Gun Tweet of the Day: CA Senator Kamala Harris Calls for Assault Weapons Ban

Kamala Harris is the junior Senator from California. Ms. Harris is a former best-looking SF DA and CA AG, touted as the Dems’ great [not white] hope for the 2020 presidential election. A curious idea, given that most Americans support gun rights and Ms. Harris is an unwavering agitator for civilian disarmament.

From wikipedia.org:

Harris has been a vocal proponent for gun control her entire career. While serving as District Attorney in Alameda County, Harris recruited other District Attorneys and filed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, arguing that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to own firearms.

Harris also supported San Francisco’s proposition H, which would have prohibited most firearms within city limits.

I’m not sure why Ms. Harris chose this moment to call for a new “assault weapons ban.” Normally, anti-gun rights pols wait for a criminal, crazy or terrorist to commit mass murder with an “assault rifle” before demonizing America’s most popular rifle.

My guess: it’s some sort of quid pro quo with an anti-gun group. In any case, if Ms. Harris does make a run for the presidency, expect her to “soften” her position on gun control. Just as you can expect The People of the Gun not to forgive or forget her antipathy toward Americans’ firearms freedom.

comments

  1. avatar Tec's Dad says:

    Perhaps we should ban Dodge Challengers… my guns have done less damage than Ted Kennedy’s car or this asswipe in VA….

    1. avatar -Peter says:

      Don’t give her any ideas. Leftists don’t need any help brainstorming fun things to ban.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      We can ban the evil (D) from this hemisphere. The Challenger driver was an evil POS (D) voter or else notice of the opposite would have circled the globe 10x by now.

      1. avatar Pat. H says:

        That POS was an admitted neo-Nazi and Trump supporter.

        You don’t get to make up your own facts.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          Yeah, that was real retarded of him. Now, the prime mover orchestrating the White Fascist side of the whole event apparently turning out to be a recent Hillary supporter, Occupy Wallstreet protester, & CNN reporter, who quickly shut down his entire online presence once the dots were connected, a day after the Dem Virginia governor & city mayor instructed police to let the situation escalate toward violence…now that’s rather interesting. Legit grass-roots racists being dumb enough to follow such an astroturf sock puppet to their doom…now that’s rather predictable.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Where is it reported that he’s a Trump supporter?

    3. avatar barnbwt says:

      You do know there was an article in a NY publication advocating exactly that a few months back, right? The new Demon was simply too powerful to be allowed on the streets..?

    4. avatar Greg says:

      Her insane leftist DNA is showing. As are her future political aspirations. This is the same woman who as DA of San Francisco refused to employ the death penalty because she was morally opposed to it. Wonder how she’d feel if we opted out of gun grab on moral grounds? Answer – with a sledgehammer to our heads.

  2. avatar -Peter says:

    Seems like every day, there’s a reason to be increasingly convinced of the wisdom of owning firearms.

    Case in point, I just found today’s reason.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      There was only one?

  3. avatar AubreyB says:

    *patiently waiting for the evidence the assault weapons ban kept anyone safe*……………………….

    1. avatar Pyratemime says:

      Look how effectively it keeps despots like Castro and Maduro safe.

  4. avatar Timmer says:

    I had a Freudian slip. I saw the highlighted “San Francisco Proposition H” and thought it said Preparation H. It must be because of Kamala Harris.

    1. avatar Ironhead says:

      You had me laughing my ass off! Sadly i saw the same thing.
      I call for kamala the ugandan idiot to stfu.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        That guy did a lot of roids, too, right?

    2. avatar Timothy Munk says:

      Propositions A through G were failures, but Proposition H feels pretty good on the whole.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Badump, tish!

        1. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

          sure to go down in the anals, er, annals, of history as another victory for progressive liberal social justice warriors everywhere!

          If we’re lucky, maybe there will be a Fox reality show with Harris, Holder, Wasserman-Schultz, and Lynch. Podesta can be the Jeff Probst character on “Survivor: SJW Snowflake Edition”

          Maybe we can get Shannon Watts to do a celeb cameo. Flown in on Bloomberg’s helicopter. Or Kelly’s space shuttle.

