaching ramifications than just bump stocks.

By banning them administratively, it put a stop the that bill. It's also possible that he was advised that it would eventually be overturned by the courts, though that's pure speculation on my part.

So while he may have not been perfect on guns during his first term, there's an argument to be made that he basically cut off the necrotic tissue to save gun rights as a whole.

Yet even now there's still one inescapable fact that cannot be overlooked: What choice was there?

Yes, Trump enacted gun control with a stroke of his pen, and even if it wasn't just to stop a more restrictive measure from passing, that was mild compared to what Kamala Harris said she wanted to do in this campaign, and literally no one with more than two brain cells to rub together believed for an instant that she wasn't going to move beyond those if she got the chance and actually enact her mandatory buyback or her handgun ban.

With Trump, there might be some mild restriction, but with Harris, we faced potentially reshaping how we view our gun "rights." The word is in quotes because we probably wouldn't really have a right to keep and bear arms if she got her way.

Asking the question makes sense. My hope is that Trump is better this time around, especially in light of the chinks in his 2A armor in his previous term. However, it's not like there was really a choice.