California Sen. Kamala Harris (D) has been a long-time outspoken gun control advocate. She's not quite on the same wavelength as her colleague, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, but she's a close second.

During her town hall with CNN's Jake Tapper, Harris took a question about how to end "gun violence." Her response a regurgitation of the typical anti-gun talking points.

"There is no reason that in a society we have assault weapons around communities that can kill babies and police officers."

Assault weapons? Really?

Gun control advocates seem to call any kind of rifle that's black and tactical looking an "assault weapon." Basically, if it's scary looking and seems similar to an AR-15 then it has to be banned.

But that's the problem. Those who hate firearms are so focused on abolishing gun ownership that they don't even understand what they're talking about or the terminology that goes with it.

Literally, there is nothing wrong with AR-15s from a functionality standpoint. They're semi-automatic, meaning they fire one round with every trigger pull. They're not full auto. But anti-gunners are so focused on what the firearm looks like that they assume these rifles are full auto.

"Something like universal background checks. It makes perfect sense that you might want to know before someone can buy a weapon that can kill another human being. You might want to know, have they been convicted of a felony where they committed violence? That's just reasonable."

Background checks are great in theory but horrible in practice. We have liberals wanting to expand background checks and we don't even have a complete background check system. As it is now, 38 states provides only 80 percent of their convictions. So what happens? We have background checks that might stop a prohibited possessor from obtaining a firearm (assuming he or she actually tries to purchase a gun at a retail store). But then again, how many criminals get their firearms through a retail store? Exactly. A very, very, very small percentage. The black market is their go-to.

"You might want to know, before they can buy that gun, if a court has found them to be a danger to themselves or others. You just might want to know. That's reasonable."

This is when Extreme Risk Protection Orders, commonly referred to as "red flag laws" are dangerous. The lack of due process means a court can determine someone mentally unfit to have a firearm and there's no way for them to challenge the decision. Just how long can ERPOs impact someone? One month? One year? For life? There are so many uncertainties.

"Here's the reality of it also. We're not waiting for good ideas. We have the good ideas: an assault weapons ban, background checks."

Again, assault weapons are based on cosmetic features. A firearm can have a specific type of grip or a collapsable stock and it's illegal. Swap out those features and the firearm is legal. Does that change how the gun functions mechanically? Nope. Yet somehow people like Harris think an assault weapons ban is necessary.

And again, we have background checks yet our system isn't complete. Wouldn't it make sense to have a wholesome NICS system before we start trying to expand it and making it "universal?" Expanding a flawed system won't suddenly close loopholes and gaps in the system. It just spreads the failure to multiple levels of government.