  5. avatar racer88 says:

    GOOD! I hope she emphasizes this repeatedly-failed campaign strategy.

    I like it when the dems double and triple down on bad ideas that are proven to lead to their defeat.

    1. avatar Bernard says:

      Yup. Something don’t interrupt your enemy something mistake. Sun Tzu

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      The only thing better would be for her to go tranny before the election, cut off her tits, and stop wearing makeup; far too many idiots that think with their junk will vote for her since she’s attractive (huge disclaimer) for a politician. That’s basically why Obama was nominated/elected over a bunch of octogenarians originally, and we’d be running a foul mouthed old man with a bad hairpiece (objective observation) against the bimbo Obama once called the sexiest AG in America

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “who Obama once called the sexiest AG in America…”

        And utter crap, since the hottest state AG is Florida’s Pam Bondi:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Bondi

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          Okay, yeah, she’s definitely better

  6. avatar TrappedInCommiefornia says:

    When she says that the assault weapons ban would be in the best interest of keeping us safe, does she realize we all know she isn’t talking about keeping Americans safe, just the politicians who want to rule over us?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Wow, I was thinking the exact same thing! I was going to change the last line of her tweet (or whatever) to, “… keeping us the ruling class safe.”

  7. avatar JDH says:

    Yeah she FUBAR’ed gun ownership in Kalifornia now she wants to screw over the entire country.

  8. avatar Hannibal says:

    Why do democrats keep trying to make sure I vote republican? Are they really getting votes for this nonsense?

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Yep. Virtually force us to vote gop. Which will mean another 4 years of Trump.

      If harris wanted to have a chance at the white house she would throw her weight behind nation wide constitutional carry.

      So, another 4 years of Trump.

      And it’ll likely be that long before this site is fixed.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      Yes, 4 more years. We need some saggy Woodstock generation to get old enough to quit before we let them either run or vote on something important.

      I laughed my ass off on election [results] MORNING (wtf Hillocrap have some class) think of all the pay for play people and issues that just got relegated to off of the stove. Dipsh_t greenies, lefties, socialist, communist, liberal, globalists, all the wheedle-needle can’t think of enough ways to F up America people [within and outside the U.S.] that have to pack their sh_t and go home and wait out the nuclear winter until our next political olympics.

      Trump said we have to “drain the swamp” and it was hugely apparent that he was correct BEFORE THE ELECTION, but after the election, I’ve been calling my representatives [who I actually like] and telling them that the President has convinced me that we need to help him drain the swamp.

      FTW too, enough of the $$$ out the door to ensure that the world doesn’t say we suck too often. F em, we’ll wait till the muslim horde eats your a_ _ and breeds your sh_t a different religion before we put a wall around you.

      Four more years. F the POS (D) and that especially includes their POS voters.

    3. avatar barnbwt says:

      And it won’t be until the Dems drop the anti-gun plank that they’ll begin winning back monetarily-invested gun owners from the Republican side. But that would mean admitting defeat and losing ground on gun control which they still really really want. So the only alternative is to receive defeat nationally in every area of their platform, while the Republican side has precious little incentive to actually deliver on their promises to us because “where else ya gonna go” and the gun issue remains frozen though hugely popular.

      It’s…a conundrum. No, wait, it’s just stupid.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        The answer – IMHO – is for the PotG to target RINOs. Those in our own States/districts, as well as contribute to the campaigns of interlopers in other States/districts.

        We PotG are viewed by the GOP as bought-and-paid-for votes. We will never vote Democrat; so, we either vote Republican or stay home. OK, they “got our number”; do we want them to keep it? The best way to ensure that the GOP establishment wins is to stay home.

        The ONLY way to get the GOP’s attention is to threaten them. What do they want? What could we take away from them? CONTROL. They need a simple majority in each chamber to elect the Speaker and Majority Leader. They need a SUPER-majority to deny legislation to fringe-constituencies (like PotG). In the House, Ryan is king! He can lose lots of Republican votes and still push/stop whichever bill he wants/detests. In the Senate, Mcconnel is on thin ice. It takes just 3 uncooperative Republicans to frustrate him.

