Kamala Harris Exploits Maine Tragedy For Gun Control Agenda

In the aftermath of the horrific mass shooting in Maine last week, Vice President Kamala Harris seized the opportunity to push for stricter gun control laws in the United States, citing Australia’s stringent regulations as a model for success. During a luncheon with Australia’s Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, Harris praised the Australian gun laws, stating, “Gun violence has terrorized and traumatized so many of our communities in this country. And let us be clear, it does not have to be this way, as our friends in Australia have demonstrated.”

Australia’s approach to gun control, initiated following a 1996 firearms massacre in Tasmania, included the National Firearms Agreement, which banned semiautomatic weapons and prompted the surrender of nearly 650,000 firearms. The result has been a decreased number of gun-owning households. Yet, the number of firearms per licensed owner has increased.

Moreover, Australia defines the right to bear arms as a privilege, not a fundamental right, and self-defense is not considered a justifiable reason for gun ownership.

Harris went on to advocate for comprehensive background checks, red flag laws, a ban on high-capacity magazines, and the renewal of the assault weapons ban. These proposals align with the Biden administration’s agenda, as evidenced by establishing the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention in September, overseen by Harris herself.

However, what Harris conveniently omitted from her speech were crucial details surrounding the Maine shooting. The shooter, Robert Card, a U.S. Army reservist with a history of mental health issues, reportedly used a legally obtained .308 rifle. Card was known to authorities, having admitted to hearing voices telling him to attack military bases. Despite the clear warning signs and the existence of Yellow Flag laws in Maine, the system failed to prevent this tragedy.

Harris’ emphasis on Australian gun laws as a solution to America’s gun violence problem overlooks the fact that the Second Amendment is a cornerstone of our Constitution, enshrining the right to bear arms as a fundamental freedom. Each year, countless Americans rely on this right for self-defense, with estimates ranging from 500,000 to 3 million instances where legally owned firearms have been used to protect lives and property.

It is a false dichotomy to assert that we must choose between upholding the Second Amendment and enacting reasonable gun safety laws. Instead, we should focus on enforcing existing regulations and addressing the root causes of gun violence, such as mental illness and a broken criminal justice system.

Moreover, Harris’ comparison of U.S. gun violence to Australian gun laws fails to account for the fact that gun violence is not the leading cause of death among American children, as she claims. This dubious assertion neglects to consider the impact of abortion, which takes the lives of an estimated 860,000 unborn children annually.

While the tragedy in Maine is a stark reminder of the devastation wrought by gun violence, it should not be exploited to advance a political agenda that undermines our constitutional rights. The solution lies not in emulating Australia’s restrictive approach but in safeguarding our Second Amendment rights while addressing the underlying causes of violence in our society.

The American people deserve a thoughtful, measured response that upholds our values and protects our citizens rather than a knee-jerk reaction that plays into the hands of leftists seeking to further erode our fundamental freedoms.