Narrative-shaping is one thing, but the Orwellian ask that we completely disregard reality to believe the opposite of what it is true while still somehow believing in truth—what George Orwell called “doublethink”—is galling. But such are the upside-down politics of Vice President Kamala Harris’ (D) march for the White House and against our Second Amendment freedom.
The Harris campaign has been using Beyoncé’s song “Freedom” as theme music as she walks onto stages before she says things like we have a “choice between freedom and chaos.” In this false construct, she represents “freedom.” And, despite all the evidence to the contrary, Kamala Harris says Trump represents chaos.
To push this claim, Harris’ first campaign ad repeated the phrase “We choose freedom” over and over as if all a lie needs to become truth is repetition. The refrain did quickly lead CNN to gleefully call this phrase the “Harris campaign’s theme.”
Now, sorry to bring the dictionary into a presidential campaign like Harris’, but one part of a definition Dictionary.com has for “freedom” is “civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.” This is apt here, as the Second Amendment is a civil liberty (or civil right), explicitly protected from “arbitrary or despotic government” infringement by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights. So, though the Harris campaign—and President Joe Biden (D)—say they are for freedom, even that they are protectors of democracy, the fact is they adamantly want to take this fundamental right from a free people.
This freedom is a key part of the American DNA. In the early days of this democratic republic, the American voting public demanded, as a condition for ratification of the U.S. Constitution, that a bill of rights be passed by the first U.S. Congress as amendments to the Constitution. So, this freedom, kept whole, was the will and intent of the American people. Changing this fact requires surpassing the constitutional hurdles put in place by the same founding document. If that is what Harris and Biden want, they should try.
But such a direct constitutional attempt to strip away a civil right would surely fail, so they instead have decided to deceive.
Their claim to be protectors of freedom even as they try to take it away should be especially hard to swallow for any voter who resides in or who has simply visited a city run by a defund-the-police, gun-control-preaching mayor—and that perhaps also has a George Soros-funded district attorney in it refusing to prosecute many violent criminals. The chaos, as Harris called it, has clearly been stoked by those with her politics. And they are her politics, as there is a lot of video showing her calling for defunding the police in 2020.
The consequences from these policies, of course, isn’t what Harris wants voting citizens to think about. Instead, the Harris campaign is hoping voters will walk the streets with copies of The New York Times or The Washington Post held in front of their faces so the Newspeak of the mainstream media will help them deny reality.
Even if enough voters in enough swing districts keep these ideological blinders on, there is still no rational way to hold the contradictory ideas that Harris is for enhancing individual freedom even as she obstinately opposes law-abiding citizens’ natural right to defend their lives. Therefore, to deceive enough voters, she will likely need more than just the heavy doses of cognitive dissonance the mainstream media is administering; after all, even a lot of her party’s voters are now gun owners. A recent poll by NBC News found that the percentage of voters with a firearm in the household is up to 52%. According to this poll, this is up from 46% in 2019 and 42% in 2013. Households with a gun in them now include 66% of Republicans, 45% of independents and 41% of Democrats, says this poll, which is mirrored by other polls and data; in fact, since the 2020 election, some 22.3 million Americans have exercised their Second Amendment rights by purchasing their very first guns, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Given these numbers, Harris’ campaign advisers, if they are worth whatever she pays them, might attempt to persuade her not to make this election about taking away this civil right.
Still, if pressed by an actual journalist (wouldn’t this be something!) about this contradiction, Harris would likely, after laughing nervously for some awkward length of time, attempt to shift the conversation by saying we need to be free from “gun violence,” but that’s a sick sort of dodge, as disarming law-abiding people leaves good citizens without the ability to defend themselves from violent criminals. The best Kamala Harris can hope for from this evasion of reality is that it will shift an inconvenient (for her) conversation away from the obvious lie that she is for individual freedom even though she stands in direct opposition to a fundamental right protected from government infringement by the U.S. Bill of Rights.
And she surely does stand steadfastly against this freedom.
“We will finally pass red-flag laws, universal background checks and an assault-weapons ban,” said Harris on the campaign trail right after getting the nod to run on top of the ticket.
These stated positions on our Second Amendment freedom have gun-control groups giddy for Harris. The gun-control groups Giffords and the Brady Campaign were quick to endorse her for president. These endorsements were followed by the gun-control groups Everytown, the Community Justice Action Fund, the Newtown Action Alliance and others.