        We need to persuade Ryan that we are willing to make his life as miserable as Mcconnel’s is. We need to persuade Mcconnel that we are willing to see Shumer as Majority Leader. If we can’t successfully register these threats, neither Ryan nor Mcconnel need pay any attention to us.

        The most constructive thing we can do is support an gun-rights interloper who will run against a RINO in a primary. Next best thing, support ANY interloper who will run against a RINO. Either of these will get the attention of ALL RINOs, if not the leaders. To each RINO, winning isn’t everything; it’s the ONLY thing.

        We must be prepared to go farther. The most DESTRUCTIVE thing we can do is vote for a Democrat opposing a RINO in the general election. Having failed to get the RINO’s attention in the primary, we now threaten to defeat him in the general. Our argument is: ‘Why should we settle for a RINO when we could – instead – be represented by a REAL Democrat?’

        Now, the RINO needs to work even harder to raise money to try to win the general election. The RINO needs to beg the national GOP for money to keep his seat in Republican hands. Wherever we have the potential to tip a seat from Republican to Democrat we threaten the GOP.

        We need to maintain control of only 1 body to STOP gun-control legislation. Ideally, we maintain control of the Presidency so we influence judicial appointments. We really need to control 41 Senators to stop gun-control; that’s not hard. So long as we control the Senate or Presidency, we don’t need to control the House.

        Granted, we can’t move our own legislation into law without the House. Nevertheless, having control of the House doesn’t do us any good by itself. The House can do nothing for us alone, both the Senate and the President must also cooperate.

        Damaging the Republican majority in the House is our primary weapon. Representatives need to get themselves re-elected every 2 years. The Speaker’s power is up-for-grabs every 2 years. The Republican Speaker either throws us a bone or two or we make his life as miserable as is Mcconnel’s. That’s his shot to call.

        It’s up to us to decide. Will we be “ONE-issue Voters”? Or, “One-issue NON-voters? We can be gun-voters WITH influence; or one-issue non-entities. Our move.

      2. avatar Dale says:

        This is not true. When dems are pro gun, people get upset that the NRA endorses them. Look at the MO governors race. Dems have nothing to gain by being pro gun. Most pro gun people make sure of that!

        This is why it is more important to support pro gun dems than pro gun republicans.

        1. avatar Cjstl says:

          I voted for both Pro-Gun dems in Missouri. They got slaughtered. And so it goes.

        2. avatar barnbwt says:

          Show me a pro-gun Dem that’s actually pro-gun, and I’ll show a candidate that gets slaughtered due to negligence or outright hostility from their own party. Republicans do the same thing routinely to upstart Tea Party types, usually denying them funds during the primary while Democrats put up a controlled opposition candidate in the form of an evangelical patsy. Effective pincer attack. The Dems have an even more top-down authoritarian structure as a party than the Republicans; it is specifically designed to keep would be candidates in line with the dogma; for them especially, the change to a neutral RKBA position will have to come from above. It’s a similar dilemma to Republicans’ stance of pot and, until recently, gay issues, where they waited until long after the issue was costing them elections and supporters from their former base before moderating their absolutist position even a little. Absolutist rhetoric makes for great rabble rousing & fundraising, however.

        3. avatar Cjstl says:

          I could show you several pro-gun dems. And by pro-gun, I mean that one was endorsed by the NRA (Chris Koster) and the other two (former Governor Jay Nixon and Senate candidate Jason Kander) supported just about everything except permitless carry. Kander even ran a campaign ad where he assembled an AR-15 blindfolded. Unfortunately, the NRA’s endorsement didn’t help Koster, and they absolutely savaged Kander with those stupid Kristi McMains ads because of his “No” vote on permitless carry.

          Now granted, Missouri is a different animal because rural Missouri is sooooo conservative. To win statewide elections, a Democrat must be as conservative as possible, and the party knows it. So they’re not actively working against their own candidates. McCaskill only won re-election five years ago thanks to her opponent’s collosal blunder on abortion. She will not win again.

