The reinvention of Vice President Kamala Harris in this election has been a thing to behold. In politics, candidates often reconstruct their records to secure votes, but Harris appears to have constructed an entirely mythical being. Once ranked to the left of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders and viewed as among the most liberal members of the Senate, Harris has sought to convince the public that she is actually a frack-loving, gun-toting, border-defending moderate. This last week, Harris sounded like she has hired Neo as her new campaign manager from the Matrix. When asked “what do you need, besides a miracle?” Neo replied “Guns. Lots of Guns.”
Recently, that remake was on full display during a softball interview with Oprah, who has endorsed Harris. The Vice President declared that she is a gun owner and “if somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot.” She repeated the claim in a CBS Sixty Minutes interview and noted that she has fired the gun at a pistol range. The gun is reportedly a semiautomatic Glock handgun. Many Glocks are semiautomatics that use 9mm ammunition.
When CBS’s Bill Whitaker expressed shock at her gun-toting persona on the campaign trail, he asked if she actually fired it. Harris then did her best Rooster Cogburn, who noted “Well a gun that ain’t loaded, ain’t much good for nuthin.” Harris said that she has of course fired the gun in her trips to the firing range.
While she was referring to defending her home, Harris’s pledge to gun down intruders stands in stark contrast to her opposition to stand your ground laws.
When she was the San Fransisco District Attorney, Kamala Harris was one of the signatories on the District Attorneys’ amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller — in support the handgun ban. The Court rejected the position of Harris and her fellow Democratic DAs and held that there is an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
Harris’ true grit has delighted activists who are trying to lure male voters back to the Democratic Party. It may not be as thrilling to some in the Biden-Harris Administration including President Joe Biden.
As we have previously discussed, Biden and other Democrats have repeatedly denounced semiautomatics and some have suggested that, with a change in the Supreme Court, they might be banned. While the Administration has repeatedly called for a ban on AR-15s, the most popular weapon in America, President Biden has suggested in the past that he might seek to ban 9mm weapons.
In reference to guns that use 9mm ammunition, Biden declared “there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of thinking about self-protection.”
It is a call that has been echoed in Canada where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his government is introducing legislation to “implement a national freeze on handgun ownership.” He said Canadians would no longer be able “to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns anywhere in Canada,” adding that “there is no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives.”
While the White House subsequently tried to walk back his comments, Biden saying there’s “no rational basis” to own 9mms makes the new Harris look . . . well . . . irrational.
Both Biden and Harris have made sweeping, unsupportable statements about guns and constitutional protections. For example, despite being repeatedly corrected, President Biden continues to repeat the same false statements about bans on weapons when the Second Amendment was ratified.
Likewise, in support of the ban on AR-15s, Harris declared: “Do you know what an assault weapon is? It was designed for a specific purpose, to kill a lot of human beings quickly. An assault weapon is a weapon of war, with no place, no place in a civil society.”
Yet, courts likely would press a Harris administration on why it is seeking to ban this model when other higher-caliber weapons are sold. AR-15s can handle a variety of calibers. However, they are no more powerful than other semi-automatic rifles of the same caliber and actually have a lower caliber than some commonly sold weapons which use .30-06, .308 and .300 ammunition; many of these guns fire at the same — or near the same rate — as the AR-15. None of these weapons are classified as actual military “assault weapons,” and most civilians cannot own an automatic weapon.
As discussed earlier, President Biden showed the same disconnect as Harris between the factual and the rhetorical basis for some gun-control measures. He condemned “high-caliber weapons” like 9mm handguns and said “a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body.”
Biden has not made any comment on Harris promising to blow away anyone coming into her house with her own Glock.
Yet, before condemning Harris for her implied threat to “blow lungs out of bodies,” Biden should again check both the constitutional and practical statements about handguns.
Gun experts mocked the notion that 9mm rounds blow organs out of bodies, but 9mm ammunition is the most popular handgun caliber in the U.S., with more than half of all handguns produced in 2019 using that round, according to Shooting Industry magazine. If Biden pushed a ban, he would target more than 40 percent of all pistols produced in the U.S., including many Glocks.
Again, in fairness to Harris, she is not the first politician to reinvent herself on the campaign trail. For now, Harris wants to be clear that “I have a Glock, and I’ve had it for quite some time.” For critics, the reload is a bit much given her record. Yet, in a close election, many activists want voters in states like Pennsylvania to know that Harris is the virtual Jed Clampett of the Beverly Hills set. Indeed, you get the impression that she would use her Glock to frack, if only she could.
