MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle spent nearly a half hour with Kamala Harris on Wednesday, and while she found the time to ask the Democratic candidate whether she'd ever worked at a McDonald's, she failed to ask any question at all about Harris's shifting stances on gun control. 

That's part of a continued pattern from the vast majority of media outlets covering the campaign. When they're not ignoring the topic completely, they're leaving out many of the extreme positions that Harris has taken on the Second Amendment throughout her decade in politics. 

Take this recent report from AFP's Sebastien Blanc entitled "Harris surprises many with pro-gun stance". And what stance would that be? I've heard Harris claim she's a Second Amendment supporter, while in the same breath declaring her support for banning the most popular rifles in the country. I've heard her say she's a gun owner and isn't going to take "everybody's guns away", but I've also heard her say that AR-15s and other semi-automatic firearms "don't belong on the streets of a civil society". Neither position is "pro-gun", especially when Harris refuses to provide details about the scope of her "assault weapon" ban or even explain what, exactly, the Second Amendment means to her. 

Kamala Harris packs a gun -- and wants Americans to know it.

"I'm a gun owner," the Democratic presidential candidate said last week in a forum hosted by television star Oprah Winfrey.

Harris has mentioned owning a firearm in the past, but she has mostly kept that quiet -- in line with her party's emphasis on curtailing access to guns in a country that has grown wearily used to armed crime and mass shootings.

The former longtime prosecutor also remains mum on exactly what kind of weapon she owns.

So her boldly pro-gun stance just a month and a half from the November 5 election surprised many -- including Winfrey.

"I probably shouldn't have said that," laughed Harris after her vow to shoot intruders at her California home.

Experts, however, say that the sitting vice president's revelation was no accident.

Technically, Harris didn't vow to shoot intruders. She said if someone broke into her home they'd be shot, which is probably accurate given the Secret Service detail tasked with guarding her life. 

While Blanc talked to several "experts" who explained why Harris is now trying to portray herself as a moderate on gun control issues, he failed to mention most of Harris's previous positions and statements, including her support of handgun bans in both D.C. and San Francisco, her belief that law enforcement can enter the locked homes of lawful gun owners without a warrant to check and see how they're storing their firearms, or her 2002 criticism of the Bruen decision, which she said defied "common sense and the Constitution" by recognizing the Second Amendment protects the right to carry. 

Instead, the reporter delivered this twaddle to his readers:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that Harris would try to take away Americans' guns in violation of the constitution's Second Amendment.

The billionaire former president has been endorsed by the powerful lobby group, the National Rifle Association.

Harris has not made any such threat. In line with most of her party, she only backs tightening of current laws -- for example requiring criminal and psychiatric background checks for all firearms' purchases.

Harris says she supports a ban on semi-automatic assault-style rifles, but no longer backs a mandatory buy-back program.

And when she jumped into the US election after President Joe Biden's late, shock exit, Harris picked Minnesota Governor Tim Walz -- an avid hunter and National Guard veteran -- for vice president.

Harris absolutely has made those threats to take away Americans' guns, just not recently. A good reporter would both point out Harris's previous statements in support of bans and confiscation (or a mandatory "buyback"), as well as asking why Harris is singing a different tune on the campaign trail. But Blanc can't even admit that what Harris has called for on the campaign trail involves passing new gun control laws, not just "tightening current laws". 

There is no current federal law banning semi-automatic firearms arbitrarily designated as "assault weapons." There is no current federal law requiring background checks on private, person-to-person sales of firearms. And there is no federal "red flag" law in place. Each of those measures would involve passing new legislation and creating new statutes. So why won't AFP simply say that? 

The only real exceptions to the media's gaslighting that I've seen has come from Fox News, which asked the Harris campaign for details on her supposed gun ownership (including what type of firearm she owns and the last time she went to the range), and the New York Post, which reported this week on Harris's 2005 support of a handgun ban and confiscation in San Francisco. Both Fox News and the Post reached out for comment from the Harris campaign, but never received a reply. 

Is it possible that Harris has had a chance of heart over the past 20 years? Sure. There's just not any evidence to back that idea outside of her vague and vacuous statements that she's a gun owner and "supports" the Second Amendment. 

Harris clearly doesn't want to answer any questions that would shed light on her gun control positions, and frankly, I don't blame her. But it's the media's job to cover the candidate, not provide cover for her. Too many organizations are choosing the latter approach and gaslighting voters by playing up her recent claims while ignoring Harris's long and extensive history of anti-2A extremism.