  9. avatar bobo says:

    what’s funny

    I do own several guns
    But had yet to really buy an AR15…………till Gov Brown (Flush him down like the shit he is) wrote/passed/signed the law banning AR 15 evil black rifles that must kill better due to a flash hider and pistol grip?

    So since the ban was coming—I bought one

    so thanks to him there really IS at least one more in the state ONLY BECAUSE of him!!!!!!

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      I didn’t wait that long.When Senator DeLyin’ called for a ban of “ghost guns” about three or four years ago, I just had to buy an 80% lower. I had no plans to build it…but I thought it would be a fun project to drill out the fire control pocket. And then a lower kit was so cheap…and one thing lead to another…

      HEY! my info filled in! Woo hoo!

  10. avatar PROUD chicano says:

    Dems push gun control to the front to mask their policies which are the real issues causing so much violence. BTW what are the odds she has 24/7 armed security.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      She’s a communist and paid communist mouthpiece.

      Is it not glaringly obvious that she’s the greater threat than any safety salve that she is offering can protect against?

      “Common sense will tell us that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all others the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into slavery…. Wherefore, if we must here-after protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves? Why do it for another?” ( Paine Common Sense pg. 47)

      1. avatar N64456 says:

        She’s a f***ing Conniving Unhinged Neurotic Totalitarian….

  11. avatar CLarson says:

    If she wants to run for President, now is the time, wayyyy in advance, to make these general election taboo, but Democratic base “I tried, give me credit.” declarations. The fact that she has to it this way is progress, I guess. Gun control is a loser.

  12. avatar Excedrine says:

    Don’t confuse leftists (distinct from liberals which today’s leftists are not) with facts. Like the fact that the federal AWB did literally nothing to quell crime of any kind for anyone, in any place, at any time, under any circumstance whatsoever.

    Or the fact that it was part and parcel to what led to Congress going red after 1994.

    DumbassoKKKrats, indeed.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      To be fair, those dumbasses did get the gun bill passed before they fell on their faces. Republicans seem to like starting at step two when it comes to their major legislative efforts.

      I still don’t understand why Trump didn’t insist on a simple, easy, certain win to shore up party unity & confidence before delving into healthcare/tax/etc bullshit that was never going to be resolved satisfactorily. That’s the exact losing strategy that’s bedeviled us ever since the Contract with America days, filled with similar impossible bullshit promises that failed to deliver for the exact reason. Republican leaders just don’t seem to understand that they preside over a fragmented party of conflicted ideologies that only grudgingly caucuses together, and not a bunch of identical weirdo interest groups that just want to be bribed into compliance the same way like the Democrats. One requires a strategic approach to collaboration (start small, work larger to see who & how many you can wrangle toward a given goal with the knowledge it won’t ever be all) as opposed to ever more massive spending bills (which is a lot more straightforward)

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        I agree with you. Calcify your base by making sure that each small segment is solidly behind you on their respective narrow issue. Then, work up toward the big issues. Trump arguably made a mistake by starting with the biggest issue, shooting for a big win before he learned whether he could get a small win. So, now he is stuck.

        Trump would do well to use his executive powers unilaterally to throw bones to as many of his small-segment base constituents. E.g., blow the lid off of Fast & Furious and authorize repatriation of M1 Garands.

        Now, Trump can only “go nuclear” by refusing to authorize the raising of the debt ceiling or some other must-pass bill. He might do that for ObamaCare or tax reduction; but, not for some small issue like the 2A.

        The relevant question for we PotG is: What will we do about it?

        The most FOOLISH thing to do would be to WITHDRAW support from Trump. We need Trump to complete his first term; and, be re-elected for a 2’nd. We need Pence to succeed him; and again be re-elected. Sixteen years of a 2A-sympathetic President is enough to achieve a restoration of SCOTUS, the Circuit courts and many of the District courts. This much is NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT for we the PotG to play the long-game. Build the 5% of American adults with CWPs to 10% and then 15%. At that point politicians will recognize that we are a force to be reckoned with.