While 9mm’s have been vilified by the Biden-Harris Administration, it just happens to be one of the most popular guns in the United States . . . and Harris wants people to know that she has one and knows how to use it.
As a politician reinventing herself in a higher-caliber image, she chose wisely. Indeed, other politicians may want to take heed and listen to Deputy Marshall Sam Gerard in U.S. Marshalls: “Get yourself a Glock, and get rid of the nickel-plated sissy-pistol.”
What we have here is a lack of ability to communicate. The leftist posters on this blog. Instead of being appalled at Kamala Harris owning a semi-automatic weapon they turn to the what about Trump tactics. Stand on principle? Why should we expect that they might stand on principle. You have to admit that they have a lot in common with Harris. Shush, even if we don’t got a Glock we gonna go get one now cause the queen got one. Read all about it! Glock sales go up fifty percent in all blue states! Who woulda thunk it?
TiT,
It seems to be a trait with them. Harris never mentioned owning a handgun, or Glock previously like the McDonalds claim, and yet without any degree of critical thinking, they just blindly believe it, says it is perfectly fine and march on. Never saying, “Wait a minute, why has she never told us that before? Why the sudden change? For years she has said (insert position on a given policy here) and now she has flip-flopped. Did she really have a change of heart? Or is this just an attempt to get votes based on a given poll? If so, why should I believe anything she says? If she is so quick to flip on a policy I find important, why should I vote for her?”
Sane, normal people would be asking those questions of any candidate, of any party.
I saw Juan Williams, a true dimwit, KJP and others “decrying” Republicans “politicizing” a hurricane without one darn reporter asking if they remember Katrina and what the media and the Dems did to Bush over it.
She’s an abject failure on the hurricane response, so of course she wants to shut down anyone criticizing her.
https://nypost.com/2024/10/07/opinion/helene-reveals-a-rudderless-white-house-and-harris-flaws/
The dems are drifting so close to wanting the American Pravda as our only source of information – I wonder who put that idea in their minds?
* Yes, I wonder, too. One trait is Islamic. It’s all been mockery.
Republicans are shamelessly politicizing the hurricanes. They are exploiting the insufficient FEMA response caused by funding shortfalls that they failed to address in the recent budget gap legislation. The lack of additional funding for FEMA, which is solely the responsibility of Congress, is now being wrongfully blamed on Biden and Harris. Even Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz voted against funding for FEMA in the last government funding bill. Now he’s blaming Biden and Harris because it is politically convenient.
Trump is falsely claiming that Biden isn’t taking action on the situation, but in reality, he is. Republicans shouldn’t use the hurricanes for political gain. Instead, we should be asking what actions are being taken to support FEMA. Congress has control over funding, so what are they doing to address FEMA’s funding shortages? What are THEY doing to address the situation?
Are you just visiting this page from an alternative universe? You truly have been intoxicated with the prog/left koolaid. Seek a detox center – they are free – and save what is left of your grey matter.
“Republicans are shamelessly politicizing the hurricanes.”
Are they ? Arguably they are not.
But what if they are ?
Turn about is fair play.
The Biden/Harris admin is on the receiving end of a disaster.
BTW FEMA has gotten all the money they asked for and as recently as July Mayorkas said they were fine.
” Even Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz voted against funding for FEMA in the last government funding bill.”
Yes, Republicans want an end to FEMA funding the fake emergency caused by Biden/HArris of mass illegal immigration.
“Now he’s blaming Biden and Harris because it is politically convenient.”
Correct – it is also true.
“Trump is falsely claiming that Biden isn’t taking action on the situation, but in reality, he is.”
Ordinary citizens on the ground say that 90% of the aid, 90% of those that show up to help are NOT from the federal govenrment.
That is Not Trump saying that, that is people in need.
“Republicans shouldn’t use the hurricanes for political gain. ”
Why not ? Democrats did with Katrina. This is no different – except that the Bushies did react quicker than Biden/Harris.
“Instead, we should be asking what actions are being taken to support FEMA.”
Republicans have sought to get FEMA out of the aid to illegal immigrants business – a manufactured emergency. And back into dealing with real natural disasters.
“Congress has control over funding,”
Shoolhouse Rock – the president proposes, congress disposes.
FEMA received what they asked for.
“ Republicans are shamelessly politicizing the hurricanes.”
Are they ? Arguably they are not.”
