Kamala Harris is Too Ignorant About the Nation’s Gun Laws to be President

kamala harris gun control 2020 democrat primary

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., visits the Bickford Senior Living Center Monday, Aug. 12, 2019, in Muscatine, Iowa. (AP Photo/John Locher)

California’s Democrat Senator Kamala Harris started out as a deputy district attorney in Oakland. In a job like that, she no doubt dealt with a lot of firearms-related crimes and prosecutions.

She was then elected to the lofty post of Attorney General of the Golden State. That’s the state with the strictest gun laws in the nation, if you’re keeping score.

With her time as both a prosecutor and then as the state’s chief law enforcement officer, you’d think that she’d have had the opportunity to learn some of the basics about how America’s gun control laws work.

You’d be wrong.

Yesterday, Senator Harris blurted out this tweet to demonstrate her anti-gun bona fides. Or something.

Thank goodness! Finally someone is DOING SOMETHING!

There’s only one problem with this, of course. As just about anyone who reads this blog knows, there is no online sales loophole. 

No one — anywhere in the United States — can order a gun online and take possession of it without undergoing a federal background check.

That’s because no online gun seller will send a firearm directly to the buyer. That’s against the law. All guns must be shipped to a federal firearms license holder so the purchaser can complete the required form 4473 and undergo a NICS check.

In some states, there’s then a waiting period before you take possession of your purchase.

If people are buying firearms via the internet and having them shipped directly without undergoing the background check process, they’re already breaking the law. Which means whatever it is Senator Harris has in mind should she be elected president is superfluous.

Again, anyone who’s held the kind of prosecutorial and law enforcement positions that Harris has should know all about the hurdles requirements that are in place for purchasing a firearm in this country.

That she doesn’t know the basics after her time in positions of direct responsibility — or is happily lying about it — should be news in and of itself.

 

comments

  1. avatar Happy Smells says:

    I agree, She totally Shafted the People in California. so no Doubt She’ll Do the Same tot he Rest of the Country.

    1. avatar Ransom says:

      Excuse me?!? No doubt she WON’T.

      1. avatar Happy Smells says:

        wut? I live hear and know what she did. She’s totally self serving and against the rights of the people for politics.

        1. avatar Spelling popo says:

          *here

        2. avatar Ransom says:

          You misunderstood. What I meant is that she’ll never be President.

        3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “What I meant is that she’ll never be President.”

          H’mm… Where have I heard that before?

        4. avatar rick grant says:

          don’t forget the conviction calif senator representing parts san fran for gun running when she ran before da of sf and ag of California

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        Yep, true. She’s sinking in the ratings and she’s sinking FAST.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Good. She is among the most vile of that whole rotten bunch (and that’s saying something).

        2. avatar frank speak says:

          she’s a self-serving phony…and that’s beginning to emerge…reminiscent of hilliary…

      3. avatar SGT Preston says:

        The only reason she won’t, hopefully, is that she will NEVER be elected as President. I don’t know of one single democrat that I think would be really qualify as our new president, if for no other reason than they all are set on changing the Constitution to suit their own political notions, which are clearly unConstitutional.

    2. avatar Nam62 says:

      When you screw your way to the top you don’t need to know anything!!

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        When you screw your way closer to the top, but never actually reaching the top.

        FIFY

    3. avatar Ranger Rick says:

      She’s one of their “best and brightest”.

      1. Tulsi Gabbard is the best conservative we have in this race

  2. avatar Hank says:

    It could also be that she wants to blatantly outright ban the legal ability to buy a gun, parts, or ammo online. That is likely on the leftist agenda.

    1. avatar Realist says:

      She’s more than likely totally aware of the online firearm purchase requirements. Statements like hers above are made to fool those who are ignorant of the law of purchasing online to believe that there is a huge online purchase problem and she’s the one to fix it. It’s all a ploy to get votes, even though it’s not truthful. Democrats don’t care about the truth.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        To which,after truth I would add facts as neither are high on Leftad’s list of virtues .