        Trump need not succeed; all he needs to do is NOT FAIL. He can stop the Democrats and RINOs even if he can’t compel them to advance any small element of his agenda. We the People need only maintain his 270 Electoral College votes and then give them to Pence.

        We need not persuade the GOP establishment to love the 2A. We ONLY need to threaten them to inspire them to throw us a couple of bones. The GOP establishment is interested EXCLUSIVELY in maintaining control of the Senate and House; and, preferably, a super-majority. (A narrow majority makes the Speaker or Majority Leader dance to the tune of the one or few Republicans willing to buck the leadership.)

        We must threaten the GOP establishment with replacing their RINOs. Ideally, replacing a RINO with a 2A-advocate. Yet, this is too timid. We have to be willing to threaten to vote for a REAL Democrat rather than return a RINO to office.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          For the record, and it’s important to understand this, Trump didn’t start shit for congress after being elected. He met with the leadership, and let them set the initial agenda. I’m not sure why such an allegedly take-charge micromanager as trump would delegate to openly hostile guys whom he’d recently called losers & who had been demonstrably incapable of significant accomplishment even apart from Obama’s veto. Namely Ryan’s complete capitulation on the omnibus budget just before the election (even McConnell had the strength to hold off on the SCOTUS hearings until the new guy was sworn in) which took that hugely important strategic card completely off the table nearly until the 2018 midterms. Normally a president will choose to channel the inertia of their win, narrow or wide, toward supporting a direct course of legislative action right out of the gate when their hand is strongest, but Trump not only ceded that to incapable managers but also failed to strongly endorse the course of action they chose for him (very half-hearted support of Ryancare until its failure proved embarrassing to him, at which point he attacked conservative Republicans & cemented the whole repeal issue as a permanent no-win shit-show). Not saying this wasn’t intentional since it’s clear passing legislation isn’t his primary interest at this point, but it explains why nothing could be accomplished at all for the past year despite a lot of heat & pressure.

          Trump managed to halfway integrate the Cruz-conservative faction of the party into his wing after the Convention despite his best efforts to humiliate & marginalize them, but post-victory there was still a painfully obvious need for major trusty & loyalty exercises to clarify where everyone stood, and how they would be working together going forward. After such a nasty and divisive primary, and overheated general election, it was really dumb to immediately start forcing wedge issues between the conservative, moderate, and liberal factions of the Republican party with a complex issue like healthcare. Like, suicidally dumb, and it will likely cost us for years (so dumb you’d think it the work of a Democrat plant, but this was the bright idea of the Republican leadership!). As always, the Republicans earn their Stupid Party moniker and find a way to squander an enormous advantage with nothing to show for it.

  13. avatar dph says:

    Just a beotch doing what she does best, did anyone think she would be in any way, pro-gun?
    P.S. She isn’t that good looking and she never was, contrary to what the former idiot in chief said.
    P.P.S. I’m doing my part for the pro-gun side, purchased 3 in as many weeks. Yahoo.

  14. avatar former water walker says:

    Nothing attractive about this evil harpy…sure you& Pocahontas can run. They DO want to take your guns😡

  15. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Yes it’s true!! Liberal democrats want to take your guns.

  16. avatar Peytor says:

    Why should this bitch care? The place she “represents” already has an AWB. Why does she think she has the right to force her viewpoint onto other states in matters that do not concern the people of California? I guess she supports a queer’s right to get married in Georgia regardless of what the locals in Georgia want, yet thinks somehow that people in Georgia should not own the guns that they want to because some retard in California doesn’t like it?

    1. avatar Cjstl says:

      I think you misunderstand the whole concept of federal vs state control. Supporting a “queer’s” right to get married in Georgia, regardless of how the people in Georgia feel, is EXACTLY the same thing as supporting an AWB in Georgia because the people in California voted for one. Don’t forget, the progressives view California as the shining example of sheeple surrendering their power that they would like to see implemented nationwide.

