Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Editors’ Note: Kamala Harris now says she owns a Glock semi-automatic pistol. This is interesting because she has supported a total ban on all handguns, both with Proposition H in California and in the District of Columbia. But Democrats have been strident about high-capacity semi-automatic weapons of all kinds. It appears to be a typical case of “protection for me, but not for thee.” In addition, the Glock in question may not be legal in California since Glocks typically have a magazine capacity beyond what California allows. Meanwhile, Tim Walz seems unable to load his shotgun, even though he says he has used it to shoot clay birds. After seeing his fumbling in a video, the man is not safe to be with if he has a weapon. How can a man active in the National Guard be so bad around weapons? More deadly, though, has been the Democrat playbook on personal safety. Disarm the citizens, release criminals from jail, import thousands of criminals and fly them around the country, have DAs that won’t prosecute crimes, and defund the police. If you own a gun or want to own a gun for self-defense, you cannot support Harris-Walz or virtually any Democrat for public office. Their sudden affection for guns is just crude pandering to the uninformed. 

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.

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…..

*****

Continue reading this article at Real Clear Policy.