In her stump speeches around the country since accepting her party’s nomination, Kamala Harris has invoked the three tenets of the far left’s gun control platform again and again – bans, red flag laws, and “universal” background checks. But since her September 10th debate with Donald Trump, Harris has struck a different note, emphasizing again and again that she owns a gun. But Americans should not be taken in by Kamala’s willingness to take on any persona – including “pistol-packing Momala” – to mislead voters into thinking she’s a moderate in a cheap ploy to win in November.
Harris began trumpeting her gun ownership at the single debate she participated in this electoral cycle. Responding to Trump’s claim that she wanted to take people’s guns away – a claim supported by her advocacy for bans and “buyback” programs – Harris said “Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. We're not taking anybody's guns away. So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff."
A few days later when sitting down with journalists at the National Association of Black Journalists, she again asserted she, indeed, owned a gun. And when Oprah entertained her in an on-air chat parading as an interview, Kamala again leaned in, asserting “I’m a gun owner too,” implying that she was just like the other nearly one out of every three U.S. adults – thirty-two percent – who say they personally own a gun.
For dramatic effect, Oprah expressed shock despite it being widely reported since the debate. Harris, took it up a notch, saying unprompted, “if someone breaks into my house, they’re going to get shot,” and laughed hysterically. And with that Kamala became not just a gun owner but a veritable Dirty Harry, meting out justice with a cackle.
Questions about the propriety of joking about taking someone’s life aside, the real issue is what is driving Kamala’s sudden obsession with talking about her gun. Even casual observers are quick to see Kamala’s gun as less a tool of self-defense and more a symbol to defend her from critiques of her radical stance on guns, which is well documented.
She openly calls for a ban on some of the most commonly owned rifles in America. Such a ban, if made retroactive, would immediately turn millions of law-abiding gun owners into felons and potentially force the mandated surrender of tens of millions of guns. Her apologists will deny this, but recall that just last year Harris lauded Australia for its anti-gun action, a 1996 law that outlawed most guns and led to the surrender and destruction of tens of thousands of personally owned firearms.
When running for the Democratic nomination in 2019 Harris said repeatedly that she strongly supported a mandatory gun buyback program, akin to the one in Australia. Though campaign staffers have claimed she no longer holds that view, they haven’t explained why she changed her mind, and Harris has not denounced her former position. Can anyone be assured she won’t change her mind again?
In 2007, while serving as San Francisco's district attorney, Harris not only supported but helped implement even more radical policies. At a press conference to roll out the city’s “safe storage” law, she argued – 4th Amendment be damned – “…just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs.”
Harris had also supported a citywide ban on handguns that would have made it illegal for all but a few in San Francisco to own them. As an officer of the court, Harris and her handgun would have been exempt, but the measure never came to fruition.
For all these past extreme anti-gun positions, why now the tough language and reportedly reversal on buybacks? Bernie Sanders likely nailed it when pressed about Harris’ new, moderate positions saying, "No, I don't think she's abandoning her ideals. I think she is trying to be pragmatic and do what she thinks is right in order to win the election."
Kamala herself said as much, in her first post-nomination interview, when she asserted that her “values haven’t changed.” And to Harris, values aren’t just about personal beliefs, they're meant to be foisted on others. When she was San Francisco’s district attorney, Harris argued “…when we legislate our values, it's about trying to encourage certain types of behavior." So, voters have every reason to believe that Harris still hews to previously held positions and, if given the opportunity, that she would act on them.
As the election moves into its final days, voters should closely examine Harris’ actions and public statements and realize that she is no moderate. Make no mistake, if Kamala Harris wins the election, she will strain her executive authority and move to dramatically erode gun rights and weaken the Second Amendment. Don’t be fooled, just because she owns a gun, doesn’t mean she has gun owners’ best interests at heart.
Randy Kozuch is Executive Director of NRA-ILA.
Read Full Article »