They like Harris because she has long been a gun-ban advocate. In 2008, as the U.S. Supreme Court was considering the landmark case D.C. v. Heller, Harris actually led a group of prosecutors who tried to convince the justices to reject the reality that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
Soon thereafter, in 2010, Harris was elected California attorney general. In that role, she continued pushing for more infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. She next ran to fill a U.S. Senate seat left empty when Barbara Boxer (D) retired. The real fight for a statewide seat in California is in the primary. She won there and then won election to the U.S. Senate in 2016. Harris soon co-sponsored bills to enact “universal” background checks and to ban “assault weapons.”
Then, in 2020, Harris actually ran to the left of Biden on the Second Amendment during her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. She even pushed a platform that included a “mandatory buyback”scheme to seize Americans’ popular semi-automatic rifles. Meanwhile, in her doublespeak, Harris also claimed that she supports “responsible gun ownership” and even said she owned a gun for personal protection. Harris did not make it far in the Democratic primary process. Many have noted that, given that she could not win her party’s nomination from voters, it is awfully undemocratic to disenfranchise the 14 million people who voted in the 2024 primaries for Joe Biden by simply coronating her without a contest.
Whatever voters make of that, while she was in the U.S. Senate, Harris was ranked as the most-Left-leaning U.S. senator, though the organization (GovTrack) that labeled her this way suddenly stopped rating lawmakers, when the ratings are based on one year of votes, right after Harris was endorsed by Biden for her run for the presidency. So, we are supposed to simply forget that she was to the left of even Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and so on when it comes to anti-Second Amendment legislation.
Now, here we are in 2024, just a few months before an election, and we’re being told Harris is for “freedom,” even though, to name a very recent example, as vice president, Harris was tasked by Biden with “overseeing” the first-ever gun-control department run out of the White House, known as the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. It was founded in September 2023. The other members of her staff on the White House gun-control office include Stefanie Feldman, a longtime policy advisor to President Biden on gun-control policy, as well as Greg Jackson, former executive director of the gun-control group Community Justice Action Fund, and Rob Wilcox, who has been the gun-control group Everytown for Gun Safety’s senior director of federal government affairs.
Officially, this White House office overseen by Harris has these goals:
• To ban “assault weapons and high-capacity magazines”
• To require so-called “safe-storage of firearms”
• To require “background checks for all gun sales”
• To eliminate “gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability”
• To “put more police officers on our streets for accountable, community policing and invest in gun violence prevention and intervention”
All of these goals rely heavily on semantics.
By “assault weapons,” they mean semi-automatic rifles. This is the most-popular rifle type sold in America today. Indeed, semi-automatic rifles have been sold to the American public for well over a century. According to FBI statistics, all rifles are used in fewer than 3% of murders each year, and these rifles are used by criminals in an unknown slice of that less-than 3%.
“Safe storage” is a term used to force citizens to lock up whatever guns they might still have if Biden or Harris get their way and to do so in such a way that they won’t be available for self-defense purposes.
The “universal” background-check idea puts the bureaucracy in the way of normal, law-abiding behavior that Americans have enjoyed since the founding of this nation and before.
The “immunity from liability” claim refers to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which explicitly does not give immunity for product problems or for any laws broken; it only protects gun makers and dealers from liability for other peoples’ criminal behavior.
The “community policing and invest in gun violence prevention and intervention … ” statement is too vague for analysis.
The fact that none of these deceptive and bad ideas have been made into law in the year since this gun-control office in the White House was founded is not necessarily a reflection of Harris’ leadership abilities (or lack thereof), as Congress writes the law. Still, it is what Harris wants to make into law.
In sum, Harris is a far-Left California progressive who resents the Second Amendment’s existence. When it comes to policy related to this right, she has never actually tried to learn what is really happening on our streets and in our neighborhoods. She has never done the difficult work of speaking to legislators with different views on this topic. Instead, she has always taken talking points from gun-control groups and touted them as policy solutions. In this way, she blows along the far-Left’s political winds. In essence, this makes her a puppet for the ideologues on her staff and in other parts of government. In this, she is very much like Joe Biden. And so, like Biden, she would, if she gets the chance, raise her right hand and swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution and then, as soon as is practically possible, proceed to blithely attempt to take away this constitutionally protected freedom from we the people.
