Tonight's vice-presidential debate is probably the last big opportunity for the Trump campaign to outline and detail the anti-2A history of Kamala Harris, and Tim Walz's disaster of an interview on CNN on Monday revealed how J.D. Vance can do so.

CNN anchor Dana Bash brought up Tim Walz's past claims to have carried a weapon of war "in war", even though the Minnesota governor never saw combat while serving in the National Guard. When Walz made that comment in his first campaign for governor, he was advocating for a ban on AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles, but Bash ignored the gun control angle during her interview, asking instead if Walz erred in describing his military service. Walz himself hinted at his support for a semi-auto ban, but couldn't or wouldn't answer Bash's question directly. 

Well, first of all, I’m incredibly proud. I’ve done 24 years of wearin’ uniform of this country. Equally proud of my service in a public school classroom, whether it’s Congress or — or the governor. My record speaks for itself, but I think people are coming to get to know me. I — I speak like they do. I speak candidly. I wear my emotions on my sleeves, and I speak especially passionately about — about our children being shot in schools and around — around guns. So I think people know me. They know who I am. They know where — where my heart is, and again, my record has been out there for over 40 years to — to speak for itself.

Kamala Harris is a horrible off-the-cuff speaker, but her running mate is pretty good at creating word salads of his own. In fact, Walz's response was so evasive that Bash followed up, asking him directly if he "misspoke" about his military service. 

WALZ: Yeah, I said — we were talking about in this case, this was after a school shooting, the ideas of carrying these weapons of war. And my wife the English teacher told me my grammar’s not always correct. But again, if it’s not this, it’s an attack on my children for showing love for me, or it’s an attack on my dog. I’m not gonna do that, and the one thing I’ll never do is I’ll never demean another member’s service in any way. I never have and I never will.

Walz and Vance's military service are almost guaranteed to come up during tonight's debate, and while Vance should definitely acknowledge Walz's attempt to steal valor, he also needs to hit Vance and Harris on their support for a semi-auto ban. 

How would Walz respond if Vance said something like this?  

"Even if you had seen combat, you wouldn't have been carrying an AR-15, Tim. Those aren't 'weapons of war'. They're not used by our military, but they are the most popular rifles in the country when it comes to civilians. But you and your running mate want to ban them. In fact, your running mate still hasn't explained why she supposedly no longer supports a mandatory 'buyback' of these guns. She hasn't explained why she backed banning and confiscating handguns in San Francisco, or why she argued to the Supreme Court that D.C.'s handgun ban was constitutional. She hasn't explained why she said police can walk into the locked homes of gun owners to inspect how their guns are stored. You both talk about being gun owners and supporting the Second Amendment, but the only policies I ever hear from the two of you are attacks on our right to keep and bear arms."

 Walz and Harris have never been confronted directly on Harris's long history of hostility towards the Second Amendment in any of the interviews they've done, and I doubt the moderators are going to bring up her embrace of handgun bans and a collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. In fact, the media has largely ignored most of Harris's past statements on guns and gun control, so most voters are completely unaware of the positions she's taken. 

Gun control hasn't come up as a topic in either of the two presidential debates this year, and the moderators may shy away from asking a Second Amendment-related question tonight as well. It's going to be up to Vance to detail Harris's anti-2A extremism, and it will be a wasted opportunity if he doesn't do so. Walz has his own issues when it comes to guns, including his opposition to national right-to-carry reciprocity, but it's far more important for Vance to address the anti-gun extremism at the top of the Democratic ticket than to focus solely on Walz's record. 

Kamala Harris wanted to ban handguns and force existing owners to turn them over to the San Francisco government. She said handgun bans didn't violate the Second Amendment. In fact, she argued the Second Amendment doesn't protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Vance has the opportunity to bring that critically important information to the American people on the debate stage tonight, and it will be a major mistake for the Trump/Vance campaign if he fails to do so.