Vice President Kamala Harris showed her true colors back in 2007 when, as the San Francisco district attorney, she told Californians that law enforcement officers could walk into private citizens’ homes and inspect how they were storing their firearms.
“We’re going to require responsible behaviors among everybody in the community, and just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs,” Harris said at the time.
Interestingly, less than a week after that statement was revealed on social media, the Democratic presidential nominee told Oprah Winfrey during a live-streamed rally, “If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot.”
In what was probably the most honest statement she has made on the campaign trail as Oprah looked on kind of surprised, Harris followed up her declaration laughingly saying, “I probably should not have said that. But my staff will deal with that later.” And they are.
The irony is rich with this one. A person who thinks law enforcement can just walk into your home and inspect your firearms says she’ll shoot someone breaking into her house. What if they “break in” to make sure she is storing her gun properly? Will she still shoot, even though she believes that’s completely appropriate?
Of course, those questions are moot, as Harris will never have to make the gut-wrenching decision about whether or not to shoot an intruder. Unlike normal Americans, she has a full-time Secret Service detail guarding her around the clock. If there’s any shooting of intruders that needs to be done, they’ll be the ones doing it—not Harris. She just says things like that in an effort to try to convince people that she’s a normal person like you or me, not a political elite who lives in a different, much better-protected world than the rest of us.
Despite that, campaign officials quickly tried to walk back Harris’ statement about shooting intruders. On Friday, Harris campaign adviser Keisha Lance Bottoms brushed aside the vice president’s remark, saying it was just a “joke,” as if joking about shooting anyone is funny.
“It was a joke, and she knew that we would still be talking about it today, but I think it‘s important that people know that the vice president respects the right to bear arms, that she supports the Second Amendment, but she wants responsible gun ownership and she wants our communities to be safe,” Bottoms said.
Gun Owner Claims Questioned
Incidentally, during the Oprah appearance Harris also mentioned once again that she is a gun owner and “respects the Second Amendment.” So far, however, she hasn’t yet said what kind of gun she owns, leaving even some in Congress skeptical about whether the statement is true or not.
U.S. Rep. James Comer, R-Kentucky, voiced that sentiment on a Fox News program on Sunday.
“Well, look, I don’t think anyone believes that Kamala Harris is a gun owner,” Comer told Fox’s Maria Bartiromo on Sunday. “But, if she is, she needs to tell the American people what type of gun she has.”
Comer’s statement came in response to Harris’ “revelation” during the recent presidential debate with former President Donald Trump.
“This business about taking everyone’s guns away—Tim Walz and I are both gun owners,” Harris said during the debate. “We’re not taking anybody’s guns away, so stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.” For the record, Harris had made that point in a less publicized interview with CNN in 2019.
Of course, Harris has also repeatedly said she wants to ban AR-style rifles. And during her run for president in 2019, she voiced her approval for “buying back” such firearms, a more politically correct term for compensated confiscation and making them “mandatory.”
During Sunday’s Fox interview, Comer also slammed Harris for focusing on guns and not on the runaway violent crime plaguing the country.
“This is all about crime,” he said. “And when you look at the polling, Biden and Harris are getting killed in the polling with the issue of crime, which is a huge issue in the suburbs and it’s definitely an issue in urban America.”
She has a history of not respecting herself so she most definitely doesn’t respect the second amendment.
Can someone log an FOI request to the California firearms registry for what particular firearms Kamala, and/or her husband, actually own?
Does anyone have a copy of the leaked registry database to do their own search? If not, just ask Gavin for a copy.
“campaign adviser Keisha Lance Bottoms brushed aside the vice president’s remark, saying it was just a “joke,””
Yeah! The real joke is the person speaking the bad not funny joke.
TRUMP/VANCE 2014
Imagine the outcry if Trump made such a statement.
The media are not impartial observers and reporters. They are partisan participants.
TRUMP/VANCE 2024
Partial truth concerning a break-in, Kam has hired help to do the shooting so it won’t fall on the shoulders of her or her beta male hubby.
Actually shooting someone is a joke to her and her staff? Something to laugh about? Its not a joke at all.
Having been though it myself more than once with no other choice, actually shooting the bad guy is not a joke and its not fun and its horrifying and I do not know of even one gun owner that thinks its a joke. So contrary to the sick twisted depraved view of anti-gun people and orgs and Kamala and Walz and Biden to use victims of horrific crime events as a ‘stage’ prop to further their agenda of taking away a constitutional right, it is not a joke to need to actually do it.
What do you expect from a depraved woman who tried to defend and enact actual slavery of free people to do forced labor while she was AG in California. She cares nothing for rights, she will not hesitate to take your rights and liberty too if she can get away with it.
