Gov. Tim Walz stepped into the lion's den when he agreed to be Vice President Kamala Harris's running mate. He had to know that and, frankly, I suspect he does.

So it's surprising that he's already catching a whole lot of heat, especially since his time as running mate is measured in mere days.

Among the many issues is the timing of Walz's retirement--just as his unit got word it was going to deploy to Iraq--and some of his comments. In particular, referring to himself as having gone to war.

Luckily for Walz, CNN's Laura Coates was willing to cover for him.

On Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s “Laura Coates Live,” host Laura Coates stated that criticism of 2024 Democratic vice presidential candidate Gov. Tim Walz (D) for saying that “we can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at” is a “deflection, because the topic he was discussing was gun control and gun violence and commonsense regulation.”

Well, it's not a "commonsense regulation" in any way, shape, or form, but that's a topic for a different time.

What we're talking about here and now is whether this is all a deflection.

Let's understand a couple of things.

First, Walz calls AR-15s "weapons of war, that I carried in war" specifically, even though he never deployed to a combat zone. You can call it a misstep or a case of misspeaking if you want, but it's a factually untrue statement made by the vice presidential candidate for the Democratic Party. If JD Vance made a similarly untrue comment, would he get a pass?

But I'll agree that focusing so much on that is a bit of a distraction, because it's not the only untruth Walz uttered in those same eight words.

The AR-15 is not the same weapon that he would have carried in war. As an artillery NCO, I'd expect him to have at least some familiarity with the small arms issued to troops in the United States military. He'd know about the three-round burst capability, for example. As someone who touts his own gun ownership to justify his belief in gun control, one would expect him to be familiar with the fact that a three-round burst capability would make any firearm an NFA item, and if made after 1986, illegal for private citizens to own.

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic firearm that bears some superficial similarities to those "weapons of war," but does not work in the same manner. They're not the same gun, and yet he stood there and said they were.

When someone is running for office, we don't give them a pass for saying they served in combat, that they carried the very weapon they want to ban while in combat and escape scrutiny when neither of those things are true.

I'd like more attention to be paid to the fact that the AR-15 and the M4 aren't the same weapon despite similar appearances, but that's a nuance most people can't really comment on, apparently. Saying you were in a war zone when you allegedly bailed on your unit beforehand, though, is much easier to wrap your head around.

Both are false and Walz doesn't get a pass just because someone from CNN really thinks he should.