The presidential debate, hosted by ABC on September 10, was disgraceful on many levels. The most glaring issue was the obvious and clear bias expressed by the moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis. On many occasions, President Trump appeared to be debating them rather than Kamala Harris and was constantly subjected to on-the-spot interjections and fact-checking. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris did not receive equal treatment and was allowed many contradictory statements and blatant lies—among them was her reassurance to the American public that she had no intention of taking citizens’ firearms. More specifically, she stated, “Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. We aren’t taking anyone’s guns away.”
Kamala on ABC debate:
— matthew andler (@matthewandler) September 15, 2024
"And then this business about taking everyone's guns away. Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. We're not taking anybody's guns away. So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff."
Also Kamala: pic.twitter.com/FzlNOlF4Nm
Since this statement predictably went unchecked, it is necessary to set the record straight. Gun control has been a contentious issue in this presidential race and Harris has made many previous statements that contradict her reported new opinions. Since the topic divides the American populace, she did what she does best—pander and lie. Here are the counterarguments or follow-up questions that should have, but ultimately didn’t, happen:
Madam Vice President, you have repeatedly made statements regarding an assault weapons ban. ‘Assault weapons,’ of course, is mostly a buzzword and lacks a clear definition. What firearms do you and Tim Walz own, and have you changed your stance? Do you believe these rights are limited to you and similar government officials?
Madam Vice President, in 2022 you stated, “An assault weapon is a weapon of war, with no place, no place in a civil society.” Have you changed your mind on your position? Are you now vowing to protect all citizens’ constitutional rights without any infringement?
Vice President Harris, you stated in 2019 that you would make gun buybacks mandatory if elected President. Many view these processes as property confiscation and infringements on their rights. Are you reassuring the American public that these processes will no longer take place?
Vice President Harris, you have previously praised Australia for their gun policies. These policies have been proven to be ineffective. Have you since recognized the ineffectiveness of regulating private gun ownership?
Vice President Harris, your social media accounts are filled with messages indicating you support banning assault weapons. Can you define the term “assault weapons,” and is your message tonight to indicate that citizens would not have to worry about initiatives to regulate firearms meeting that criteria?
Vice President Harris, you are previously quoted as saying, “We must get weapons of war off the street.” As you know, the firearms actually used in war are already heavily regulated. What exactly was meant by this statement, and are you formally announcing a change in your stance?
Madam Vice President, in your 2020 primary run, you made a promise that if Congress did not enact gun control measures within the first 100 days of your presidency, you would use executive orders to do so. Are you promising tonight that this will no longer happen? Additionally, are there other issues that you intend to bypass Congress in order to enact change?
Speaking of your running mate, Tim Walz, he has similarly made statements reassuring the public that he has no intention of regulating private gun ownership but has similarly stated he supports “safety regulations.” Can you clarify these regulations for citizens who view any restrictions as violations of constitutionally protected rights?
Tim Walz in 2018: "I support an assault weapons ban."
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 11, 2024
Tim Walz yesterday: "We’re not going to take away your 2nd amendment rights.” pic.twitter.com/XwK54861FJ
Until now, Kamala Harris has been undeniably clear on her intent to impose severe restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. The use of similar moderate language is a classic ploy used to gain the trust of voters, only to push through policies that vastly contradict previous promises. The Biden-Harris administration has previously demonstrated mastery of this strategy. It’s crucial to understand that Harris’s agenda is not merely about regulating firearms; it is about broad control. This new brand of Democratic Party represents a clear and present danger to our constitutionally protected rights. Deception, lawfare, and backroom deals are their best friends in furthering agendas that the American populace does not want.
The recent debate failed to paint a clear picture of her intentions. Instead, it further muddled the picture that she has painted through years of campaigning. The debate failed to provide any clarity or accountability on the Harris platform. The blatant bias of the moderators and the unchallenged contradictions only further underscore the need for American voters to educate themselves as opposed to relying on mainstream media’s spoon-fed agenda. Kamala Harris cannot be trusted. If a second debate happens, Americans deserve clarity on the danger her administration would pose. Pull the mask off.
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of The Real Republic LLC, realrepublic.com, or any of its affiliates. While our team strives to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information provided, The Real Republic cannot guarantee the completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site or found by following any link. The Real Republic will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The Real Republic will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.
