Minnesota Governor Tim Walz recently went on "The View." Unsurprisingly, they loved him there.
While on the show, he did the typical Harris-Walz campaign thing of touting their gun ownership, as if that makes a difference in the grand scheme of things. After all, Kamala Harris touted a handgun ban but now says she owns a handgun. The idea that these two being gun owners somehow means our rights aren't threatened is laughable.
But then it gets weird, even by Tim Walz's standards, and someone needs to teach him about rights for a moment.
Look at what he said:
“These are folks that cosplay with the guns — there is no reason we need assault weapons on our streets or in our schools,” he said. “We are both gun owners — first time maybe on the Democratic ticket in modern times.”
Walz made one more shady dig at his Republican opponent Donald Trump, telling the co-hosts, “The Republican nominee can’t pass a background check to get a gun,” referring to Trump getting convicted on 34 felony counts in his hush money trial early this year.
“We understand the Second Amendment and lawful gun owners, folks who have been doing this for 50 years like I have, we understand that there’s not a single thing that we’re proposing that takes away your right to be able to own that firearm, to be able to have it in your possession,” he continued. “But it does go a long ways to making sure that folks who shouldn’t have it, don’t have it.”
First, my colleague at Bearing Arms, Cam Edwards, pointed out how close Walz came to being a felon. One more drink before his DUI arrest and it would have been a felony.
Recommended
But for me, my focus is on the idea that nothing the Harris-Walz campaign is doing would take away our rights to own "that firearm," as he put it.
Yet, just a short time before, Walz demonized those of us who have AR-15s, calling us "cosplayers," saying there's no reason we need those kinds of weapons. His campaign explicitly calls for a ban on these guns.
And yet, somehow, that won't take away my right to own that particular firearm?
How does Tim Walz figure that they can ban an entire category of firearm – something the Supreme Court has held is unconstitutional, mind you – and still somehow not be infringing on our right to keep and bear arms?
Walz has been doing the "aw, shucks" routine, trying to come across as your neighbor or that guy you BS with at the bar for some time, but he's been in the game long enough to know better. If he doesn't, it's time to take him to the proverbial woodshed and give him a lesson on rights that he'll never forget.
You can't take away my right to own something and then gaslight me into believing you haven't messed with my rights.
I'm not that stupid. If I were, I'd probably be voting for these two morons in the general election. Since that's only going to happen if I die before election day...
