Vice President Kamala Harris sparked debate Thursday when she declared that “the right to be safe is a civil right” during an East Room event where President Joe Biden signed a new executive order aimed at limiting the development of gun technologies. Harris’s statement raises questions about the administration’s stance, particularly in light of efforts to limit the constitutional right “to bear arms,” which many believe is crucial to ensuring personal safety.
“It is a false choice to suggest you are either in favor of the Second Amendment, or you want to take everyone’s guns away,” Harris said, attempting to balance her documented support for gun restrictions with her election-season claims of backing the right to bear arms in an attempt to fool voters. Her simultaneous call to reinstate the assault weapons ban raises concerns about the Democratic administration’s true intentions regarding gun ownership. For gun rights advocates, the logical inconsistency is clear: Harris calls for protecting Americans’ safety as a civil right while seeking to curtail the very means by which law-abiding citizens ensure that safety—their right to bear arms, which is explicitly protected by the Second Amendment.
Biden, in a symbolic moment, handed Harris the pen after signing the executive order, remarking, “Keep it going, boss,” a phrase that seemed to cement Harris’s leadership on gun control in the administration. The president’s comments underscore the critical role Harris plays as she leads the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. The vice president’s call for safety as a civil right stands in contrast to her push for gun control measures, which critics argue could infringe on the right of self-defense, a key component of personal safety for many Americans.
The executive order signed by Biden directs research into active shooter drills and their potential trauma on students and educators, while also forming a task force to investigate the growing threat of machine gun conversion devices and 3D-printed guns. These measures, the administration argues, are designed to curb gun violence. However, Second Amendment supporters point out that the solution lies in empowering responsible citizens to protect themselves, not in creating further obstacles to lawful gun ownership.
Harris, who claims to support the Second Amendment while advocating for more gun restrictions, continues to face scrutiny from those who argue that her policies aim to restrict gun rights. The vice president’s insistence that Americans have a right to live “without fear of violence — including gun violence” leaves many wondering how that can be achieved while limiting access to the very tools that allow individuals to defend themselves.
Biden echoed his long-standing call for more aggressive gun control measures, including universal background checks and stricter firearm storage laws. He emphasized holding parents accountable for negligence, reinforcing the administration’s stance that more regulation is the answer to reducing gun violence. Yet, the tension between Harris’ call for more gun restrictions masked as “safety,” and the administration’s efforts to restrict gun rights remains a focal point of criticism from gun rights advocates.
As Harris takes a more prominent role in shaping gun policy, the contradiction between promoting safety as a civil right and limiting the Second Amendment continues to be a sticking point for those who believe the right to bear arms is integral to ensuring personal and public safety.
well of course she has the Secret Service. so yes she gas the right. I need my guns to protect me from her.
She was making a joke, right? Right?
Our God-given civil rights existed before the founders built this nation and will still exist after we.are forced to tear it apart and rebuild it in order to finally secure them from internal enemies like her..
We must eliminate your civil rights in order to protect your civil rights.
If we have a civil right to be safe then the logical consequence is that all convicted violent criminals are subject to execution.
I’m good with that.
You may think you’re good with executing all violent criminals, but too often the government decides that if a gun owner like you (or me) accidentally violates of one of the 30,000 existing Federal, state, and local gun laws currently on the books, that technicality makes you a “violent criminal” in the eyes of the law… and in your view, subject to execution merely for being a gun owner who accidentally committed a gun law infraction that his state calls a “felony.” It happens (not execution, but felony conviction) all the time to innocent gun owners all the time in blue states. Currently the punishment for such a technicality is revocation of gun rights for life (regardless of whether you get any jail time), but you want to up the punishment for innocent gun owners to execution?
The government can declare (as it already does in over half a dozen states) that any gun owner who accidentally loads 11 rounds in their magazine instead of 10 is a “violent criminal” for accidentally violating a “high capacity” magazine ban due to a defective magazine! Or the government can declare (as it already does in some states) that any gun owner who travels to or from the gun range with his gun securely locked inside a locked case inside a locked trunk, but forgets to clear the round in the chamber before transporting it to or from the range is a “violent criminal” for violating gun laws by “transporting a loaded gun,” despite it being locked in the trunk.
Those of us living behind the iron curtain in New Jersey, New York, California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, Hawaii, etc. know what happens when the government declares a minor accidental violation of restrictive gun laws makes gun owners a “violent criminal” in the eyes of the law… and in your view, subject to execution. Probably every gun owner in my state who regularly practices at his gun club has had a moment when they realized on the way to the gun club, “Oh sh*t, I brought my home defense gun and forgot to unload it before putting it in the car, so now that makes me a felon, but if I stop the car to clear the gun in an attempt to comply with the law, someone will see me and get me arrested, so I have no choice but to continue driving and hope I don’t get pulled over and searched.” That’s life in NJ, NY, CA, MA, CT, HI, IL, etc.
Geez i really cant stand another 4 years of this shit. It could actually be 8 yrs too.
Easy there cowboy — what’s the problem with ‘more of the same, only worse!’
its only a civil right
if youre not still in the womb
or just born a few minutes ago
Familiar with Virginia and New York I see
Don’t forget about Minnesota thanks to Tranz the kids Tim. They see babies as parasites. That’s even one of their pro-abortion talking points.
The legislation Walz signed in May 2023 got rid of the word “preserve” and replaced the previous wording with a revised requirement “to care for the infant who is born alive.”