      *Disclaimer* I personally believe that a queer has every right to get married in Georgia, and I don’t care piss all what the people of Georgia think about it. I also believe the people in California have every right to own assault weapons. The federal government should exist to ensure that state law or voter consensus in any state does not infringe upon federally and constitutionally protected freedoms.

  17. avatar Matthew Groom says:

    By her awkwardly worded plea for “…keeping all of us safe”, I presume she means Leftist politicians and media elites who constantly ignore the will of the people, undermine the electoral process with gerrymandering and rapid demographic shifts/manipulations, as well as frequent violations of Constitutional Law; it is demonstrably not the best way to keep the American people safe.

    1. avatar TrappedInCommiefornia says:

      Well that was a bit amusing. If you find your way to the “MASONIC FRATERNAL POLICE DEPARTMENT” website and go to the “about” section, it’s basically incoherent gibberish but it does make you want to learn more about them…. just probably not for the reasons they’d want.

  18. avatar Joe R. says:

    In the movie Night and Day, Tom Cruise’s character tells Cameron Diaz’s character to beware government officials [that would be questioning her, and taking her into custody] that spout buzzwords like “safe” and “stabile” (and one other I can’t remember). Cruise’s character said “they’ll say that they ‘need to take her to a safe location’, ‘until they can stabilize the situation’,” Cruise’s character says “that just means that they are going to kill you”.

    I would take the similar advice here.

  19. avatar Joe R. says:

    If we could eradicate the evil (D) [no, I’m not advocating for murder, I’m not a POS (D) myself] then we could all just enjoy our guns in ~ peace (no such human thing) and quiet.

  20. avatar doesky2 says:

    Kamala is a Communist Undesireable Nattering Twit.

  21. avatar David Deplorable says:

    Get out of her way.

    She obviously has a winning strategy.

  22. avatar Sal Chichon says:

    I’d like a ban on liberal female politicians, but we can’t have it all now can we?

  23. avatar Kenneth G Maiden says:

    This hack is so effing DANGEROUS.

  24. avatar tiger says:

    While I disagree with Senator Harris’s position, it would be nice if we could elevate the conversation from the gutter.”Bitch,” Commie,” “evil,” & other terms do not make our side look good to the public at large. Nor needed to make a point. We are adults, not on a middle school playground.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      Like all Lefties she refuses every opportunity to have an honest debate.

      Since the Left owns the vast majority of the message we are left with nothing or our two minutes of hate.

      I choose the 2 minutes of hate over nothing.

    2. avatar FedUp says:

      “Bitch” is a personal insult, maybe has no place in political discussion.
      “Commie” and “evil” are just accurate descriptors.

      If you can’t call a Communist a commie, and you can’t call an evil destroyer of civil rights evil, what’s the world coming to?

  25. avatar CWT says:

    Maybe she wasn’t supposed to post this until after this weekends events in VA.

  26. avatar Mark N. says:

    Kamala will no more change her anti-gun stance than a tiger can change its stripes. She’s made a career out if it, along with the other San Francisco elite like Gavin Newsome. She was the one who “certified” that the technology to microstamp casings in compliance with a 2007 law (signed by The Gubernator as a “crime fighting” bill) existed and was unencumbered by patents. The technology that she relied on is an experimental technology that inscribes a unique identifier with a laser on the end of the firing pin–resulting in one stamp on the casing, not two as required by the law. the effect of her certification was to prevent any new pistols (the law does not apply to revolvers) from being added to the California Roster, and further bumps off any existing pistols if the manufacturer makes any “material ” change to the gun. Of course, her DOJ broadly construed “material,” such that a change from a forged part to a MIM part, even if otherwise identical was enough, or a change in the manner in which guns are manufactured. colt, for example, no longer sells handguns in California due in large measure to their changing over to CNC machining, which was, of course, a “material change.” The Roster of Approved Handguns has shrunk dramatically by about 1/3.

    So in any event, the rumor mill has it that she is now being groomed for a run, but whether as lead or the back up has yet to be stated. The fact that she is liberal, anti-gun and black, plus she is a lawyer, are her principal selling points.

