Vice President Kamala Harris isn’t ever going to be mistaken as a pro-gun politician. She’s voiced her support for pretty much every bit of gun control that’s come down the pipe since she entered public life.
Yet, to hear her tell it, she actually supports the Second Amendment.
As Cam recently pointed out, she’s been making this claim for years, and she keeps trotting it out. In fact, she said it yet again on Wednesday.
I am in favor of the Second Amendment—and I’m also in favor of an assault weapons ban, universal background checks, and red flag laws.
We can do both.
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) December 20, 2023
Well, no, we can’t do both. All of those measures violate the Constitution in various ways, and not just the Second Amendment.
So, of course, we have to have questions about just what Harris is thinking–assuming, of course, we’re not being too generous by ascribing the vice president as capable of thought.
I have questions for Harris.
In what way have you shown support for the Second Amendment?
In all my years of knowing how Kamala Harris is, the one thing I’ve never seen is her making any kind of stand that remotely suggests support for the Second Amendment. In fact, I seem to recall her being involved with an amicus brief urging the court to rule against Heller.
All Heller did was establish that the Second Amendment was an individual right. It’s one of the easiest ways to support the Second Amendment, and yet Harris failed that very simple, very basic test.
This leads to another question for the vice president.
What is your interpretation of the Second Amendment?
See, this whole “I support the Second Amendment” schtick is only nonsense if Harris thinks what she’s supporting is something completely different than what the Second Amendment actually is.
For example, if she thinks this means that the various states can have arsenals for the National Guard, then it’s pretty easy to see supporting every gun control measure that comes down the line as completely consistent with supporting the Second Amendment as well.
Granted, that interpretation is contrary to what the Supreme Court has found. Repeatedly.
However, people have a right to believe the Court ruled incorrectly. We all do it sooner or later, so I can’t criticize someone else for doing it on an issue like guns.
Yet it does matter here because her personal interpretation of what the Second Amendment means lays the framework for whether or not certain gun control laws run counter to it.
Let’s say that she does think it’s an individual right. She probably doesn’t and her boss has said as much, but for the sake of argument, let’s say she thinks it is. That brings me to my next question.
In what way are these measures consistent with the Second Amendment?
I’m curious how banning the most popular model of rifle in America, one that is also useful for repelling both foreign invaders and a tyrannical government, is consistent with an amendment that clearly exists for the purposes of national security.
I’m curious how mandating that each and every transfer of a firearm, including between close family members, having to go through a licensed gun dealer, thus creating a de facto form of gun registration, is in keeping with the idea that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I’m curious how taking guns from people who have done nothing at all except allegedly made someone else uncomfortable, especially without any real due process, is remotely justifiable under an amendment that protects the right to keep arms in the first place.
All of this just makes me genuinely curious, because people like Harris keep saying it, but they never once really explain how it’s constitutional except by trying to argue that the Second Amendment isn’t absolute or that the Founding Fathers couldn’t have meant something like an AR-15. Those aren’t arguments. They’re deflections from the simple fact that there is no constitutional authority for the government to do any of these things.
So yeah, I’d like Harris to answer these questions before she continues to carry on about supporting the Second Amendment.
Maybe she doesn’t want to repeal the Second Amendment–I’m not willing to put money down that she doesn’t, only saying it’s possible–but that’s not supporting the amendment. That’s why we have questions.
It’s only too bad answers won’t be forthcoming.