Kamala Harris has a problem.
Well, she has a lot of them, but a big one is that she has absolutely no understanding of what rights the American people have. For example, she's famously advocated for total bans of handguns in San Francisco and AR-15s nationwide. She's argued she has the authority to walk into people's homes and see if they're storing guns "correctly." Harris has ignored the rights people already have, which is bad enough, but she's also figuring they have rights that simply don't exist.
While appearing with POTATUS, she made the argument that people have a right to be safe:
Vice President Kamala Harris sparked debate Thursday when she declared that “the right to be safe is a civil right” during an East Room event where President Joe Biden signed a new executive order aimed at limiting the development of gun technologies. Harris’s statement raises questions about the administration’s stance, particularly in light of efforts to limit the constitutional right “to bear arms,” which many believe is crucial to ensuring personal safety.
“It is a false choice to suggest you are either in favor of the Second Amendment, or you want to take everyone’s guns away,” Harris said, attempting to balance her documented support for gun restrictions with her election-season claims of backing the right to bear arms in an attempt to fool voters. Her simultaneous call to reinstate the assault weapons ban raises concerns about the Democratic administration’s true intentions regarding gun ownership. For gun rights advocates, the logical inconsistency is clear: Harris calls for protecting Americans’ safety as a civil right while seeking to curtail the very means by which law-abiding citizens ensure that safety—their right to bear arms, which is explicitly protected by the Second Amendment.
First, it's not a false choice. People who favor gun restrictions are generally never going to be satisfied with their current demands. If they get those, they immediately start demanding more and more restrictions. We all know that Harris won't be content with the policies she's running on now. If she implemented all of them tomorrow, she'd shift gears and demand other stuff.
But that's not what I wanted to talk about today.
Recommended
Instead, I want to discuss this idea that "the right to be safe is a civil right."
That's a dangerous idea.
Now, understand that I think people should be safe. However, if we declare it a civil right, the government can use its authority to protect our safety, and not just regarding crime.
If the government decides that "safety" is a right, it can do more than take away your right to keep and bear arms simply because someone who is already breaking every gun control law known to man is going to do something violent to someone else. It can take away your car – car accidents still kill more people than guns, after all. Agents of the government can walk into your home and dictate your bathroom decor since more people die in the bathroom than in any other room. It can ban swimming pools in private homes because people slip and drown all too often.
If there's a civil right to keep people safe, the government doesn't just have the authority to do all these things, but an obligation.
Even then, though, it'll suck at it. That's because perfect safety is impossible to achieve. Stuff happens.
When it comes to violent crime, there are more murders committed with feet and hands than all types of rifles each year. That means safety is an illusion.
What's not an illusion is the right to keep and bear arms, which means we can take care of our own safety, just as we do in our cars, the bathroom, and everywhere else.
It's not the government's role, and we know it's not because when our Founding Fathers wrote and ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there was absolutely no mention of any such right to safety.
As an attorney, a former prosecutor of a major American city, a United States senator, and vice president of the United States, Kamala Harris should know this. The fact that she doesn't seem to comprehend this proves she has no business in any higher office. In fact, it's evidence that she should still work that job at McDonald's that no one can verify she ever had.
