Staff Reports
Vice President Kamala Harris has decided to put her gun ownership on full display, attempting to present it as evidence that she’s trustworthy when it comes to the Second Amendment. It’s quite the selling point, or at least it would be—if anyone actually believed her. The fact is, no one is buying what she’s selling, but she presses on nonetheless, ignoring the inconvenient truths that haunt her anti-gun past.
The recent spotlight on her firearm ownership raises a few eyebrows and quite a few pertinent questions. Harris has long championed the legalization of marijuana, which, while perfectly within her rights, opens a veritable Pandora’s box of queries surrounding her gun ownership. Her admission of past recreational drug use, seemingly glossed over in her political career, now comes under scrutiny. The connection? Federal law prohibits anyone who uses marijuana from owning or possessing firearms, a point that seems lost on the vice president.
Kamala says she owns a Glock.
She not only supported but sponsored legislation which would have barred San Francisco residents from possessing, distributing or manufacturing handguns. pic.twitter.com/LpPkBJFN8b
— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) October 8, 2024
This is hardly a trivial issue. Second Amendment attorney Matt Cubeiro has drawn attention to the fact that Harris’s past marijuana use could have implications for her firearm ownership. If there was ever a time for a double standard in the halls of power, this may be it. Hunter Biden found himself in a legal quagmire over a similar situation, and that affair was a veritable circus. Meanwhile, Kamala’s saga appears not to include any smoking gun—pun intended—but the questions remain entirely valid.
The real kicker in this situation is the glaring hypocrisy inherent in Harris maintaining her stance on strict gun control while potentially violating the very laws she enforces. If she utilized marijuana around the time she bought that Glock, she might indeed find herself on shaky legal ground. It’s awfully tough to push for personal accountability while possibly breaking the law oneself. Moreover, considering her history of campaigning against drug and gun offenses, the optics here are nothing short of ironic.
Harris has had plenty of time to come up with a plausible narrative, yet she seems to be avoiding the questions altogether. Her previous claim that her drug use was “a long time ago” raises its own set of concerns. What exactly does that mean? Irregular timelines tend to muddy the waters, especially when one’s credibility is on the line. As the public continues to connect the dots, one can only imagine what will emerge from this tangled web of irony that Harris has spun for herself. In the world of politics, it seems that “trust but verify” remains an excellent motto—especially when certain individuals have a penchant for stretching the truth.
