If the Harris-Walz campaign is known for anything, it's in making sure to primarily spend as much time with friendly media as possible. Yeah, Harris sat down with Fox News's Brett Baier, but also know how that went. Most of the time has been spent with as many media allies as they could manage.

Which brings me to Tim Walz on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Stewart hasn't hidden his own politics, which is why his show is really nothing but leftist talking points pretending to be comedy, so Walz was never going to face any tough questions, particularly on guns.

The topic of guns came up when host Jon Stewart indicated how the approach toward guns varies depending on whether one is talking about urban gun owners or rural gun owners.

Walz responded, “Yes, but dead children in their schools means the same thing in rural areas as it does [in urban areas].”

He told Stewart, “Responsible gun owners know that you can protect the Second Amendment but your first responsibility is those kids.”

Walz then said, “You can do red flag laws, extreme risk protection orders, background checks, and you can do getting ‘assault weapons’ out of the streets.”

Ah, yes, the usual.

However, something Stewart was never going to ask is, "What then?"

See, let's start by noting the oxymoron of saying you can protect the Second Amendment while infringing on people's Second Amendment rights. That's a very "we have to burn the village to save the village" kind of vibe, and this campaign is all about vibes.

I can sort of see how someone would make the case that universal background checks aren't really an infringement--I don't agree, mind you, only that I can see how they might think that way--but I fail to see how anyone can honestly believe that red flag laws and assault weapon bans aren't infringements on people's rights.

Red flag laws involve people's guns being taken away simply because someone else says they're a threat. They then have to prove their own innocence, which is not the way our system is supposed to work.

Assault weapon bans are getting more and more egregious as the years go by. At first, it was just stuff like AR-15s and AK-47s with a handful of features and now they're talking about banning all semi-automatic firearms. How can you see that and not think that it's an assault on the Second Amendment?

But let's say that I was sitting down with Tim Walz and he made these exact same arguments. I'd ask, "What then?"

If Kamala Harris wins, this is what she wants, but what if she gets all of this in the first 100 days? What if Congress decides to give her everything she wants right from the start? What happens then?

Because I promise you that it won't end there. They won't get this passed and not immediately start trying to push more gun control down our throats. They won't even wait to see if this stuff does any good. They'll start finding something else to restrict or ban.

What's more, we all know it.

Undoubtedly, someone will say that Tim Walz didn't say anything about anything else, but that's because he and his running mate never get asked the question. They're never asked, "What then?"

And I doubt they'd ever sit down with me to answer that question, so I'm good with them never getting the chance to show us.