Oh yes, they are. They are shamelessly spreading falsehoods about FEMA and the response. Congress is responsible for making sure FEMA has enough funds to meet national emergencies and they have not been very concerned about it until recently. They are deliberately using these disasters to score political points. Republicans are the only ones complaining instead of doing something about it. Blaming Biden is the name of the game.
“ Ordinary citizens on the ground say that 90% of the aid, 90% of those that show up to help are NOT from the federal govenrment.
That is Not Trump saying that, that is people in need.”
BS stories from Facebook are not credible sources of evidence. Remember, FEMA is already stretched thin on funds thanks to Republicans’ refusal to add more funding.
“ BTW FEMA has gotten all the money they asked for and as recently as July Mayorkas said they were fine.”
That was back in July when they were still dealing with wildfires and tornadoes in the midwest. That funding was barely enough. Hurricanes require much more and the funding gap bill had no money for FEMA. That is not ‘fine.’
“ Yes, Republicans want an end to FEMA funding the fake emergency caused by Biden/HArris of mass illegal immigration.“
They were not using FEMA finds on immigrants. The rumors that immigrants have been depleting funds are baseless. They were using grants from DHS.
Repiblians want to avoid any responsibility for not providing additional funding. They don’t want to get blamed. They want to lay blame on Biden purely for political reasons.
“ Republicans have sought to get FEMA out of the aid to illegal immigrants business – a manufactured emergency. “
The only manufactured emergency is Republicans making up these claims as an excuse to deflect blame for their lack of action. Playing politics and grandstanding for their constituents is more important than doing what they claim they want. It’s all about making the Biden administration look bad.
“ FEMA received what they asked for.“
No they didn’t. Prove fema got the funding they asked for in the last funding bill.
So, Harris stating she will use her Glock to defend her home is somewhat hard to believe? Because she is a Democrat and she has opposed stand-your-ground laws and bans on certain kinds of weapons, somehow does that mean she cannot be a ‘legitimate’ gun owner?
The level of ridicule directed at the idea that Harris owns a gun and has declared her intention to use it for home defense is quite amusing. Turley seems to be making a big deal out of an unusual situation, especially considering that it’s unexpected for a Democrat or someone who has opposed certain gun laws and called for the banning of specific weapons. The majority of gun owners support the idea of universal background checks for gun purchases. Does that mean the majority of gun owners are considered ‘illegitimate’ in the eyes of Republicans? It appears that many Trump supporters and Republicans are quick to dismiss those who disagree with certain policies or ideas as not ‘real gun owners’ or even as not ‘real Americans.’ According to the rhetoric of many gun rights enthusiasts, machine guns should be just as easily accessible as any other type of weapon.
So what if she owns a gun? If she is using that to connect with gun owners, she is well within her prerogative to use it as a campaign issue.
MR. Turley writes an article about more of Kamala’s hypocrisy.
George claims he is “making a big deal out of an unusual situation”.
Are you a ‘knucklehead’ on purpose, or just can’t help it?
That’s not hypocrisy. Turley is making a big deal out of an issue that only seems surprising because she opposes certain policies. You can be a gin owner and still oppose certain gun policies.
Excellent word salad, george. Twisting the 2A to fit your twisted mind, is typical. American patriots, like me, own AR-15s to protect the Country from the government. Your hero is the only pres in my life time to threaten the citizens with nukes and F-15s. Where does your queen stand on the citizens rights to protect the country from the government? I’ll wait.
Anonymous, huh? You’re not making any sense.
“So, Harris stating she will use her Glock to defend her home is somewhat hard to believe? Because she is a Democrat and she has opposed stand-your-ground laws and bans on certain kinds of weapons, somehow does that mean she cannot be a ‘legitimate’ gun owner?”
Yes, Stand your ground laws and castle doctrine – both of which Harris has opposed ARE the legal basis for defending your home with a fire arm.
You can not opose those and support the use of a glock to defend your home at the same time – it is called hypocracy and a logical contradiction.
But logic eludes you.
“ Yes, Stand your ground laws and castle doctrine – both of which Harris has opposed ARE the legal basis for defending your home with a fire arm.”
She was opposed to stand-your-ground laws, not the castle doctrine. The castle doctrine allows individuals to use force, including deadly force, to defend their homes or property, while stand-your-ground laws allow individuals to use force in self-defense without having to retreat from a dangerous situation. She opposed stand-your-ground laws because she believed they could be used to justify any shooting as self-defense, potentially leading to more instances of deadly force being used in situations where it could have been avoided. Using deadly force should always be a last resort, and stand-your-ground laws give people a reason to use deadly force for more trivial motives, in her opinion.
