The Harris/Walz campaign is trying to do a little clean-up of Tim Walz's 2018 statement about carrying an "assault weapon" in war, but in doing so they may have created a bigger problem for the Democratic ticket. 

Most of the attention on Walz's comment, made in the early days of his first gubernatorial campaign in Minnesota, has focused on his claim that he carried a so-called assault weapon "in war", even though he never saw combat in his 24 years in the National Guard. But the "clarification" offered by the campaign on Sunday raises new questions about the scope of the "assault weapon" ban proposed by Harris and backed by Walz. 

“Governor Walz would never insult or undermine any American’s service to this country — in fact, he thanks Senator Vance for putting his life on the line for our country. It’s the American way," the Harris campaign spokesperson said in a statement.

"In making the case for why weapons of war should never be on our streets or in our classrooms, the Governor misspoke. He did handle weapons of war and believes strongly that only military members trained to carry those deadly weapons should have access to them, unlike Donald Trump and JD Vance who prioritize the gun lobby over our children,” the spokesperson added.

Remember that also according to the Harris campaign, Kamala Harris herself supposedly no longer backs a compensated confiscation scheme for so-called assault weapons. But if Walz believes (not "believed", mind you) that only members of the military should have access to semi-automatic long guns, then what does the Walz/Harris campaign propose to do about the tens of millions of AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles that are currently in the hands of lawful owners? 

If we take the campaign's statement at face value, then Walz doesn't even think that law enforcement should be allowed to possess and carry these firearms; a stance that not even gun control groups like Brady are willing to take... at least publicly. 

Harris's campaign flaks haven't offered any specifics on her supposed change of heart when it comes to a "mandatory buyback" of semi-automatic long guns, only that she no longer supports the idea. And Harris herself has been mum about her when and why she allegedly decided the "good idea" she had in 2020 is now a bad idea. Instead, in her pre-scripted campaign speeches, she's stuck to fairly generic and unspecific talk about her plan to pass "universal background checks, red flag laws, and an assault weapons ban" if she wins in November. 

The media (including fact-checking entities like Snopes and Politifact) have largely been content to provide cover for Harris; noting her campaign's disavowal of a "mandatory buyback" without drilling down on what her latest iteration of an "assault weapon" ban would look like. And to be fair, we have no real way of knowing because Harris hasn't offered any specifics and the reporters following her campaign have had almost no opportunity to ask her on the record about the details of her gun ban plan. 

But if Walz "believes strongly" that only the military should have access to AR-15s, then it's fair to ask what Harris and Walz want to do with the more than 20-million modern sporting rifles that are lawfully possessed by American citizens. If a "compensated confiscation" scheme is no longer part of her agenda, does she now believe that those gun owners should have to hand over their so-called assault weapons to the government without compensation, perhaps? 

Semi-automatic rifles are not "weapons of war". They're the most commonly sold style of rifle in the country. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, there are more AR-15s and other modern sporting rifles in the hands of American citizens than Ford F-150 trucks on our roads. It's clear that the Harris/Walz campaign wants to ban their sale going forward, but the campaign's "clarification" about Walz's 2018 comments appears to be at odds with the walk-back of Harris's compensated confiscation scheme. If a mandatory "buyback" is off the table, but only the military should have access to semi-automatic rifles, then what exactly is their plan to deal those existing firearms... and the millions of Americans who own them?