It’s no secret that Vice President Kamala Harris has a long track record of shifting her positions to fit the political winds, but her rapid flip-flopping on guns is particularly glaring. In recent months, Harris has gone from touting herself as a champion of strict gun control to conveniently dodging the subject when it doesn’t suit her narrative. This kind of political maneuvering is nothing new for Harris, but when it comes to a fundamental right like the Second Amendment, her inconsistency isn’t just frustrating—it’s downright dangerous.
For years, Harris has positioned herself as one of the most vocal advocates for restrictive gun control measures. As a senator, she pushed for everything from universal background checks to bans on so-called “assault weapons.” During her presidential campaign, she even went so far as to threaten executive action on gun control if Congress didn’t act. The message was clear: Harris would do whatever it took to curtail Americans’ right to own guns, no matter how sweeping or unconstitutional the measures might be.
But then came the vice presidency, and suddenly Harris’ tone on guns shifted. Sure, she still pays lip service to the gun control base when it suits her, but in key moments, her passion for the issue seems to fade into the background. Whether it’s conveniently ignoring the failures of gun control in states like California or staying silent when violent crime spikes in major cities, Harris has shown a remarkable ability to change her stance depending on what’s politically expedient.
Take her recent flip-flop on so-called “assault weapons” as a prime example. During her presidential campaign, Harris was clear: she supported a ban on these firearms and wanted to go even further by enforcing mandatory buybacks. She boldly declared that assault weapons have “no place on the streets of a civil society.” But once she became vice president, the rhetoric softened, and the urgency vanished. Suddenly, the radical calls for mass confiscation were replaced with vague statements about “gun safety” and “common-sense reforms.” It’s almost as if Harris realized that maybe, just maybe, her extreme anti-gun positions weren’t as popular with the American public as she thought.
And this flip-flopping doesn’t stop with so-called “assault weapons.” Harris’ stance on gun control in general has shifted dramatically depending on who she’s talking to and what she thinks they want to hear. In one breath, she’ll talk about the need for “gun safety” measures, and in the next, she’ll avoid the topic entirely, especially when addressing audiences that might not share her radical anti-gun views. It’s clear that Harris will say whatever she needs to in order to maintain political capital, and her commitment to actual gun control measures is as shallow as her political convictions.
What’s even more telling is Harris’ refusal to address the growing crime rates in cities with strict gun control laws. Take Chicago, for instance, a city plagued by some of the highest gun violence rates in the country despite having some of the strictest gun laws. Yet, when asked about what the federal government can do to reduce violence in cities like Chicago, Harris’ answers are evasive and full of platitudes, completely ignoring the fact that the very gun control measures she pushes for on a national level are failing in these cities. This is political pandering at its finest—Harris wants to appease the gun control lobby without actually addressing the root of the problem: that criminals don’t care about gun laws, and no amount of legislation will stop bad actors from committing violent acts.
Moreover, Harris’ inconsistency on guns isn’t just a political issue; it’s a constitutional one. The Second Amendment isn’t a bargaining chip to be used when it’s convenient and discarded when it’s not. It’s a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, and any politician who treats it as anything less than that is betraying the very oath they swore to uphold. Yet, for Harris, the Second Amendment seems to be nothing more than a talking point, something to be manipulated and contorted to fit whatever political agenda she’s pursuing at the moment.
The danger of Harris’ flip-flopping on guns is twofold. First, it shows a complete lack of principle on one of the most important issues facing the country today. If she’s willing to abandon her extreme gun control positions when it suits her, how can anyone trust her to stand by any other political position? Second, her wavering stance sends a dangerous message to anti-gun extremists: that gun rights are up for negotiation. Every time Harris shifts her position on guns, it emboldens those who want to chip away at the Second Amendment, one law, one regulation, and one “compromise” at a time.
KAMALA: “We’re not taking anybody’s guns away, so stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.”
(FACT CHECK: Harris previously supported mandatory buyback programs for certain firearms. She has since flip-flopped on the issue.)
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) September 11, 2024
In the end, Kamala Harris’ flip-flopping on guns isn’t just frustrating—it’s a stark reminder of how fragile our Second Amendment rights can be in the hands of politicians who are more concerned with their careers than the Constitution. Whether she’s calling for mass confiscation one day or quietly backing away from her radical positions the next, Harris has made it clear that she’s not someone gun owners can trust.
It’s time for gun owners to stand up and demand consistency from our leaders. The right to own a weapon is not something that should be subject to the whims of politicians like Kamala Harris, who are more interested in securing their next political victory than in protecting our constitutional rights. Gun owners deserve leaders who will defend the Second Amendment, not ones who treat it like a bargaining chip. Until we get that kind of leadership, we can expect more of the same from Kamala Harris—more flip-flopping, more pandering, and more attacks on our gun rights.