Harris can do and say anything she wants simply because her indoctrinated acolytes will forgive her for her lies as long as she promises them the things they want. Even after they don’t get them. It has been the way of the products of the Liberal Progressive Educational Indoctrination System for decades. As long as their emotional needs are met their perceived reality of any situation is just another unfulfilled promise away.
Her bodyguards own guns. The ones you pay for. Her? I doubt it.Even if she does, and even if she would shoot an intruder it doesn’t mean she wants you to have the same right to do so.
It seems to me that Secret Service protection not withstanding, Vice President Kameltoe Harris actually needs a gun for self defense. You might recall that the last time that a Secret Service agent fired their gun in response to an attempted assassination, they fired five rounds from a range of less than ten feet, and somehow missed.
Of course it’s probable that a hypothetical President Harris would follow the advice of her predecessor by arming herself with a politically correct, Senile Sock Puppet President Joe Biden recommended, 12 gauge shotgun loaded with “harmless buckshot.”
She was a DA in an outrageously anti-gun and high crime jurisdiction; of course she has a gun. She’s likely had one since way back when her primary job involved knee pads; they ALWAYS get a gun, they just dont let you have one.
That said, I have no doubt she’s used it maybe once or twice and has no idea what make/model (Id bet its a Glock 19) it is much less what the magazine is filled with. And on that note I’d bet there’s only the one magazine and somewhere near where the gun is kept is the one box of ammo minus whatever she has shot and the refilled the mag with, Ill go with one mag burned and one mag filled, so 20 left in the box.
Id also bet it stays in a drawer unholstered and that the few times she carried she carried in a purse or brief case, also unholstered.
This all describes the typical behavior of most unserious gun-owners and given how unserious Kamala is about everything else I cant think she’s more serious about her gun ownership.
Walz just looks like a true Fudd; Ive seen a profile on him and his limited edition Beretta A400 excell (a Fudd gun for sure) and lots of pictures of him bird hunting with it. Ive also seen him in a deer hunting profile where he’s carrying a camo-cald pump shotgun–cant tell the make. I did also see one image of him with a Garand but it seems like he shot it at a test facility. So it looks like he’s got an expensive bird gun and an everyman deer gun. Seems very Fudd to me.
All Walz needs now is a Remchesterby in .270 to complete his Fudd credentials.
I have to admit that I have a Weatherby .270 in my collection.
Not telling the truth is acceptable behavior. It’s part of the 1st amendment. Just go ask the Libertarians Liberals and the Left.
It’s only acceptable behavior for THEM…. the other side says there is no 1st amendment protection for what THEY deem to be offensive or “Hate Speech”… so says the often “mis-speaking” Walz the Liar.
I remember very well when they supported “the free speech” to burn a cross, on the private property of a black person.
Part of the 1st Amendment unless you want government to have the authority to judge what is or isn’t “truth”.
Well since the government decided that Easter services were not a 1st amendment priority. But strip clubs gay parades and BLM protests, they were all a 1st amendment priority.
According to the government.
And the libertarians liberals and the left were all very comfortable with that government decision.
You must have been following a fringe group of Libertarians if they were OK with covid shutdowns of church services.
Well they nominated that person for the libertarian candidate
for president of the United States. You need to start paying attention.
“We don’t need a state apparatus telling us what to do or trying to lock us down or control us. It was one of the greatest violations of liberty in our life. We saw millions of businesses affected by arbitrary lockdowns that didn’t stop the disease. We saw the attempt of OSHA to mandate behavior that individual businessowners and property owners should be able to determine for themselves, and, frankly, individuals should be able to determine for themselves.”
@S_V
Off topic, but related to what we discussed the other day. Newly released transcripts. Why didn’t the Select Committee include this in their report? It’s almost like that was a get Trump operation. We all need a Memento style sticky to remind us not to believe the MSM lies. Check it out:
Then-President Donald Trump gave clear instructions to Pentagon brass days before the Jan. 6 riots to “do whatever it takes” to keep the U.S. Capitol safe, including deploying National Guard or active-duty troops, but top officials did not comply because of political concerns, according to transcripts of bombshell interviews conducted by the Defense Department’s chief watchdog that shine new light on government dysfunction ahead of the historic tragedy.
h
ttps://justthenews.com/accountability/watchdogs/bombshell-transcripts-trump-urged-use-troops-protect-capitol-jan-6-was
Leftists believe they can, and they will try if we let them, have it both ways. It’s always Opposite Day in leftist land.
Harris does not support the second amendment like she wants to fool people into thinking.
As DA in San Francisco, Harris supported an outright ban on the sale and possession of handguns. She backed Proposition H in 2005; a ballot referendum in San Francisco that would have outlawed handguns and forced existing owners to hand them over to the local government. She backed a ban on gun shows at the Cow Palace, claiming without evidence that the gun show was fueling illegal sales of firearms. She co-signed an amicus brief in 2007 arguing that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, only bearing arms while serving in a militia. She even declared that law enforcement had the authority to enter the locked homes of legal gun owners, at any time without warrant or cause or warning, to inspect how their firearms are stored.