It’s not contradictory to oppose stand-your-ground laws and be a gun owner like Harris. She believes in responsible gun ownership and the right to bear arms but also advocates for laws and policies that prioritize safety and responsible use of firearms.
Turley is sowing doubt about her position only because she is a Democrat. It’s irrelevant whether she’s a Democrat or Republican. As a gun owner, she can oppose gun policies she sees as unnecessary or harmful.
“The level of ridicule directed at the idea that Harris owns a gun and has declared her intention to use it for home defense is quite amusing.”
The level of ridicule is because few beleive it, and if true it is hypocracy.
But mostly it is just incredibly bad pandering.
So bad as deserving ridcule.
” Turley seems to be making a big deal out of an unusual situation,”
What is unusual ? over 100m americans own guns for defending their homes.
Harris would not be slightly unusual in that.
What is unusual is that she has openly sought to deny others the same rights.
“especially considering that it’s unexpected for a Democrat or someone who has opposed certain gun laws and called for the banning of specific weapons.”
A glock and nearly all handguns are the “semi-automatic” weapons that the left seeks to ban.
All but a fraction of a percent of gun deaths in the US are due to handguns.
“The majority of gun owners support the idea of universal background checks for gun purchases.”
They also support being able to buy and sell anythign to their friends and neighbors without government interferance.
People often hold contradictory positions – especially when asked broad questions without being made aware of the detailed impacts.
“Does that mean the majority of gun owners are considered ‘illegitimate’ in the eyes of Republicans?”
No, it means they were asked a deceptively over generalized question and gave an answer that only partly reflects their actual views.
I would note that background checks are unconstitution – The constitution forbids govenrment from interfering in private contracts.
“According to the rhetoric of many gun rights enthusiasts, machine guns should be just as easily accessible as any other type of weapon.”
So What ? The courts upheld federal bans on machine guns. But there have been no laws banning tanks,cannons and myriads of other “weapons of war” Further gatling guns – the Civil war equivalent of machine guns are perfectly legal in the US.
The ban on machine guns is unconstitutional – but there are not enough people who care to change that.
Very few people own machine guns – not many people own tanks or cannons either.
Few people who are not criminals want to own machine guns.
We have to choose our battles. That does not make the machine gun ban constitutional.
A driving factor behind the 2nd amendment
“A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
George Washington’
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”16 —Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice
“A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”20 —JAMES MADISON
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Thomas Jefferson,
“So what if she owns a gun? If she is using that to connect with gun owners, she is well within her prerogative to use it as a campaign issue.”
Absolutely – and it is blowing up in her face as it is making it clear how big of a hypocrite she is.
I want, Trump wants, Republicans want, Harris to keep dwelling on this issue.
It gives them the oportunity to answee with decades of Harris quotes and votes.
The old timers called it coniven. Also known as do or say anything it takes to get what you want. Picture it. She’s lying in bed one night thinking how can I get gun owners to vote for me? Eureka I’ve got it. I’ll tell em I’ve got old dead eye right here in my drisser drawer. It’s genius. I’ll get the redneck cowboys and the gangstas on my side all in one blow. What could go wrong? Can we do the Sixty Minutes interview right now. K’mon let’s do it right now. Genius I tell ya. Pure genius. That night she didn’t sleep a wink in anticipating of the implementation of her brilliant new plan. I’m cocked and ready for action she says. Nuttin gonna stop me from loaden that baby up. Just ask Willie Brown.
Folks, the trolls on this comment board–the self-proclaimed “defenders of democracy”–are covering up Joe and Kamala’s malfeasance on the hurricane-Helene response. They have actually been claiming that the dynamic dunces are doing a great job. Well, here is an editorial by two nationally-known DEMOCRATS, excoriating Joe and Kamala for ineptitude:
https://nypost.com/2024/10/07/opinion/helene-reveals-a-rudderless-white-house-and-harris-flaws/
So why are Joe and Kamala foot-dragging? Does Joe want Kamala to lose so he can punish the Party for dumping him? Or is Kamala deliberately inhibiting voting in these mostly-red counties? Or maybe it’s just Afghanistan 2.0, i.e., what you get when a cold and malignant Deep State dumps one unpopular meat puppet for another so that the Deep State can keep doing what it’s doing–which is ignoring you.
Let’s face it. This is the government too many Democrats want. PLEASE, vote them out before they cancel you out.
