It is no easy task to figure which of the 20 Democratic presidential contenders is most favored by the party’s growing progressive wing. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are perhaps the two most acceptable candidates in the eyes of the extreme left. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) – who yet may emerge as a leading nominee for her party – is certainly not a progressive favorite. However, one particular attack on her suitability for the White House is of special interest in that it exposes the progressive desire to create a nation of subjects rather than of citizens with individual rights.
Already under fire from some on the extreme left for her record as a prosecutor, Harris recently was called out in a USA Today opinion piece because she admitted to being a gun owner. Contributor Peter Funt suggested owning a gun renders the California Democrat unsuitable for the office of president.
This is a truly remarkable statement in itself, one that exposes the attitude of progressives toward Second Amendment rights. For them, gun ownership is simply unacceptable. Funt argues in his op-ed that invoking self-defense as a justification for carrying a gun – as Harris has done – is a “bogus argument.” The extreme left does not want ordinary citizens to have the ability to defend themselves. Why? Because defenseless people are easier to scare, manipulate, and bully.
Kamala’s Ambiguous Attitude Toward Guns
It is, of course, worth adding a little context: Funt is not simply arguing that gun ownership is disqualifying for all presidential candidates; he is saying it is disqualifying for a Democrat. The far left tolerates no diversity of thought or action within Democratic Party ranks. The progressive movement is monolithic and tyrannical. Any Democratic politician with the audacity to diverge even slightly from progressive dogma is deemed unsuitable.
Harris, of course, is no friend to the Second Amendment. While she admitted recently that she owns a gun “for probably the reason a lot of people do — for personal safety,” she has never explicitly acknowledged that ordinary Americans have a legitimate right to self-defense. Despite admitting that most Americans own guns for personal protection, she stopped short of recognizing that they have the right to do so. This may seem, on its surface, a nuanced interpretation of what Harris said, but there is a significant difference between accepting the fact that people behave in a certain way and agreeing that those people have a right to behave that way.
Like most Democrats, Harris wants to ban semi-automatic long guns, known as “assault rifles” to the ignorant. The argument that semi-automatic rifles are more deadly than handguns is the most bogus of all arguments, of course. Rifles have the advantage of range, but in almost all active-shooter scenarios, the shooter engages targets at relatively close range. In the hands of a competent operator, a handgun can be just as deadly as many rifles at close range.
The senator and former DA also objected recently to the idea that the gun control argument was a “zero-sum game.” She took issue with those who frame the argument as being between those who support the Second Amendment and those who want to take away everybody’s guns.
Yes, Progressives Do Want to Take All Your Guns
The left, however, cannot be trusted, when it comes to gun ownership. Its response to every mass shooting is calls for the tightening of existing gun laws and the introduction of additional laws. Each incident of gun violence proves that none of these laws have a meaningful impact, beyond making it more difficult for a law-abiding citizen to purchase and carry a firearm.
When politicians like Harris feign respect for Second Amendment rights, progressives like Funt expose the real agenda. Funt makes a point of going after handguns, and that strips away the great deception perpetrated by those who wish to erase the Second Amendment: These people argue that they want to ban “assault rifles” because the capabilities of such weapons far exceed what is needed for self-defense. One would think then that they would be content to allow private citizens to continue to own handguns.
In his op-ed, though, Funt lays bare the true anti-gun agenda. The very idea that anyone should think it necessary to carry a gun for personal security, progressives argue, is ridiculous:
“[Harris] played to the heartland gathering by suggesting it is wise to own a handgun for protection simply because you’re afraid. Such thinking presumably extends to people riding the subway, or walking home at night, or driving a car among road-raged motorists. It is exactly the bogus argument that gun opponents are seeking to deflect.”
Here is the undiluted progressive view of gun ownership: There is no legitimate reason for owning a gun – not even self-defense. Freedom of speech and the freedom to own and carry a firearm are the two most fundamental ways American citizens can retain their independence from government coercion. The progressive left constantly assaults both of these constitutional rights because if the government can forbid gun ownership and regulate speech, it has complete control over the people.
As for Harris, she woos Midwestern voters by giving a nod to gun ownership while refusing to defend the Second Amendment directly. In doing so, she manages to infuriate extreme leftists like Funt who want no compromise at all on the issue of gun rights. How many more Democratic candidates will fall afoul of their party’s radical wing by paying lip service to the rights and values in which the rest of the nation believes?
At Liberty Nation, we love to hear from our readers. Comment and join the conversation!