Should people be able to live their lives free of worry, particularly about something like violence of some kind?

Well, it would be nice if they could. After all, committing acts of violence is, as a general thing, one of those rare moments of near-universal agreement. We all figure it's generally a bad thing. There are potential exceptions, like acting in self-defense--it's still an act of violence, just a fully justified act--but for the most part, we can find common ground on this one thing.

But can any politician offer the "freedom" to be free of such acts and back that up? 

Well, Vice President Kamala Harris seems to hope the voters think so.

Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, has made what she calls “freedom to live safe from gun violence” an important plank of her presidential campaign. At her first rally last month, she expressed support for policies, including passage of so-called red flag laws, universal background checks and a prohibition of sales of assault weapons to civilians.

Some states already have red flag laws which allow courts to order the temporary seizure of firearms from a person who they believe may present a danger. But there is no federal legislation. Every state has its own distinct laws when it comes to background checks, with no overarching federal law. And the United States had a federal assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004. But after the Act expired it was not extended by Congress.

As Attorney General in California in 2012, Harris did seize more than 2,000 firearms from individuals legally barred from possessing them, including persons determined to be mentally unstable and those with active restraining orders.

And as Vice President, Harris has overseen the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. To specifically address school shootings, the Office’s strategy has focused on stopping juveniles and people experiencing a mental health crisis from accessing firearms. And the Office has underscored the mental health needs of students, particularly those impacted by gun violence.

Now, we all know that these proposals won't actually have any impact on so-called gun violence, but even if they did, is there any real "freedom to live free of gun violence" in the first place?

In an ideal world, sure.

The problem is that this is an idea predicated on the government being able to control the actions of individuals. Hypothetically, a government can exert enough action on people so that few are able to carry out any acts of violence. This would make one "free" of gun violence.

But that would be the only freedom one has, and that ain't freedom.

That's because there is no freedom to live without something horrible. The world is a tough place and while we'd love to be able to purge all of the evils of the world, that's not possible. Even with the levels of control I mentioned, there will always be someone who finds a way to violate every rule you put in place and do something terrible.

How can you promise a "freedom" to live without something that you literally cannot prevent?

We've seen so-called gun violence in every country on the planet. No one has purged it. No citizen anywhere has any "freedom to live safe from gun violence" no matter what gun laws are in place.

That's because such a freedom does not and cannot exist.

Harris is trying to sell the voters a pack of lies, all to justify her own anti-gun agenda as really being for the people. 

My fear is that too many Americans are gullible enough to swallow it.