A meme I saw. “replacing jo with kamala, is like shitting your pants, and changing your shirt” Excellent analogy
😂
Demographically, the right is at a disadvantage and it will only get worse. This may be the very last time that we can turn this leviathan around
I know, I’m concerned about that, too, whimsicalmama. Trying not to get too fatalistic about it.
I thought Florida would be the next blue state and that that would be the end of the Republic. Desantis beat Gillum (a Democrat drug addict) by a gnat’s eyelash, and then he totally renewed the GOP in Florida. Had Gillum won, Floridians would be swimming to Cuba.
Miracles happen, but part of that miracle was Republicans fleeing to Florida to escape the demographic disaster in blue states. Sigh.
There is little doubt that the rust belt is turning red. This year ? Maybe, maybe not.
Nevada is also turning red. VA is at the very least going to be a swing state.
While WA, OR, NM, CO, NJ, NY are not – yet, turning red, they ARE no longer deep blue
At the same time – it is not clear what is happening in TX – it appears to be shifting Blue but very very slowly.
Regardless, US politics has NEVER been fixed.
We are seeing more upheaval at the moment.
Bush was the last republican likely to be elected by the Traditional republican coalition.
The Tea Party in 2009 signaled a significant shift in GOP politics.
Trump did not create that – but he capitalized on it.
Since Republicans are losing Neo Cons. They are losing social conservatives.
But they are gaining working class voters and minorities.
The result is a sea change in politics that I have not previously seen in my lifetime. But has occured before in the US.
Regardless it is democrats, not republicans that are facing extinction.
Republicans started the changes needed to avoid extinction almost 2 decades ago.
Democrats has STILL not reversed course.
But they will eventually and balance will be restored.
Our system was designed deliberately – that design unintentioally favors two nearly equal parties.
Gillium is cut from the same deviant cloth as Obama. I read there’s a Diddy video coming out soon, maybe Obama will too!
False. Republicans have been gaining with minorities for a long time – though significantly more so under Trump.
Some of this is natural – as standard of living rises, conservatism rises.
Some of it is because democrats have jumped the shark.
I would note republicans have more children than democrats.
Oddly younger people are getting more conservative – not less – they are rejecting the woke nonsense of the generation ahead of them.
Finally – though we are in the midst of an ideological sea change – ultimately over the long run Republicans and democrats will stay close to balanced.
They will change their political positions as necescary to accomplish that.
Each party wants total control – but theydo not want limited to only those things that nearly all americans support.
What is unusual reently is that Trump was elected as the pendulm shifted right after Obama.
Instead of naturally adjusting and shifting towards the center with clintons defeat, democrats doubled down on Woke nonsense.
But they WILL get past that. In the meantime – Republicans have a political advantage – but for biased institutions – this election would be a GOP landslide.
Let’s ask “82nd Lil Bow Wow.”
He knows military arms and tactics, or implies he does.
“Let’s ask “82nd Lil Bow Wow.”
Is that you little Grindr playdate for some Navy wog who never walked a battlefield? Did you learn about the military in bed while sharing a cigarette before getting up to get dressed and go home?
True Grit is a book worth reading.
It’s still spoken highly of for its use of language.
Kamala’s in a whole other zone compared to that.
She used to take her Glock to her job at McDonald’s when she lived in Oakland in a middle class home. Four lies in one sentence is perfection for a politician that is VP to Joe Biden, one of the great liars of all time and actually a true fabulist, and presidential candidate who picked Tim Walz as a running mate, another of the greatest liars of our time.
Imagine that not one person has come forward to say that they worked with Harris at McDonald’s?? Imagine that not one reporter has asked Harris which McDonald’s she worked at?? Imagine not one reporter has asked her to show her paperwork for the imaginary Glock that she “owns”??
Harris worked at McDonald’s, owns a Glock, is from Oakland, was raised in a middle class home all while Tim Walz was getting his promotion, going to China on June 4th (but it was actually in November) while he was carrying weapons of war in war zones and not being drunk when pulled over, just deaf from all of his military service.
This is why it is so easy for Harris to say she is pro fracking, pro strong border, tough on crime, not in favor of paying for trans surgery for illegals that are in prison etc etc.
And even when a lame-o MSDNC interviewer Stephanie Ruhle asked her about it, all she asked was whether Harris could sing the two-all-beef-patties jingle. Ruhle didn’t ask the location, or if Harris had any records to prove it, or if the McDonald’s was still there so that the media could do an independent investigation, i.e., do a little actual journalism.
