I had to re-read this headline a couple times. There is a whole lot of scary-stupid packed into that phrase.
First-- who among us is not vulnerable to gun violence? Is there anyone who can say they have no risk at all of being exposed to violence-- gun-related or otherwise? Of course not.
Second-- how do you give more rights to someone on the basis of their potential future victim status? This is a really awful euphemism. The President doesn't want to characterize his desires--and the desires of many other Americans-- as taking rights away from anyone. So the almost-hilariously stretched characterization is that of giving more rights to some citizens. It's just taking away rights from law-abiding people. But let's not call it that.
If perhaps we punish enough innocent people, we'll have couple guilty people get it, too. That's the rationale.
Of course, it's not actually about reducing violence in total. No, it's about whether that violence occurs in forgettable, bite-sized chunks like the every day murders in Chicago-- or whether it occurs in clusters all at once-- the kind of clusters that the media feeds and that are used by easily traumatized Left to demand that its hypersensitivity and unearned moral superiority outweigh the cute and antiquated Constitutional rights of fellow Americans.