They say that once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is a pattern. If so, Kamala Harris’s three attempts to impose draconian gun-control measures on the citizenry of these United States ought to terrify the voting public. Thrice now, Harris has made plays against the Second Amendment that have no parallel in this country’s history. Were she to be elected, the chances of a fourth would be unacceptably high.
On the stump, Harris likes to scoff that she has no interest in “taking away your guns.” But this belated assurance is belied by every piece of evidence in her record. In 2006, from her perch as the district attorney of San Francisco, Harris backed Proposition H, which prohibited residents of that city from buying, selling, or owning handguns of any kind, and banned “all City residents, without exception, from selling, distributing, transferring and manufacturing firearms and ammunition.” Had the measure not been struck down by the courts, it would have yielded precisely the sort of mass confiscation that Harris now indignantly insists she disdains. In endorsing the proposal, Harris set herself apart from even Dianne Feinstein and Gavin Newsom, both of whom considered the project to be a step too far.
Two years later, Harris went one further and signed an amicus brief in the case of D.C. v. Heller that argued that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution furnished Americans with no protections whatsoever. Harris’s brief contended not only that “the Second Amendment applies only to federal legislation, not to legislation of the states or local governments,” but that “the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms.” If the Supreme Court had adopted this preposterous reading, it would have entirely obviated the right to keep and bear arms in America and cleared the way for the abolition of private ownership — which Harris had hoped to achieve in San Francisco — nationwide.
Today, Harris suggests that she is “in favor of the Second Amendment.” But there is no indication that this is the case. In 2019, when she first ran for president, Harris openly rejected the idea that she would need Congress’s approval before imposing a ban on “assault weapons,” and she enthusiastically supported the mandatory confiscation of the 20 million-plus that are already in circulation. Today, her aides suggest that she has moderated on both points. But that moderation has taken the form of a proposed ban on the most popular rifles in the United States — rifles that, per the plain terms of the Heller decision that Harris opposed, are indisputably “in common use.” At her campaign stops, Harris often avers that “it is a false choice to suggest that you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment, or you want to take everyone’s guns away.” Her record shows that it is not. Harris has spent a career opposing the Second Amendment because she has spent a career trying to “take everyone’s guns away.” The last-minute Annie Oakley act does not alter that one whit.
On the contrary: It suggests only that Harris has learned the hard way that her true preferences are an impediment to the power she desires, and that, temporarily at least, she has resolved to fit in with the Democrats’ official line. One does not accidentally propose the universal confiscation of handguns, or threaten free citizens that the police will “walk into [your] home and check to see if you’re being responsible,” or file briefs pretending that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” does not mean “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” or laugh out loud at the mere mention of the Constitution — these are all symptomatic of an attitude that has been developed over time. In 2019, Harris showed us that she still seeks the mass confiscation of guns. Now, she is favored to win the presidency. Americans who wish to preserve their Second Amendment rights cannot say that they weren’t warned.
.jpg)