As Turley hones in on sweeping, unsupported statements about guns, he apparently believes it’s irrelevant that in last month’s debate with Harris, Trump falsely claimed, “She has a plan to confiscate everybody’s guns.” Professor Turley is instead laser-focused on Biden’s plan which Turley insists would target 40% of all pistols produced in the US.
So why didn’t Biden implement his sweeping, gun-grabbing plan when Democrats controlled all 3 branches of government when Biden stepped into office, Professor? There’s nothing worse than a politician who can’t deliver on his big, bold promises, right?
Feel free to offer supporting evidence for Trump’s campaign season claim that Harris has a plan to confiscate everybody’s guns, Professor Turley.
I think she meant to say a crock of s*** instead of Glock. Crock, Glock what’s the difference?
Berkeley Girl would claim she owned a Bazooka and a Flame Thrower if she thought it would get her more votes. Might even throw in a few Claymores…..
Okay. Lets see this Glock that she claims to own, lets see what range she claims to have gone to, to shoot. And is there anyone who at the range who can verify Harris was in fact there and shot. Lets see the CA mandated Firearm Safety Certificate to purchase a firearm. Lets see the CA mandated Safe Handling Demonstration Requirement documentation.
Or is this like her claims she worked at a McDonalds that no one can verify?
Good suggestion. When I lived in CA many years ago, I practiced at a gun range near the Oakland Coliseum. We had to show a drivers’ license and sign in. I don’t know if that’s required at all ranges in CA, but if so, there should be a record of whether KH was actually there. Certainly an employee at whatever range she went to would have recognized her and could verify her presence.
Hah! If Harris want to play Trinity she should cut her hair. It’s the one “October Surprise” Harris might have. Bangs back at ‘ya, dirty Harris.
* Dirty Harris..
Except for that dithering, squishy middle of people unable to take a stand, but who must weigh each plank of a candidate in separate pieces rather than look at the long-range, broader and more cogent plan, most have already chosen sides and if that squishy bunch of ditherers can be swayed by this dog and pony show I would suggest that they are not mentally fit to vote.
From the Glock pistol company hand book in the frequently asked questions section. Why can’t I buy a Gen4 pistol in California?
California law prohibits the sale of Gen4 pistols. So is Harris admitting to breaking the law in California.
don’t you know that dems CANNOT break the law (unless they, like Mayor Adams of NYC) you contradict the puppet masters.
Why assume her Glock is 9mm? Glock also makes a .45 cal.
The 45 caliber is even more damaging than the 9 millimeter. What difference does the caliber make? Both are semiautomatic weapons the same as the AR-15. Glocks of both calibers are prohibited in California. She’s just a Kalamity Jane who would stop a home intruder in California when the regular Joe is not allowed to do the same. She says they ain’t taken my gun away unless it’s from my cold dead hand. The law be damned. Macho macho girl. She wanna be a macho girl.
IT’s complicated. Gun laws must be precise or they won’t pass constitutional muster under 14th amendment for ambiguity
Sal Sar
See here https://ghostinc.com/ghost-inc-blog/a-guide-to-glock-california-compliance/
Democrats are the most hate filled, greedy, lying, hypocrites on EARTH!
but, don’t all people with functioning brain stems already know that?
The democrats’ marketing of their vacuous candidates is primitive and assumes massive ignorance on the part of the electorate. 6th letter them with a pointed stick.
I’d be surprised if Harris really has a gun. If she were really a gun owner, she wouldn’t say simply, “I have a Glock.” She’d say something more along the lines of “I have a Glock 17” or “I have a Glock 380.” And she’d say something about taking a class to learn how to handle her weapon and/or how often she’s been to the range to practice. This is just another evasion to try to make herself look better.
Do You Really believe Kamella?? on all her policy changes from Left to Right? Glock owner? I doubt it, perhaps fantasy or say anything to get elected? She can’t exist without her teleprompter or someone whispering into her ear? what to say. She is a Left Wing Radical DEM with Bernie Sanders people behind her along with Soros and other Left Wing Radical groups. Sorry she has no creditability.
Are you saying her Glock is a crock?
Yes.
Consider the common wail that “an AR-15 is a weapon of war” and thus not entitled to protection, and consider that liberals often say, falsely, #2 is only about militia. Militia are in themselves, historically, weapons of war bearing arms of war.
(Cont.). The argument, apparently, is that the definition of “arms” as in “right to barb arms” differs from one take to another.