Walz Exaggerated Military Role to Push Gun Control

 

Governor Tim Walz (D-MN) has recently come under scrutiny for his promotion of far-left gun control policies, particularly his attempts to bolster his credibility on the issue by referencing his military experience. Walz, who is on the Democratic ticket for president alongside Kamala Harris, has emphasized his time in the National Guard to support his stance on firearms. However, even CNN, a network typically aligned with Democratic perspectives, has questioned Walz’s claims, with commentator Tom Foreman labeling Walz’s insinuations about being in the line of fire as “absolutely false.”

In a segment that aired recently, CNN highlighted the logical fallacy often seen in political discourse—an appeal to authority. This fallacy occurs when someone uses credentials in one area to suggest expertise in another unrelated area. Gun control advocates frequently employ this tactic by putting forth individuals who have owned or been issued firearms in law enforcement or military contexts to argue against civilian ownership of similar weapons. The underlying message is often that because these individuals have experience with firearms, their opinions on restricting civilian access to them should carry more weight.

On August 6, the official X (formerly Twitter) account of Kamala Harris’s campaign posted a video of Walz speaking to a crowd about his firearm and gun control credentials. The post included a summary of his remarks: “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war.” Walz made similar comments in the video, referencing the Harris-Walz ticket’s support for banning AR-15s and other so-called semiautomatic “assault weapons,” which they often describe as “weapons of war.”

However, there are significant issues with how Walz uses his military career to support this position.

First, the AR-15s available to the public today are notably different from the versions Walz or other soldiers may have been issued for military duties. The military versions are legally classified as “machine guns” and are capable of automatic or burst fire, meaning they can fire multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. In contrast, the AR-15s sold to civilians are semi-automatic, requiring a separate trigger pull for each round. This distinction is crucial, as the military versions have been heavily restricted for civilian ownership since 1934 and effectively banned since 1986.

More importantly, records of Walz’s military career indicate that he never carried any sort of firearm “in war.” While Walz was stationed overseas in Italy for a period, he never served in a combat zone and was never exposed to enemy fire. CNN’s Tom Foreman explained, “There is no evidence that at any time Gov. Walz was in a position of being shot at, and some of his language could easily be seen to suggest that he was. So that is absolutely false when he said that about, about, uh, gun rights out there.”

In other words, Walz’s military service does not align with the image of a battle-hardened soldier who has firsthand experience with the devastating effects of automatic weapons in combat. Instead, his support for banning AR-15s appears to be more closely tied to the positions required by the Democratic Party and its donors, rather than any personal military experience.

As a member of the Democratic Party with ambitions for statewide and national office, Walz has aligned himself with the party’s stance on gun control, which includes banning America’s most popular rifle, the AR-15. This is a shift from his earlier position as a Congressman in 2008 when he voted to overturn Washington D.C.’s “assault weapons” ban.

It is important to note that there is nothing inherently dishonorable about serving in the military without being exposed to combat. However, when a politician uses their military service to support a particular policy position, it is essential that their claims accurately reflect their experience. In Walz’s case, his assertions about carrying weapons in war do not hold up under scrutiny.