In 2019, Harris not only called for a ban on so-called assault weapons but said it would be a “good idea” to include a mandatory “buyback” of tens of millions of lawfully owned semi-automatic firearms. In case no one realizes, when the government includes the term ‘mandatory’ in relation to anything property it means they can seize it (even using force) if they wish if you do not comply to turn it over to them. In other words a mandatory “buyback” is a forced confiscation, you accept what they want to pay you and turn it over to them or if you don’t they can use force to take it – which in terms of guns means they will probably be trying to kill a lot of folks because a lot of folks are not going to surrender their constitutional right to an unconstitutional tyrannical move like a ‘mandatory’ falsely termed ‘buy back’. In short if Harris did try a ‘mandatory’ falsely termed ‘buy back’ forced confiscation, its tantamount to declaring war by tyranny and she will have started a war…. ya know, just like the British did that sparked off the Revolutionary War.
There is a reason Harris keeps using the phrase “What can be, unburdened by what has been”.
Its a loose translation of what Karl Marx wrote, and means … ‘you have to wipe out the old to arrive in the new’, or to paraphrase it in concept that has been used by every Tyrant in history … “Try doing something with complete disregard for history.” (meaning do away with the history of freedom and dominate by tyranny). Its a Marx….ist-Leninist-Maoist concept ideology ‘plan piece’ for communism used to shift a society from freedom into a submissive dominated Marx….ist Socia—list commu- nism type of state.
With that phrase Kamala is literally telling you she wants to turn us into a marx – ist social – ist communist state.
“In 2019, Harris not only called for a ban on so-called assault weapons”
Just like your hero, Ronald Reagan:
“Ford, Carter, Reagan Push for Gun Ban
WILLIAM J. EATON
TIMES STAFF WRITER
Three former presidents endorsed legislation Wednesday to ban the future manufacture, sale and possession of combat-style assault weapons as a closely divided House neared a showdown today on the hotly controversial issue.
Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan sent a letter to all House members expressing their support for the measure, effectively joining President Clinton in urging approval of the ban.“
There ya go cherry picking out of context again Miner49er, here is what I wrote:
“In 2019, Harris not only called for a ban on so-called assault weapons but said it would be a “good idea” to include a mandatory “buyback” of tens of millions of lawfully owned semi-automatic firearms. In case no one realizes, when the government includes the term ‘mandatory’ in relation to anything property it means they can seize it (even using force) if they wish if you do not comply to turn it over to them. In other words a mandatory “buyback” is a forced confiscation, you accept what they want to pay you and turn it over to them or if you don’t they can use force to take it – which in terms of guns means they will probably be trying to kill a lot of folks because a lot of folks are not going to surrender their constitutional right to an unconstitutional tyrannical move like a ‘mandatory’ falsely termed ‘buy back’. In short if Harris did try a ‘mandatory’ falsely termed ‘buy back’ forced confiscation, its tantamount to declaring war by tyranny and she will have started a war…. ya know, just like the British did that sparked off the Revolutionary War.”
To have a ban enforced by a tyranny ‘mandatory buy back’ is far different from what Ford, Carter, and Reagan did and it doesn’t even compare.
Learn what context means Miner49er.
Another run on the cosmetic ban of “Assault Weapons”. Given the last one was nothing but a ban on things like bayonet lugs or folding/collapsable stocks.
Then the complaints about magazine capacity. But it takes what, a second or so to swap a mag? Then given the fact that those with criminal or evil intent aren’t likely to worry about the words on paper of some law or ban when they find whatever weapon they want to use to commit their crimes.
Same thing applies with storage requirements or limits on who can own what or even permits or license/permit schemes. Since when do criminals bother with the niceties of legal compliance.
Whether Harris actually owns a handgun or not is irrelevant. She currently has SS protection and likely will for life. If not she can easily afford private security likely well armed with the very weapons she wants the common citizens prohibited from owning.
Even the Federal government admits there was no discernable effect on crime or misuse of semi-automatic rifles under the Clinton gun ban. Nor was there a shortage or lessening of sales.
Look at the history of bans or prohibitions of anything in this country. Have they ever been effective? I don’t give a crap which politician or party wants to ban guns, ICE powered cars, cookstoves, books, or whatever else. All these bans ever do is make whatever is banned the forbidden fruit and drives up demand for it.
Kameltoe to the compliant/covering media ““We’re not taking anybody’s guns away, ”
Kameltoe to the Lefties “Trust me, I’m lying”
Comments are closed.