Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s recent guest spot on “The View” was met with the expected enthusiasm, but his comments on gun ownership have sparked skepticism. Walz, alongside his running mate Kamala Harris, highlighted their own gun ownership as a supposed testament to their commitment to protecting Second Amendment rights. However, this assertion rings hollow, given Harris’s previous advocacy for a handgun ban, which she has since contradicted by revealing her own handgun ownership.
A more glaring inconsistency emerged when Walz downplayed the impact of his proposed gun control measures on citizens’ rights. Notably, his campaign has explicitly pushed for a ban on AR-15s, with Walz himself disparaging owners of such firearms as “cosplayers” who have no legitimate need for these weapons. This stance directly conflicts with his claim that his policies wouldn’t infringe upon the right to own “that firearm.”
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that banning entire categories of firearms, like the one proposed by Walz, is unconstitutional. This raises questions about Walz’s understanding of the implications of his policies on the right to bear arms. Has his prolonged tenure in politics blinded him to the evident contradiction, or is this a deliberate attempt to obscure the truth?
Walz’s folksy demeanor, often employed to connect with voters, cannot mask the glaring discrepancy in his argument. The notion that one can restrict access to a specific type of firearm without infringing upon the overarching right to gun ownership is a form of gaslighting. This attempt to redefine the boundaries of Second Amendment rights is unlikely to deceive informed voters, who recognize that undermining one aspect of gun ownership inherently affects the broader right.
