U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “I am a gun owner and I own a gun for probably the reason that a lot of people do, for personal safety,” California Senator and Democrat presidential contender Kamala Harris told reporters in Iowa. “And in terms of gun policy, I think that for too long and still today we are being offered a false choice which suggests you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away.
“I believe it is a false choice that is born out of a lack of courage from leaders, who must recognize and agree that there are some practical solutions to what is a clear problem in our country,” Harris elaborated. “And part of the practical solution is to agree that we need smart gun safety laws, which include universal background checks, which include a renewal of the assault weapons ban. Period.”
Harris was being disingenuous, which means she was lying. She was parroting tried and tested gun-grabber talking points to bamboozle the uninformed and the predisposed, meaning useful idiot DSM “reporters” and those who turn to them for filtered information.
While personal protection is indeed a benefit of the right to keep and bear arms, it is not the exclusive justification the Founders articulated. They did not even mention that reason in the Second Amendment, which focuses entirely on a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State. That means an armed populace was essential from which that militia could draw troops, and that infringing on the people’s right to keep and bear arms sufficient to the task negated and eviscerated that security.
Harris is all about infringements. By demanding a ban on semiautomatics demonized as “assault weapons,” she would take away from the people arms which the Supreme Court acknowledged 80 years ago have a “reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” meaning “the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.”
Otherwise, the whole point of the Second Amendment would have been to send the people off to be slaughtered by better-equipped forces of tyranny, something hardly conducive to security and freedom. The Founders were also careful to enumerate articles in the Constitution defining the powers by which the branches of government could actualize the purposes articulated in the Preamble. You’ll note usurping swindlers like Harris gloss over just where in those powers they’ve been authorized to reverse the Bill of Rights and start grabbing guns.
As for “universal background checks,” don’t think for a moment Harris doesn’t recognize – like the National Institute of Justice has – that “Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration.” Just like they have in California. What a gift to give someone who has already said she wants to force us to surrender our Second Amendment-guaranteed arms.
One thing Harris got right is recognizing lack of courage in leaders, particularly among Republicans.
They didn’t press for gains with national reciprocity and hearing protection when they held all the cards, and now that they’ve blown their advantage, can’t seem to sell out fast enough with “compromises” on “red flag laws” and the like. What the GOP Quislings don’t get – but Harris and her fellow rights jackals do – is that concessions are recognized by political predators as signs of weakness and fear. Sure, they’ll take appeasement scraps offered, but that won’t satisfy them and make them go away. It will just encourage them to circle in closer, demanding more.
As for the “all we want are commonsense gun safety laws and no one wants to take your guns” lie, no, that’s not all they want. And of course they do. It's what they’ve always wanted. They’ll secure each concession and use it to launch their next incursion. Does Nancy Pelosi have to spell out what she means by “slippery slope” for us?
Harris is pulling one of the oldest cons in the book, the “I'm a gun owner but” dodge, and in this case, her “but” is huge. Here’s another trick she’s employing: When she offers a couple of “gun laws” she believes she can pass off as “practical solutions,” note she prefaces them with the phrase “which include.” That means there are plenty more she hasn’t mentioned. Then she ends her pitch with “Period,” as if that’s the end game.
It’s not. What she won’t do is define what new edicts would finally be enough for her to say “No more.” That’s because if she thought she could, she'd be going after a total monopoly of violence. There are some things it’s not prudent to admit just yet, especially since she’s now playing to a bigger crowd than California, and has to at least pretend to be “one of us.”
So the “Kamala’s a gun owner” meme is now getting big press to bolster that impression, and that all she really wants is what we all should be demanding. You don’t think this would be headlined as a positive on CNN unless we were being played, do you?
Just remember, if owning and using them were all that it took to be considered “pro-gun,” regular readers here would have no better pal than Lon Horiuchi.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.