  27. avatar Ralph says:

    “if Ms. Harris does make a run for the presidency, expect her to “soften” her position on gun control.”

    Dude, you gotta be nuts.

  28. avatar glenux says:

    I have a better idea for Kamala Harris.

    If she tries to take away my right to keep and bear arms,
    I feel I should try to take away her right to free speech.

  29. avatar Boba Fett says:

    For the love of… That crap didn’t even make it through the Democrat-controlled Senate immediately after Sandy Hook. I bet even her own supporters are scratching their heads, wondering what the eff she was going for with that comment.

  30. avatar barnbwt says:

    I miss Dirk Diggler; he’d know how to handle Kamala for us.

    I assume he’s still busy with Shannon Watts, though.

  31. avatar Swarf says:

    Jesus, this thread is trash.

    Keep calling women cunts and saying they shouldn’t be allowed to run for office. That’s sure to convince people of the strength of your counter argument.

    1. avatar little horn says:

      yeah the comments are basically just a big echo chamber. its so funny/sad that these guys think preaching to the choir is some how going to change someones mind. and if they are not here to try to change someones mind, it seems they LIVE in an echo chamber. sad.

  32. avatar FedUp says:

    Ms. Harris is a former best-looking SF DA and CA AG

    Kamelface? Best-looking?
    I guess that’s a matter of personal preference/opinion.
    At least she isn’t totally repulsive, like, for instance, Boxer.

  33. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    So she violated her oath of office when she swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States,when does her trial begin.

  34. avatar George K. Reed says:

    Not too long go to the son of Holocaust survivors, owner of TTAG. Spoke with great skepticism about Donald Trump as American I’d president. Now as self proclaimed American Nazis make their move RF just wants to make a buck. It has been a couple months since the last time I have seen truth on TTAG. I’ll miss the integrity.

    old antifreeze grown “Laser1911” snowflake.
    Bring it.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      1) Wut?
      2) You’d have to be a fool not to be skeptical. Like, why the hell would you take a globalist NYC billionaire tycoon’s sudden conversion to US nationalism seriously, especially with nothing more than his words to support it? Especially when he was rather famous at that point as a lingual bullshit artist? Trump had every mark of being a controlled opposition candidate, or at the very least, highly dishonest & unreliable about his actual policy goals.

      #2 is important, otherwise you end up following flashy idiots like that Kessler guy who led all the White Shirts around at the protest the other day, who is apparently a Hillary-voter-turned-white-supremacist-as-of-eight-months-ago who has been leading those idiots around by the nose on behalf of Communists to provide conflict & infamy at their protests. Politics is very much like pro-wrestling as far as how public opinion of heroes & villains is shaped, and a turncoat like Trump suddenly appearing to save the day with his bravado was beyond suspicious. Still is, frankly, though he’s largely done right by us so far, what little he’s managed to do despite his circumstances as well as himself.

  35. avatar Sprocket says:

    I remember this heifer from her time as San Francisco’s DA. Her tenure was notable for speed with which criminals were returned to the streets and her belief that the police should be inspecting gun owners home to ensure guns were being stored safely. She’s as pure a statist as you will find.

  36. avatar J says:

    California democrat doing california democrat things

  37. avatar Burley says:

    It’s long past time to reinstate the policy of tarring and feathering statist politicians who think they have ANY authority in the day to day lives of Citizens.

  38. avatar samuraichatter says:

    Kamala Harris indirectly asks a question with her life and career. When is it (if ever) acceptable to call for violence against a public figure? At what point does her/his actions become so egregious that you would do unto them before they do to you? If you abide by the holocaust survivor adage of “if someone tells you they are going to kill you believe them” then would it be ok do unto them first before they could do what he/she says?

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Hillary just proved that question doesn’t need to be answered here yet. Be happy you can leave it at that & move on.

  39. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Obviously, this woman is just another Authoritarian globalist despot hiding behind the cloak of public office, and schemes of public safety! She SHOULD be treated as one !

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email