Gun control was one of few issues that ABC News moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis didn't directly bring up during Tuesday's debate, but Kamala Harris's 2019 plan to ban so-called "assault weapons" and to mandate gun owners turn them over to the feds in a "buyback" was still referenced on a couple of occasions. 

The first was when Davis asked Harris to explain why her positions on so many issues have changed over the past five years, and included Harris's shift away from a mandatory "buyback" along with other flip-flops on fracking and universal healthcare. Though Harris promised to address every one of the issues Davis spoke of, she neglected to mention her gun ban plans, or why she no longer supposedly supports a compensated confiscation scheme. 

Donald Trump brought up Harris's plan on two occasions, which led to her insisting that "we're not taking anyone's guns away" if she and running mate Tim Walz are elected. But that's exactly what Harris pledged to do five years ago, and neither she nor her campaign have offered a substantive explanation about why she supposedly no longer supports something she declared was a "good idea" during her first run for president. 

Here's Kamala Harris' OWN WORDS debunking her claim tonight that she wouldn't take anybody's guns. pic.twitter.com/Z66VaxtDXx

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) September 11, 2024

If Kamala Harris no longer believes that it would be constitutional or beneficial to compel millions of Americans to turn over their lawfully-purchased firearms to the federal government or else face the possibility of criminal charges, that's great. But Harris also wants to ban the sale and manufacture of those same guns going forward, which begs the question: why wouldn't she also want to take what she calls "weapons of war" out of circulation? 

Such a move would be constitutional abomination, but that wasn't a dealbreaker for Harris five years ago. And honestly, there's nothing in Harris's history that indicates she believes it would be an act of constitutional overreach to demand Americans turn over their AR-15s and other semi-automatic firearms. As we've pointed out before, Harris supported D.C.'s handgun ban and has opposed the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen. She claims to be a gun owner, but she's never done anything to support the right to keep and bear arms. To the contrary, she's argued that the courts have historically held that right doesn't exist. 

I'm surprised the moderators didn't specifically ask about Harris's support for an "assault weapons" ban and Donald Trump's opposition, given the attempt on Trump's life and last week's murders at Apalachee High School in Georgia. I'm also somewhat surprised that Harris tried to spin away her previous comments about a mandatory "buyback" without talking up her support for "common sense gun safety measures" like universal background checks, a federal "red flag" law, and, yes, a ban on so-called assault weapons. Harris didn't lean into gun control messaging at all, despite the full-throated support from groups like Brady, Giffords, and Everytown. Her calls for sweeping gun control measures are a regular part of her campaign stump speech, but when she had the opportunity to introducer herself as as candidate to the American people, she ended up running from her anti-2A views instead of running on them. That says a lot about how popular the Harris/Walz campaign believes gun control is among the electorate at large, but it also denied voters the change to hear what Harris really thinks about our right to keep and bear arms... and her plans for gun owners if elected. 

While the American people lost out thanks to the slanted moderation and lack of candor, you can still end your evening (or start your morning) on a high note by taking advantage of the VIP and VIP Gold debate special:  -- 60% off of both VIP and VIP Gold memberships when you use the promo code FIGHT!