Kamala Harris has never struck me as someone who really cares that much about your rights. Instead, like a lot of folks, she cares about her own and figures yours are irrelevant.
That would be fine if it weren't for the fact that she's trying to restrict what we can and can't do, especially with regard to our Second Amendment rights in our homes.
Most people buy a gun because they're worried about a home invasion. They have guns to protect themselves in case someone busts in the house and seeks to hurt them and theirs. This is normal and understandable.
But on the topic of guns in the home, Harris's comments in the past betray the double standard she has on the topic.
Vice President Kamala Harris showed her true colors back in 2007 when, as the San Francisco district attorney, she told Californians that law enforcement officers could walk into private citizens’ homes and inspect how they were storing their firearms.
“We’re going to require responsible behaviors among everybody in the community, and just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs,” Harris said at the time.
Interestingly, less than a week after that statement was revealed on social media, the Democratic presidential nominee told Oprah Winfrey during a live-streamed rally, “If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot.”
In what was probably the most honest statement she has made on the campaign trail as Oprah looked on kind of surprised, Harris followed up her declaration laughingly saying, “I probably should not have said that. But my staff will deal with that later.” And they are.
The irony is rich with this one. A person who thinks law enforcement can just walk into your home and inspect your firearms says she’ll shoot someone breaking into her house. What if they “break in” to make sure she is storing her gun properly? Will she still shoot, even though she believes that’s completely appropriate?
Of course, Kamala Harris doesn't need to shoot anyone at the moment. She's got a Secret Service detail that will presumably do that for her should there be a break-in at her home.
But the point here is that she's totally fine with the state just walking into your home, without a warrant, to examine whether you're storing your firearms in an approved manner, but she's also totally ready to kill someone who comes into her home. Funny how that works out, isn't it?
That's not overly shocking, really. I wish it were, but there's a saying: If it weren't for double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
I know a lot of people would say this is different, but it's not.
Kamala Harris isn't worried about rights. She's worried about her rights. That's it. She sees no problems with violating your Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure and she sees no problems with violating your Second Amendment rights.
But her own rights are sacrosanct, which is why she'll shoot anyone who busts in her house, but she wants to inhibit your ability to do the same.
You can't be trusted but she can. That's the truth behind the "I'm a gun owner but..." crowd. They figure they can be trusted, but you can't, and rather than recognize that their rights depend on the right being preserved for everyone, they call for restrictions.
Yet Harris is different. She's someone who helps craft those restrictions. She's been in positions to actually make those restrictions. Her talking about walking into people's homes wasn't just idle smack talk by some random anti-gunner. She was a district attorney for a major American city when she said that.
So it matters.
And the kicker is that so few are holding her accountable for it.
