Tuesday night wasn't the first time that Kamala Harris has sought to avoid scrutiny for her anti-2A policies by claiming gun ownership, but many mainstream media outlets are treating her talking point as a new and surprising development. From the New York Times:

Ms. Harris’s statement came in response to an accusation from former President Donald J. Trump that “she has a plan to confiscate everybody’s gun.”

Ms. Harris pointed to her record of gun ownership, as well as that of her vice-presidential nominee, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota. 

“This business about taking everyone’s guns away — Tim Walz and I are both gun owners,” she said. “We’re not taking anybody’s guns away, so stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.” 

... By invoking their gun ownership, Ms. Harris and Mr. Walz have tried to refute the contention that one either supports an interpretation of the Second Amendment that does not restrict guns in the United States or advocates the wholesale confiscation of them. Both Democrats have called for some restrictions on who can own a gun and how they can be purchased, often re-upping those pleas after mass shootings.

From Vox: Wait, Kamala Harris owns a gun?

USA Today: Kamala Harris said she won't take Americans' guns away. Because she owns one too.

From CBS News: 

Following Tuesday's debate, a Harris campaign official again confirmed the Democratic presidential nominee owns a handgun, and it's the same firearm she mentioned five years ago.

Harris has called for more stringent gun laws, including universal background checks and red-flag laws, which allow people to petition the courts to temporarily take away a person's gun if they are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. She also supports a ban on assault-style weapons and increased funding for mental health care. 

But the vice president has said on the campaign trail that she supports the Second Amendment.

"It is a false choice to say you're either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone's guns away," she said during a campaign event in New Hampshire last week. "I'm in favor of the Second Amendment, and I know we need reasonable gun safety laws in our country."

Harris has been using that line for about five years as well, and during that time I've not heard a single reporter ask her what, exactly, she means when she says she's "in favor" of the right to keep and bear arms. Instead, press outlets like the Times and CBS News simply point to her statement as proof that she's not a gun-grabber. 

Both outlets noted that Harris has previously called for the mandatory "buyback" of so-called assault weapons, while her campaign now claims she no longer holds that position. But again, the media has been more than willing to simply parrot that line without asking the most basic question in journalism: why? 

I believe that a semi-auto ban would be unconstitutional, impractical, and completely ineffective at preventing mass shootings or other violent crimes, but if, like Harris and Walz, you think an "assault weapons" ban is necessary to stop these horrific acts from taking place, then why wouldn't they also feel the need to do something about the 20+ million modern sporting rifles that are already in the hands of lawful gun owners? From a gun control perspective, that doesn't make any sense. As extreme as Harris's position of a mandatory compensated confiscation scheme was five years ago, it was also logically consistent with her position that no one should be allowed to own or possess one of these guns. 

So why has Harris shifted her position? ABC News anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis asked Harris that very question during Tuesday night's debate, but allowed her to completely avoid the topic during her rambling response, and never pressed her with a follow up question about her changing up the particulars of her gun ban plan. That was one of multiple acts of journalistic malpractice on the part of the anchors, to be fair, but it was also part of a larger pattern with the media's interest in Harris's thoughts on gun control and the right to keep and bear arms. 

Push back against the media bias by becoming a VIP or VIP Gold Member today. Use the promo code FIGHT to take 60% off your membership!

There are many gun-related questions I'd love to ask Kamala Harris, including "if you bought a gun for personal protection, why do you still own it now that you have Secret Service members guarding you?", "when was the last time you trained with your firearm?", and "if you support the Second Amendment, what's an example of a gun control law that you believe infringes on that right?" 

But the most important question of all (at least if we were going to get an honest answer) is still "Why do you say you no longer support a mandatory 'buyback' of the guns you call weapons of war?" Not because we don't know what she'd say, but because it's obvious why she's shifted her position: political expediency. 

Kamala Harris is willing to say or do anything to advance her career in politics. Five years ago, when she was trying to stand out in a crowded field of Democrats, she presented herself as one of the most far-left candidates running for the nomination. Now, anointed as the nominee after the primaries were concluded and her boss was shoved aside, she needs to present herself as a candidate for "all Americans", or at least not just the substantial far-left wing of the Democratic Party. So she's tacked slightly to the center, dropped her demand for millions of Americans to hand over their lawfully possessed rifles, and offers up red herrings like "I'm a gun owner" to dupe voters into thinking she's a moderate when it comes to our Second Amendment rights. 

That's the logic that's led her to her newfound position, but she can't actually say that. The media certainly won't press her to answer any of these questions. They'll ask, she'll obfuscate, they'll move on. We saw that on Tuesday night, and there's no reason to think that strategy will change before Election Day.