“The concern is that the law no longer requires that lifesaving measures be taken. It only requires ‘care.’ So the law as it’s now written could allow a baby to be left to die, even a baby who could be saved with appropriate lifesaving measures
During the “mostly peaceful” St. George riot er protests in 2020 I could legally defend my family in ILLANNOY with an AR. Now I can’t at least without being arrested by the Ill gestapo. How am I “safer”? Babies aren’t. The main target for Baal worshipping Dims. That and mutilating boy’s & girls😧
Your choices.
🇺🇸🥰 Xax
“Harris, who claims to support the Second Amendment ”
Harris claims to support the second amendment IF its applied for ‘militia’ in terms of military/law-enforcement/government. She has even clarified this in the past with saying the second amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms but is only for such ‘militia’, in her past attempt to ban and confiscate hand guns in California.
Her claims of gun ownership as is that of Walz, is in that aspect, for both are ‘government’ (her ate then to federal, and him state). She is the ‘gun owner’ like us, as she would have you believe, nor does she support the second amendment as an individual right to keep and bear arms.
“It is a false choice to suggest you are either in favor of the Second Amendment, or you want to take everyone’s guns away,”
This is a trick statement – this is exactly what she wants to do – she wants to claim support for the second amendment if its in her ‘militia’ context, while she does not support the second amendment if its in an individual right context and wants to take those guns away.
Yes, she wants “to take everyone’s guns away,” except for those in her ‘militia’ context.
Its the old anti-gun argument that the second amendment is for ‘militia’ only. She just putting a different spin on it by not explaining fully what she means when she says she supports the second amendment.
correction for : “(her ate then to federal, and him state)”
should have been…
(her state then to federal, and him state)
correction for : “She is the ‘gun owner’ like us, as she would have you believe, nor does she support the second amendment as an individual right to keep and bear arms. ”
should have been…
She is not a ‘gun owner’ like us, as she would have you believe, nor does she support the second amendment as an individual right to keep and bear arms.
She is definitely not like us.
She forgets she may be elected to govern. She thinks she is chosen to rule.
Since the state militias were subsumed into the National Guard, and that into US Army, the same Federal government that the 2nd Amendment was intended to restrain, there are no official militias. Now there are Democrats that want to legislate non Federal government militias out of existence. So, if the Supreme Court is honest and consistent with the Heller, Bruen and other decisions supporting the individual right, they will (or, hopefully, most of them will) rule against a law that limits militias to those formed by or controlled by the Federal government.
This proposed bill is especially dangerous, for another reason. In other countries like Venezuela Nicaragua, or Iran, the national governments have formed and armed “militias” that are actually little more than gangs of thugs that carry out criminal actions against citizens, especially vocal opponents of the governments. That proposed bill could open the door for those kinds of militias. And Antifa would be just the folks they’d want, already formed, with informal training, and many already have weapons.
“Dyin’ ain’t much of a livin’, boy.”–Eastwood as Josey Wales
Safety is a civil right. A god given primary right.
Enforce the d*mn laws that already exist. Zero tolerance.
Their safety not ours…….common man
Safety certainly for her core constituents, community organizers, and mostly peaceful protesters.
Safety begins with the individual. You can’t legislate common sense. How would you enforce such laws? Send police to inspect our homes? Such “solutions” by KamelToe are asinine.
So could these gun grabbers/disarmament proponents please explain how their laws will actually in any way make the citizens of this country safer.
Would love to read/see/hear the demonstratable facts on how they plan on disarming the gang members, street thugs, and other criminals. As well as how they can in any way guarantee anyone’s safety.
Sorry folks, there is no way more government, more laws, or more police or soldiers will make anyone safer. These disingenuous liars want more control of the guns so they can control the lives and efforts and movements of the people. Could it be the whole gun control issue is not about guns or public safety but about control over the citizens and making life safer for themselves and their goons.
Joe homeowner doesn’t get protection from the thugs nor from the governments goons. Nor his his or her safety in any way enhanced by being disarmed.
the End is near
armed citizens are dangerous during turmoil
Just trust us. Wear the mask. Take the shot. And turn in your guns. And “we” will take care of you.
Still pissed/shocked at how remsdivir was handed out like candy up here.
Let 300,000+ criminals in our country and then take our guns away! Who is she trying to protect?
Her voting base.
Come and Take it ya nasty Hag!
Some people claim that in order to get on in politics, it is necessary to talk out of both sides of their mouth, at the same time. I cannot say, with any degree of certainty, that this ability is a necessity, possibly due to the fact that I have never been involved in politics, or the seeking of elective office. That said, it does appear that the Vice President displays that ability.
The last time I checked, there is nothing in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights that mentions safety. There is, however that pesky Second Amendment where the citizens keep themselves safe from those who would rather we not be.
I’ll take dangerous freedom over ‘safe’ slavery any day of the week. A vote for Kamala Harris is a vote for re-education camps for non-progressives and democide for dissidents! And after all this someone STILL says “vote blue no matter who”, then they are what Vladimir Lenin called “useful idiots”!!
All commies must drop.
The best guarantee to be safe is to be a law abiding and trained gun owner AND TO VOTE and MAKE SURE your fellow 2A supporters VOTE THE STRAIGHT R TICKET.
https://x.com/tweakedcaptions/status/1832975721003725235?s=46
Urge your local gun store to use their customer lists to reach out to gun owners, to make sure they are registered to vote, and that they understand the consequences of staying home or voting Harris.
We need every vote for the entire ticket to be Republican.
Comments are closed.