Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) has been taking heat from both the left and right for comments he made on social media in the wake of last weekend’s horrific mass killings in El Paso Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.

Crenshaw joined Steven Crowder in this episode of “Louder with Crowder” to clarify those comments that have been misconstrued and to detail his actual proposal for combating gun violence in this country.

“President Donald Trump mentioned ‘red flag laws’ as a possibility. I want to talk about this because you’ve been catching flack from the left, and you’ve also caught some guff, we could say, from the right,” Steven said. “You mentioned the TAPS Act, and ‘maybe’ also implementing red flag laws or gun-violence restraining orders. So a lot of people are obviously not thrilled about this idea, a lot of conservatives. To be fair, you were more open minded and said ‘maybe there is a solution here, maybe there isn’t.’ Can you explain specifically what it is you’ll be proposing so they don’t misinterpret it?”

“I appreciate the nuance you added to that, in that I did say ‘maybe’,” Dan said. He explained that he is actually in favor of the Threat Assessment, Prevention, and Safety Act, or TAPS Act, a grant program that would allow local law enforcement to use the same analytical tools and training on behavioral threat assessments that Federal law enforcement has been using for decades.

“There’s almost no relationship whatsoever between the TAPS Act and ‘red flag laws’,” he emphasized. “They are two very different things. When it comes to the TAPS Act, it really has nothing to do with guns. It’s just criminal behavior in general. Now, obviously it could prevent people from engaging in mass shootings for sure. But it has nothing to do with gun control at all.”

Dan stressed that he would only consider red flag laws that have “stringent safeguards” based on due process.

“There are certain stringent safeguards that would have to be put into place to ensure that due process would be adhered to, such as multiple points of evidence. It can’t just be one person’s testimony. There has to be actual evidence presented. It has to be clear and convincing, not just a preponderance of evidence,” he explained. “There should be punishment for somebody who files a false claim against someone else to deter that kind of vindictive behavior. I think conservatives need to have a list of requirements.

“Any new law or process would still have to operates within the context of our current criminal justice system, which adheres to the philosophy of innocent until proven guilty. That would never change,” he added. “There’s a lot of concern that they would, but I see no evidence of that.”

“We need to have the conversation. What I’m seeing online a lot is people refusing to have the conversation and reacting to what are basically straw man arguments. We have to have the conversation. If we are going to, though, we must put thoughtful limits in place on what we would actually agree to, and a very substantive standard of evidence would certainly be one of those.”

Watch the video below for more details:

Watch the full episode here.

Want more from Steven Crowder?

To enjoy more of Steven’s uncensored late-night comedy that’s actually funny, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...