Kamala Harris acknowledged that the Constitution allows gun ownership
Another one of Kamala Harris’s political skeletons emerged from her political closet. An audio recording of Kamala Harris’s speech while she was a district attorney, at an event hosted by Commonwealth Club of California, provided clues of her stance on private gun ownership. She understood back then that disarming wasn’t going to happen immediately… But hinted that this issue could be worked on.
Approximate Transcript:
Kamala Harris: You know, you’ve been talking a lot tonight about guns and the implications for the homicide rate, um, one question is whether in a city like San Francisco with our history
Woman: Uh hum…
Kamala Harris: Uh, is there any justification for anyone to carry a gun except for law enforcement? And why not ban them completely in the city?
Kamala Harris: Well, there’s been a measure on the ballot actually to do that, and it’s currently being challenged. And, um, there is a question about its constitutionality, because, of course, the Constitution of the United States says that, um, we do have a right to legally possess firearms.
So, yeah, I think it’s, it’s, e, you know, and it would be great to end world hunger and a couple of other things too.
Woman: [laughs]
Kamala Harris: Are we going to be able
Woman: [continues laughing]
Kamala Harris: to get rid of people owning and possessing guns? I don’t know, I don’t think where anywhere close to that right now. So I, I, would not, like, put all my effort into that as being the solution, because I think it’s a long way off.
Additional reading and audio:
Goodman, A. (2024, October 22). Kamala Harris once suggested it ‘would be great’ to ban all gun ownership. The Washington Free Beacon. Link.
Category: 2024 Election, Second Amendment
Democrats: Just because the right to bear arms is explicitly written into the Constitution does not mean that it cannot be revoked.
Also Democrats: You cannot revoke a woman’s right to an abortion, it is a Constitutional right.
Can someone explain this to Hack, in terms that a graduate of a New Jersey public High School in the early 1980’s could understand?
“We agree with the constitution when it’s convenient for us.” — Democrats/Leftists
They also like to point to how vague the language in the constitution is (it’s not) as a reason to get around arguments they’re losing, yet are quick to stand by the document if they can use it for a win.
It’s obvious. The founding fathers did not have a dictionary and misspelled bare. It was really ticking them off all those pro British tattoos people were getting. As far as killing babies, well it’s not really in there, the dems just think that someone should have asked your 8 balls great great great grand ball if it was ok. In their minds it would have said “signs point to yes” . So there you have it.
Leftists be like:
“It’s a long way off” sure doesn’t sound like “impossible.”
When the time is right — they’ll try it. But I wouldn’t recommend it…
D-rats also come up with really neat laws that tell people in some States that they have a duty to retreat in the event of a break-in, the polar opposite of “Stand your Ground” laws!
Because they don’t want the actual people they represent to get shot.
I don’t know how much more obvious it needs to be for We, The People to realize that the reason “They” want to take the gunz away from We, The People is “They” are planning on doing things to We, The People that would make We, The People want to shoot “Them”.
Prepare
If you read the small print on her campaign material it clearly says that any and all statements made prior to July 20th 2024 are null and void.
Amazing that all of a sudden, the DemoRats have themselves shooting outdoors in 2 events trying to get the I bekieve 1 to 2 million gun owners whom do not vote…. A little less than half of the NRA are democrats most likely moderate JFK types. JFK was a member of the NRA.
FKH.
She is a gun owner and has been for decades. So is Biden, but apparently he only has shotguns.
Half of liberals know the constitution protects the right to own firearms. The notion that firearms are only protected as part of a “well regulated militia” is an outlier position and not the majority position.
Sensible gun control is not about banning guns. It is about making it harder for people who would use them to harm innocent citizens to get access to them.
No gun laws would stop people from owning guns. Especially not those that would commit crimes to own them.
Most gun deaths are suicide.
Most non suicide deaths are gang related.
Mental health funding and access could reduce suicides. Gang related deaths would need a more systemic approach and not just “gun control.”
However, the deaths that cause the most outrage and shock the conscience of Americans are the deaths that can most be prevented by sensible gun control.
These are mass shootings involving a shooter trying to commit public mass casualty events targeting schools, shopping centers, and public events.
In these cases the shooter usually has a history of mental health issues. They also tend to be under the age of 21. Often these shooters are children.
One sensible measure would be making it illegal give unsupervised access or buy a child a semi-automatic weapon. It would reduce how often school shootings happen.
I proposed this a while back on a firearms forum and was immediately attacked by nitwits talking about “second amendment rights”.
Kids don’t have a 2nd amendment right own firearms. That is why they can’t buy them. Denying kids access to firearms is not a second amendment issue. Not even the most conservative scotus in history would rule children have a right to bear arms.
Yet, many 2A obsessed dipshits think any law trying to reduce gun access is unacceptable.
The result is that the discussion is framed as an all or nothing discussion.
Also, don’t @ me with bullshit about how your father bought you a rifle as a kid and you don’t shoot anyone. Or how you bought your 14 year old an AR and he didn’t shoot anyone.
That is missing the point.