One Kamala Harris Decision Second Amendment Supporters Should Back

CA Gun Banner Kamala Harris
CA Gun Banner Kamala Harris

California/United States – -( When we discuss the track record of Senator Kamala Harris on Second Amendment issues, it comes down as pretty horrid. She’s really no better voting-wise than Dianne Feinstein, who famously declared that if she could have gotten 51 votes, she would have said “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn `em in.”

However, there is one decision related to firearms that Second Amendment supporters must back whole-heartedly and fiercely. She made the choice at one point to purchase a firearm for personal protection, and she has come under fire for making that choice. It is time for Second Amendment supporters to defend Kamala Harris.

I can hear the reactions to this now. One of them is very understandable: “Why should we defend her choice to own the firearm of her choosing when she seeks to deny it to us?” There will be calls to let her stew as she is attacked for her decision. While it would be easy to take joy in this and to just write it off as cannibalism among anti-Second Amendment extremists, that is the wrong thing to do.

Look, I am not pretending that some of her statements on our Second Amendment rights are not atrocious. She demonizes Second Amendment supporters, unlike Tulsi Gabbard. She’s demanded supposedly “sensible” gun control in the first 100 days of her presidency or she will take executive action. It is a track record of anti-Second Amendment extremism that is impossible to defend on any legal, moral, or ethical ground.

However, despite the slanders Kamala Harris has uttered against Second Amendment supporters, and despite her poor voting record, we need to defend her choice to own a firearm for personal protection. That defense should be vigorous and determined. We should do so, for reasons of principle. We’re not just fighting to preserve the Second Amendment for only those who have supported the NRA or who fight to preserve the Second Amendment. We are fighting to preserve it for everyone.

So, when we defend the right of Kamala Harris to buy the firearm of her choice for a lawful purpose – in this case, personal protection – we are defending it for everyone. Standing up for Kamala Harris in this instance is also standing up for the single mother who is working a late shift while she also tries to make ends meet while delivering pizzas (or doing some other job). It stands up for the homeowner looking for a gun to protect himself and those he cares about, whether it’s a pistol, shotgun, or AR-15.

Besides, while we have to defend Kamala Harris’s right to own the firearm of her choice, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be blind to practical effects of doing so. In one sense, our defense will also have a positive effect by causing more dissension among anti-Second Amendment extremists than there already is.

But there is an extremely slim chance for a different effect:

Taking a stand in support of Kamala Harris’s choice to exercise her Second Amendment rights might convince her to start re-thinking this issue, and at the very least moderate her tone towards Second Amendment supporters. It’s a long shot – the consistent defense is more likely to help sway the likes of a Tulsi Gabbard – but it is still worth pursuing.

Still, the primary reason to defend Kamala Harris against attacks for choosing to own a firearm is because that is the right thing to do. She may be an enemy of our rights, she may be exposing some hypocrisy on her part, but she still has Second Amendment rights, and we must defend them.

Harold Hu, chison

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post,, and other national websites.

  • 93 thoughts on “One Kamala Harris Decision Second Amendment Supporters Should Back

    1. The communist leaning DEMOCRAPS all believe “gun control for thee but not for me”. This broad was nothing but a concubine for one of the worst politicians in Khalifornia history and then there is feinstein known throughout the state as the politician that funnels taxpayer money to various members of her family. Both are POS.

    2. I don’t think she really owns a firearm for personal protection. I think she owns a firearm as a prop to pretend she’s discussing gun control from an informed position. She is just a scheming tyrant wannabe that has already advanced farther than she deserves. We owe her nothing.

    3. Mz Harris may own a gun, in the minds eye of the Progressive Liberal. Due to the fact she’s better than YOU people.
      You people are too small minded and ignorant to own these destructive weapons. You people will do nothing but go out and kill babies with your evil penile representations.
      YOU people only need to call the police to protect you if you’ve a personal SHTF issue and they’ll jump to your defense.
      YOU people need to calm down and turn in ALL your guns once She is POTUS and Ruling as WE should be ruled..

      cough, cough…..choking on tongue in cheek..But thats sort of their mindset..

    4. As a pot smoker it was illegal in CA. for her to have a ccw let alone a gun, she almost certainly prosecuted and sent to jail many gun owners for the same crime, secondly, in the San Francisco bay area and most of the state, you will never get a ccw permit unless you are more special then the average citizen.

    5. I understand the premise for your comment. It doesn’t surprise me that she might own a firearm. Another example as “Do as I say, Not as I do.” She only thinks that she deserves the 2nd Amendment. I defend her right to legally buy a weapon, almost as much as I oppose her, and her political positions. Neither of which I will defend as vigorously as the Constitution of the United States, with my last breath!

    6. I’d like more information. Does she have a pistol? Does she have a CCP? How long has she had it?
      I imagine that if we could find out how many of these anti-gun politicians actually own firearms, the country would be quite surprised. I’d love to have that info and publish it as has been done to New Yorkers who need to be registered to own a pistol.

      1. Let’s remember that as a prosecutor, she qualifies for a CCW license – even in the People’s Republik of Kalifornia.

      1. Actually rarely they do……. but this is not the point. We can gain a lot for the 2A cause by defending her, even if none of her positions change.

    7. About 25 years ago I attended a grass roots lobbying seminar in Ohio sponsored jointly by Gunowners of America and the Second Amendment Foundation. One of the lessons I learned that day has stuck with me like glue. “Never confuse your friends by getting in bed with your enemies.” Suggesting we Second Amendment advocates should come to Kamal’s aid is to me as repulsive as living in a nation where Hillary Clinton is president. Ughh!!

      1. Defending her right to own a firearm is far from getting in bed with her. I share your views on that.

    8. She is a far left anti_trump liberal. She owns a gun, so I should support her? Stupidest logic I have seen in a while. Jane Fonda owns a gun, too. Should i support her?

      1. This GUY is out of his mind. Support her!!!!!! that is the worst thing to do. I am not sure of his thinking but he is WAAAAYYYY off.


      2. Defending her right to own a firearm is far from getting in bed with her. I share your views on that.

      3. No one is talking about supporting her – we are talking about supporting her right to own a firearm. Which has two benefits for us:

        1) It highlights the fact the the 2A protects a civil right that applies to everyone.
        2) It highlights the fact that Democrats are so anti-2A that they consider exercising the right in any way disqualifying for a candidate.

        It also neatly highlights her hypocrisy – and our consistency.

        1. @RVW, If “1)”, then can we just delete her name and insert the name of some palatable person? And as to “2)”, I’m fairly sure that democrats would not apply any disqualifiers to themselves.
          Finally, to the DNC, hypocrisy is merely a word to hurl at their enemies.

    9. I have a question and it is not about the general subject of the article. Rather it is about one line which reads –
      “It stands up for the homeowner looking for a gun to protect himself and those he cares about, whether it’s a pistol, shotgun, or AR-15.”
      For what reason do you specify the “AR-16” rather than simply writing “rifle” as you have done with “pistol” and “shotgun” in generic terms? For one thing only the Armalite Rifle is an AR-15 and all the other manufacturers make clones of the AR but they have actual different designations for those rifles. I know, I know, it is somewhat like the Kleenex issue where the brand name has become a common term for any facial tissue without regard for who actually makes it. There is also the fact that their are many different rifles from .22 on up that get chosen and not just the .223 / 5.56 caliber.

    Leave a Comment 93 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *