That glaring omission is just the most obvious attempt by the paper to gloss over Harris's extreme views. Under the heading "Personal Gun Ownership", the Washington Post highlighted Harris's claim to be a gun owner herself, without mentioning things like her support for Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns or her opposition to the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen striking down "may-issue" carry regimes in states like New York, New Jersey, and California. 

Q: Do you own a firearm? If yes, how many firearms do you own and what types? How do you store your gun(s)?

A: Harris said during her 2019 presidential campaign that she owned a gun for personal safety reasons, noting that she had spent her career as a prosecutor. An aide said Harris kept the handgun safely locked up, CNN reported at the time.

Well that doesn't tell us much, does it? When did Harris first become a gun owner? Was it before or after she signed on to amicus brief defending the District of Columbia's ban on handguns? If it was before the amicus brief, then why did Harris believe she had the right to possess a handgun for self-defense but ordinary citizens in Washington, D.C. could be prohibited from doing the same? If she became a gun owner after Heller, on the other hand, then why have we never heard her express her regrets over her position or acknowledge she was wrong? 

The WaPo explainer raises all kinds of questions; not just about Harris's positions, but on the paper's willingness to provide its readers with the full story of her anti-2A positions. Take the section on "concealed carry in schools": 

Q: Do you support restrictions on concealed carry of guns in schools and universities?

A: Harris has criticized efforts to arm teachers in response to school shootings. As California attorney general, Harris supported a state law that required people to show “good cause” in order to carry a concealed weapon. She supports other policies backed by gun-control groups that oppose allowing guns on college campuses.

Harris's support for "good cause" language lasted long after she left the AG's office. Two years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled that requiring someone to demonstrate "good cause" or a justifiable need to carry a firearm before they could receive a carry license violated the Second Amendment, Harris proclaimed the Bruen decision "defies common sense and the Constitution of the United States." That position puts her squarely outside mainstream opinion on Bruen, which is broadly supported by more than 2/3rds of American adults, according to multiple polls from Marquette Law School. 

The Post also "explained" Harris's position on "red flag" laws (she loves them) and repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to allow victims of violent crime to sue gunmakers (also in favor), but that hardly tells the full story of her anti-Second Amendment zealotry over the years. 

Again, the most egregious example is the Post failing to mention Harris's support for an "assault weapons" ban, including her call for a mandatory "buyback' of semi-automatic firearms just five years ago. But if the paper really wanted to explain her views on guns and crime, reporters could also have included Harris's opposition to gun shows at the Cow Palace Auditorium when she was the D.A. in San Francisco. 

Standing in the parking lot of the indoor arena, District Attorney Kamala Harris, Mayor Gavin Newsom, Police Chief Heather Fong and Assemblyman Mark Leno said the shows - including Crossroads of the West Gun Show, which comes to the palace Saturday and Sunday - are directly contributing to the proliferation of illegal guns and spiking homicide rates in San Francisco.

They admitted to having no direct proof, but said they have heard countless stories from neighbors about guns - including AK47s and sawed-off shotguns - being illegally sold in the adjacent public housing developments and in the arena's parking lot during the gun shows.

Harris was the city's top prosecutor; someone who relied on solid evidence in order to obtain a conviction. Yet she alleged without any proof whatsoever that gun shows at the Cow Palace were fueling violence in the city by somehow encouraging black market sales to take place in the parking lot and entirely off the premises. 

"This place behind us, the Cow Palace, is state property that is allowing the state of California to be a merchant of tools of death," Harris said. "There is an absolute and direct connection with gun shows at Cow Palace."

If there was a direct connection, then shouldn't Harris have been able to file criminal charges and make her case in a courtroom, rather than holding a press conference with then-Mayor Gavin Newsom? 

The promoter of the gun shows that took place at the Cow Palace refuted Harris's claims, pointing out that law enforcement was always present at the shows and no one had ever been arrested for illegally selling a gun while a show was taking place. 

Bob Templeton, president of the Utah-based Crossroads of the West Gun Show, disputed that claim, saying he has asked officials with the Daly City Police Department, Cow Palace management and the California Department of Justice whether they know of any illegal gun sales that have ever taken place at the shows. They all said no, according to Templeton.

Templeton added that the show has come to the arena for 23 years, and there have never been any arrests or charges filed against anybody for selling illegal guns there. He added that two uniformed Daly City police officers are always stationed at the show and that the show is monitored by the Gun Show Task Force, part of the state Justice Department that was created seven years ago by state legislation.

"It's distressing when politicians, for their own ends, make charges like these. These are simply allegations made by people who don't like guns," he said.

Or gun owners, for that matter. Templeton hit the bullseye with his description of Kamala Harris in 2007, but the Washington Post missed the mark if their intention was truly to inform its readers about Kamala Harris's views on guns and gun ownership. Harris has evinced outright hostility to the most basic exercise of our Second Amendment rights throughout her political career, tacking slightly to the right only when she needed to curry favor with voters. The Washington Post provided only a partial record of her anti-gun positions and policies over the years, setting aside some of her most revealing comments and extreme positions. What resulted is less of an explainer and more of an obfuscator that hides from view her longstanding disdain and disgust for the right to keep and bear arms and those of us who support it.