When it comes to guns, no one should trust Kamala Harris. This is a person who doesn’t just claim to have been included in the decisions of the Biden administration, meaning she was part of every federal overreach on guns since this administration took office, but she has a long history of advocating for gun bans.

Now, she’s softened her rhetoric a bit, and with today’s election on the line, she kind of had to. While polling suggests gun control is popular–I’m skeptical, but there’s no reason the Harris-Walz campaign would be–there’s absolutely no support for the kind of gun control Harris has advocated for in the past.

But the media is framing it as if her views have shifted.

Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign’s shifting approach to gun control is critical to winning the support of moderate voters this election.

The Democratic presidential and vice-presidential candidates have been cautious this election season with their discussion of the topic and strategically planned events meant to sway gun owners’ views. This election season, the Democratic candidates have trodden lightly on the subject and strategically planned events intended to garner support from gun owners.

…

Kamala Harris has also discussed her pro-gun ownership views in the past few months since entering the race, humorously referring to her own Glock handgun in her interview with Oprah and “60 Minutes.” She shares Walz’s sentiments of being a proud gun owner while also advocating for gun control measures such as background checks and bans on automatic rifles.

The highlighting of the candidates’ pro-gun beliefs appears to be a clever attempt to sway moderate to conservative voters who are on the fence this election, but unfortunately, it has also caused some confusion when it comes to policy plans. 

They also cite Harris choosing Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as part of this outreach since Walz had an “A” grade from the NRA right up until he ran for statewide office and suddenly pivoted to embracing gun control as well.

But the idea that there was a shift in her approach implies that she shifted in her views and not just her rhetoric, and we have no evidence of that.

For example, Harris has never explained why she no longer wants a mandatory buyback for so-called assault weapons. She’s never explained how she changed from the view of banning handguns which she supported in San Francisco. 

The media hasn’t pressed her for answers and, frankly, Harris has avoided the press except for carefully curated interactions in part to probably avoid having to explain any such thing.

Her supporters won’t care and a lot of moderates probably haven’t even heard of some of this, which means this might actually work.

Of course, today is the election, so I guess we’ll find out soon enough. Hopefully, it doesn’t because Harris has made it clear that our gun rights are at risk, no matter how much “shifting” she’s supposedly done. All her positions are is the opening gambit. If she gets her way, the endgame will be far, far worse.

And if supposedly moderate folks who support guns to any degree think otherwise, then what happens will be on their heads.