The media hopes you have a short memory.
I say that because they're trying to reframe Kamala Harris as someone who isn't a threat to our right to keep and bear arms. They hope you can't remember just four years ago when she wanted a mandatory buyback on so-called assault weapons, and their antics just keep getting worse.
The latest example comes in a piece titled, "By talking about gun control, not gun bans, Kamala Harris wants to court a new electorate."
And nothing in the piece actually does much of anything to address how she's pushing for an assault weapon ban still but isn't talking about gun bans.
In the United States, where the presidential campaign is in full swing, the two candidates are seeking to court the slightest vote. With the fight against inflation and abortion, the carrying of weapons remains one of the strong markers of Donald Trump’s program. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution authorizes the carrying of arms. But as mass killings continue in schools and public places, in the Democratic camp represented by Kamala Harris, the question is no longer whether to ban them, but how to control them.
On September 4, at Apalachee High School in Winder, a rural area in the heart of Georgia, a 14-year-old boy opened fire and killed four people. That day, Tiffany Johnstone froze. “I have three young children who attend public school and I am one of those mothers who is worried about whether my children will come home today, she says. A man bought a gun for his mentally ill son as a Christmas present, a 14-year-old boy.”
“I have 14-year-old boys at home. And I would never buy them even a plastic gun as a toy, because it’s a real problem!”
Tiffany Johnstone, mother
at franceinfo
First, anyone who brags about not buying their kid a toy gun because "it's a real problem" is someone who can't be taken seriously. Toy guns are not a problem and never have been.
But I find the entire argument about gun control versus gun bans hilarious.
As noted, Harris is still talking about an assault weapon ban and a ban on so-called ghost guns. That's two categories of guns she wants to ban, so pretending she has no interest in gun bans is ridiculous.
Most Democrats figured out ages ago that talking about total gun bans was a losing proposition, so they abandoned that for quite some time. In that regard, Kamala Harris isn't exactly treading on new ground.
But I do find it hilariously sad that this writer would literally argue that Kamala Harris isn't talking about gun bans just gun control when she's explicitly pushing for bans.
A gun ban doesn't have to be a total ban on all guns, which is something few in the media seem to be able to comprehend. Gun bans happen incrementally all the time. It's an easier sell.
But banning a type of gun is, by definition, a gun ban.
Then again, I think they do know it. I think they're hoping you won't notice. They're hoping you won't be able to see the difference, to tell that it's literally the same thing, just on a slightly different scale.
None of that, however, touches on the fact that gun control will inevitably lead to gun bans anyway. I have yet to find an anti-gunner who will show me where their line in the sand is. None of them can tell me where gun control will go too far for them short of a total gun ban, which means if one person somewhere can own a single-shot .22 rifle, they're happy.
That's not acceptable for most of us.
And we're not going to swallow this idea that Kamala Harris isn't just like that, either.
