Kamala: ‘They’re Getting Shot’

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

We have long since gotten used to Kamala Harris saying whatever she felt was convenient in the heat of the moment, even if it directly contradicted something else that she’d said only recently. You can chalk that up to a typical politician lying or a bad memory or whatever you like, but the reality is that the Veep changes her (rare) policy statements the way other people change their socks. This week, however, we saw that pattern emerge once again on the topic of Second Amendment rights and personal gun ownership. Harris was making an appearance with liberal talk-show host Oprah Winfrey when she was asked yet again about her repeated promises to confiscate people’s firearms, at least under certain circumstances. She fell back on her previous reminder that both she and her running mate, Tim Walz, are gun owners. This time, however, she decided to up the ante a bit. She told Winfrey that if anyone breaks into her house, “they’re going to get shot.” Let’s all break out the popcorn and see how she attempts to talk her way out of this one. (Huffington Post)

Vice President Kamala Harris defended her gun ownership and said she would use a firearm to protect her home in a conversation with Oprah Winfrey on Thursday night…

“I’m a gun owner; Tim Walz is a gun owner,” Harris said.

“I did not know that,” Winfrey replied.

“If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” Harris added. “Probably should not have said that. But my staff will deal with that later.”

You could almost hear the slapping sounds of some of her aides smacking themselves in the forehead as soon as the words had escaped her lips. Harris made it obvious that she realized she had stepped in it with the two curious comments she added. Let’s consider those first.

She first said, “Probably should not have said that.” Why wouldn’t you say it if it’s the truth? Perhaps because even if she was a bit confused in the moment, she recognized that a lot of her anti-gun liberal base does not believe in the concept of self-defense being a viable response when answering a threat. The second half of that caveat was a bit more mysterious. She said, “My staff will deal with that later.”

What did that mean? Did she mean to imply that her staff would need to perform the latest cleanup in aisle 7 when liberal gun grabbers turn on her for being some sort of Annie Oakley, gun-toting mama? Could she have meant that the staff would need to concoct a cover story for why she felt compelled to shoot a home intruder? Or (in a worst-case scenario), that her staff would need to shoot the intruder themselves? We may never know because the uncomfortable topic was quickly abandoned and the conversation turned to more palatable liberal issues.

As far as I’m concerned, what we may have witnessed was a rare moment of honesty from Harris when she was caught off guard by a marginally difficult question from one of the most liberal-friendly hosts imaginable. Harris has always traveled with an armed security detail. She sees no disconnect in that habit because it’s her own personal safety on the line. Note how she began the conversation by saying, “If somebody breaks into my house…” (Emphasis added.) Not your house or the home of any of the other “little people.” If it threatens to impact her personally, all bets are off. 

Kamala Harris’ policies and personal convictions (on the rare occasions when she mentions them) are a mile wide and an inch deep. They shift to fit the audience she is addressing and the needs of the moment. She has repeatedly made it clear that she supports red flag laws and “assault weapon” bans, both of which involved potential gun confiscation in one form or another. (Jeff Charles has a great breakdown of that phenomenon at RedState in case you missed it.) And yet she is somehow still in a statistical tie in the race against Donald Trump, one of the most staunchly pro-Second Amendment presidents we’ve seen. Can anyone explain that to me?