Harris is the One Lying About Guns

September 18, 2024 By David Codrea

“And then this business about taking everyone's guns away,” Vice President Kamala Harris prefaced a rebuttal in September’s presidential debate, joining forces with ABC News “moderators” against Donald Trump. “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.”

Walz being a Fudd, a politician with an A rating from NRA who then turned around and embraced the Democrat citizen disarmament agenda after he no longer needed the votes, is well known (albeit not acknowledged by Party apologists). But per Reuters, Harris’s admission to owning a gun was “a revelation that surprised some voters but carried a deliberate political message.”

The political message is “Trust me,” and evokes nothing so much as the fable of the scorpion and the frog. And as for it being a surprise, it shouldn’t be. Even Dianne Feinstein “kept a revolver in her purse” (an elitist “privilege” denied to her constituents), and Harris’ carrying on the elitist tradition first gained wider attention when she admitted to reporters at a Moms Demand Action rally in 2019 that she did, too, “for personal safety. I was a career prosecutor.”

That wasn’t good enough for uber nepo baby/hysterical hoplophobe Peter Funt, son of Alan of Candid Camera fame and still feeding out of his father’s trough, who gave us a glimpse in the 2020 elections of what gun prohibitionists really mean when they talk about “commonsense gun safety laws.”

“Kamala Harris owns a handgun. That's disqualifying for a 2020 Democrat in my book,” Funt wrote when learning the news. “Kamala Harris doesn’t seem to have the courage to concede that owning a handgun for protection is a bad idea. Instead, she has given voters a real choice: Back candidates who care enough about gun control to not own handguns or support the only major Democratic contender who has one and won't throw it away.”

Funt actually holds the “originalist” position when it comes to “gun control.”

“I would be for abolishing all guns,” Sen. Thomas Dodd, principal author of the Gun Control Act of 1968 declared. “I never saw any sense to guns anyway, and I do not go backward by saying so. I hope some day the world will say ‘Destroy them all.’”

Building on that, Nelson “Pete” Shields, the founder of what would become the Brady Campaign, revealed a starting goal and the game plan to reach it back in 1976 with a telling admission to The New Yorker: “We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time… The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.”

Add to that citizen disarmament edict after edict enacted federally, in the states, cities, and everywhere, in Everytown, along with myriad trial balloons floated over the years to repeal the Second Amendment, and the only conclusion plausible when some anti claims, like Harris just did, that no one is talking about taking your guns is to realize of course they are. And they’ll take it in increment after increment, as much as stupid politicians are willing to make concessions to the evil ones in the name of compromise. There’s a reason the word “totalitarian” refers to all, and you’ll note none of the prohibitionists eroding freedoms to enable a monopoly of violence are ever willing to define a point that’s “enough.”

It's the same with Harris, and her apologists are out there passing along a talking point narrative for the rest of the media to parrot.

“Despite Lies Spread by Trump and the NRA, Harris and Walz Do Not Want To Take Everyone’s Guns Away,” Democrat apparatchik disguised as journalist Nick Wilson writes for leftist American Progress.

True, not everyone. Loyal enforcers get to keep theirs. And you can keep your Fudd gun– for now. Provided someone with unknown motives doesn’t file unproven allegations against you.

As for millions of the verboten ones, forget it. By focusing on the word “all,” propagandists can deflect from addressing the real issue: “shall not be infringed.” It’s the same swindle they use when claiming the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 loosened Weimar Republic restrictions, conveniently overlooking the fact that it eviscerated them for the “wrong people,” with the registration lists allowing them to be disarmed and rounded up.

Meanwhile, Harris is toning down the rhetoric on “mandatory buybacks” (i.e., confiscation) of “assault weapons,” the due-process-denying reality of “Red Flag Laws,” a pledge to dictate on guns through executive actions, and more.

If she gets the cards she is willing to show, who believes that will be it? Particularly since that will mean she will have the power to reshape the Supreme Court through “expansion,” something she has been endorsing for years, overturn Bruen, and ban any damn thing her string-pullers tell her to?

Update

Two significant developments were revealed after this article was submitted: A 2007 video resurfaced of then-San Francisco District Attorney Harris beside then-Mayor Gavin Newsom speaking on a gun ordinance and telling reporters, “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." The Fourth Amendment has no more meaning to totalitarians then the Second. And in a recent interview with Oprah Winfrey, while trying to fraudulently establish her gun creds, Harris declared, "If somebody breaks into my house, they're getting shot." With "safe storage" being defined by gun controllers as locking the firearm and ammunition separately, she did not flesh out how that could happen without giving the advantage to the home invader.

Additional Reading

About the Author

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. In addition to being a regular featured contributor for Firearms News and AmmoLand Shooting Sports News, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts onTwitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

If you have any thoughts or comments on this article, we’d love to hear them. Email us at FirearmsNews@Outdoorsg.com.