What's worse, she favors legislative and executive action on guns while knowing virtually nothing about them.

Perhaps her biggest lie on this topic is her claim that she "absolutely" supports the Second Amendment — and in the next breath, advocating for an "assault weapon" ban.

Vice President Kamala Harris on Wednesday said a real challenge lawmakers face in addressing gun violence is those who would suggest a "false choice:" That you either support the 2nd Amendment or you want to "take everyone's guns away."

"I'll speak for myself. I am absolutely in favor of the 2nd Amendment," she said. "And I am also in favor of an assault weapons ban."

The line — which Harris has said previously — drew applause during a gathering of nearly 100 state lawmakers from 39 states who were gathered at the White House complex for the launch of a "Safer States Initiative" to help states reduce gun violence. Harris, who oversees the White House Office on Gun Violence Prevention, released an agenda with a host of key actions states can take, including banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines at the state level.

The "false choice" statement is a massive straw man, which will sooner or later fall over on the vice president and crush her argument. The Second Amendment community isn't worried about "taking everyone's guns away" yet — although we are smart enough to realize that this is the ultimate goal. No, we are worried about the continual calls for "compromise," in which we surrender our rights in return for nothing. We are concerned about legislators who know nothing about firearms hectoring us about firearms. We are worried about, in an increasingly violent environment, being denied our right to protect ourselves and our families.

We are also concerned about the stupid claims about "assault weapons." The very term is nonsensical; it implies that a "scary" AR-15, which includes such horrifying accessories as a bayonet lug — contributing, we suppose, to the spike in bayonet violence — is somehow more dangerous than, say, a Winchester 100, which functions identically to an AR-15 while firing a more powerful cartridge. But the Winchester 100 has a pretty wood stock, so is somehow different.

See Related: Ron DeSantis Blasts Biden Admin's 'Gun Show Loophole' Rule—'Will End Up Getting Nixed'

Biden's Massive Incoherence in Ironic New Remarks on 'Gun Sense' After Hunter's Conviction

There's more. In 2008, Kamala Harris, then-district attorney for the City of San Francisco, signed onto a "friend of the court" brief for the Supreme Court relating to the DC v. Heller case. This brief, in part, attempted to make the now-debunked case that the Second Amendment somehow is limited to service in an organized militia.

The brief also came at a time when the great majority of federal courts (including the Ninth Circuit, which covered Harris's jurisdiction, San Francisco) viewed the Second Amendment as not securing any meaningful individual right of members of the public to personally keep and bear arms. Rather, those courts viewed the Second Amendment as endorsing (to quote the then-existing Ninth Circuit precedent, which the brief itself later cited), 

the "collective rights" model, [which] asserts that the Second Amendment right to "bear arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons.

Finally, Kamala Harris favors such restrictions as "universal" background checks — it's important here to note that background checks are universally required for purchases from licensed dealers; what Vice President Harris is advocating for are background checks between free citizens buying, selling, trading or even loaning their private property. 

And she is willing to use executive action to force these into effect.

"This is not about getting rid of the Second Amendment," Harris said. "It's simply about saying we need reasonable gun safety laws."

Should Congress fail to pass meaningful legislation, the vice president said Mr. Biden may be prepared to take executive action.

"I don't think the president is excluding that. But again, I want to be clear that if we really want something that is going to be lasting, we need to pass legislation," she said. 

Kamala Harris implies that President Biden would have been willing to impose these measures by imperial diktat; we are forced to believe that she would happily take such action as well.

Kamala Harris is not just an undesirable candidate. She is a dangerous candidate. She talks freely and advocates for restrictions on things she knows nothing about; she sees the Constitution not as the ultimate law of the land, the primary rules for the republic, but as something to use as a crutch when it's convenient for her to do so. Anyone who favors the Second Amendment simply cannot support Kamala Harris for president — or for Fourth Assistant Dogcatcher in Leaf Springs, Arkansas.