For the past two years, the left’s 'go to' words were “Russia,” “Mueller,” and “collusion.” Mueller’s investigation and report were a big swing and a miss and not surprisingly these words have quickly been erased from the vocabularies of cable news anchors and their panels.

On a dime, coincident with a handful of mass shootings, the left’s new favorite words are “racist” and “white supremacist.” Since the three recent shooters were white, it can only mean they were all MAGA hat-wearing Trump supporters, NRA members, and of course, white supremacists.

Never mind that their actual political proclivities are left or far left of center, based on their manifestos or social media postings. In the eyes of CNN and MSNBC, they are racist Trump supporters just on the basis of their skin color. Think about that. The media and entire Democratic Party are judging an entire group of people on the basis of skin color. Isn’t that the definition of racist?

As the Russian collusion story is in the rear-view mirror for Democrats and the media, it is dead ahead for AG William Barr, U.S. Attorneys John Durham and John Huber, and DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, as the layers of the onion are being peeled back to reveal the seditious origins of the entire hoax. Which is why the media pivoted deftly to a totally new narrative of “white nationalism.”

With the backdrop of the shootings, gun control has predictably reappeared as a Democrat and media talking point. Aside from the usual cries to ban “assault weapons,” whatever those actually are, there are calls for expanded background checks. Never mind that the vast majority of these shooters obtain their firearms legally, passing a background check.

Then there are the “red flag laws,” which is the left’s new approach to confiscating guns. These laws are unconstitutional three ways to Sunday, violating three of the rights within the Bill of Rights. These laws usurp the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, the Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Sixth Amendment’s right of the accused to a speedy and public trial.

My home state of Colorado passed such a law this past April, one of the consequences of voters giving Democrats control of the executive and legislative branches of a state. Other states have similar laws and there is now a push for a national red flag law. If President Trump is smart, he will see the color red before signing such a law, if it ever even makes it to his desk, as signing such a law may be a large red stop sign in his quest for a second term as president.

Colorado’s law for example works as follows.

Allows family, household members or law enforcement to petition a court to have guns seized or surrendered based on a showing that someone poses a danger under the "preponderance of the evidence," a civil standard which means that the defendant is more likely than not to be a threat.

In other words, there is just over a 50/50 chance of accuracy, noting that someone's guns could be seized even without a mental health professional making a determination of any kind.

A subsequent court hearing could extend a gun seizure up to 364 days, and gun owners can only retain their guns if they meet a burden of demonstrating by "clear and convincing evidence" -- a much higher standard -- that they are not in fact a threat. Gun owners are "guilty until proven innocent" under this framework.

Evidence could be the word of a disgruntled ex-spouse, neighbor, coworker, or anyone else with a grudge against a legal and law-abiding gun owner. Those with an axe to grind will replace mental health professionals in assessing the accused’s state of mind and potential threat.

In a state like Colorado, having had its share of mass shootings, red flag decisions will likely err on the side of caution, rather than evidence, needing little more than one person’s convincing diatribe to pass the “preponderance of evidence” threshold.

Once guns are seized, the bar is raised significantly to reverse the decision. The Mueller standard of justice now applies, as in “guilty until proven innocent.” The accused must now exonerate themselves, or prove their innocence, before having their guns returned. Good luck with that.

What does this have to do with white supremacy? This past week, Trump supporters are now all “white nationalist” racists. Or as one University of California professor claimed, “white nationalist terror supporters.” The Southern Poverty Law Center identifies hate groups including white nationalist, male supremacy, Christian identity, and anti-immigrant.

How long will it take before states, or the federal government, if a red flag law becomes nationalized, start to view any and all Trump supporters as “posing a danger” based on their skin color, gender, religion, and opposition to open borders?

I suspect that of the 62 million Trump voters in 2016, significantly more were gun owners than the similar number of Hillary Clinton voters. What better way to disarm the population than to go after those who own guns, in this case, Trump supporters?

Would a red flag law be applied to dangerous leftist groups such as Antifa? Not likely as these laws are being enforced by liberal Democrats. If you think I’m exaggerating the leftist sentiment toward Trump voters, “Death camps for Trump supporters” fliers turned up at various locations on Long Island this week.

Not only Trump supporters, but also those who don’t buy into the man-made global warming hoax. Bill Nye, the bow tie guy, “is open to criminal charges and jail time for climate change dissenters.” Is it a stretch for some bureaucratic panel to determine that someone not buying into the climate change movement “poses a threat” and shouldn’t be allowed to possess a firearm?

Is the “white supremacy” talk just a way for flailing Democrat presidential candidates to attempt to gain some traction in their campaigns? Or is this “white nationalist” rhetoric a way to paint Trump supporters with a broad brush as a means of confiscatory gun control?

Red flag laws will have the effect of disarming those best able to stop a shooter. But that’s not the real goal of these laws. Instead it’s a new approach to thwarting the Second Amendment. President Trump is hopefully thinking long and hard about signing on to such measures, as this has the potential to be his “read my lips, no new taxes” moment.

Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a Denver-based physician, freelance writer, and occasional radio talk show host whose pieces have appeared in American Thinker, Daily Caller, and other publications. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn, Twitter, and QuodVerum.