      2. avatar CharlieKing1 says:

        Agree with Realist…I believe there are a whole bunch of folks out there that think one can merely order a firearm over the internet without an FFL transfer. She knows what she is doing…she’s playing to the ignorant populace to pander for votes. She just shows the ugly side of lying politics (but I’m being redundant). Just disgusting…

        1. avatar DDay says:

          She’s not very bright so it’s certainly possible she doesn’t know. It’s 50/50 whether she’s so stupid she doesn’t know or whether she’s purposely lying. We know she slept her way up the ladder in CA, so she’ll do anything to move ahead.

        2. avatar Southern Cross says:

          KH is at least as smart as her audience.

        3. avatar DrewN says:

          She is many things, but “not very bright” isn’t one of them.

      3. avatar Mark N. says:

        Bingo! I think it is called “pandering,” something she learned from her sugar daddy Willy Brown. She is his acolyte and most successful arm candy. She is a scheming bitch who will do anything to win. I doubt that she has any true morals, other than an abiding hatred of all things gun.

      4. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        I think the headline could be shortened to ” Kamala Harris is ignorant…” and not lost it’s meaning. What do you think.

        1. avatar Dennis says:

          👍

  3. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    More fake news from the right. Ms. Harris is referring to the ease of which anyone can simply go online and purchase a gun – regardless of the rules and regulations thereof. Ms. Harris is no idiot but she realizes that the more safeguards that can be implemented into this violent, aggressive, testosterone – filled country of white supremacists and racists intent on genocide of POC’s, the safer and saner this country will be. Jethro’s and hillbillies be warned. 2021 will mark the beginning of the end of your kind of violence and dominating rule of POC. We, the social democrats and the indigenous peoples are taking back our country. Welcome Mr. President. We believe and trust in you.

    1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

      Oh, Vlad!

      You’re not too bright, are you?

      1. avatar DDay says:

        Vlad is an idiot, so is harris.

      2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Vlad is the online version of the multiple-personality character from the movie ‘Split’. This is why all his comments seem to rotate and not look the same, or make the same sense.

    2. avatar White Supremacist Racist Jethro Hillbilly says:

      She is going to cause the very events you fear.

    3. avatar enuf says:

      I am sure Harris knows she is lying. Her point is to feed fear and attract voters. Doing something about Human Violence is not on her agenda.

    4. avatar doesky2 says:

      I betting you just came in your own mouth after that public beat off session you just subjected us to.

    5. avatar Jeff O. says:

      So then you’re saying she proposes making the illegal more “illegaler?”

      And so how would that work?

      Criminals gonna crime. That’s why they’re called that.

    6. avatar CharlieKing1 says:

      Vlad, when was the last time you ordered a firearm over the internet? I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

    7. avatar Swastika Doomsday Approaches says:

      You’re too late! The Fourth Reich will have started by then! This fall Trump will be rounding up all liberals and putting them in camps out west. Reports of Russian troops on the ground in Colorado and New Mexico are here to assist with the new Fourth Reich. Look up Jade Helm 19 for more information.

      1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

        There is medication for that psychosis Sir.

        1. avatar Darkman says:

          It’s the meds that cause the psychosis.

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        Colorado could use a good enema…

    8. avatar bastiches says:

      The froll routine is tiresome, Flappy.

      “Welcome Mr. President. We believe and trust in you.”

      See, you botched that last part. ‘MS. President’ or ‘MX. President’ – the correct honorific for the mentally ill – if you’re going to keep up this lame routine.

    9. avatar DDay says:

      vlad is a narrow minded bigot. His girl is losing badly too. So sad.

    10. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

      Please, tell me more about how I can “simply go online and purchase a gun”. I am waiting …

      1. avatar Dennis says:

        Yeah please! I can always use a couple more, especially if they’re off the books. That must be easy too, right???

    11. avatar Karl says:

      Oh SNAP! You just assumed someone’s gender identity!! What kind of anti-gender equality super NAZI are you?

    12. avatar GS650G says:

      Show us dummies a receipt for a on line gun purchase delivered to a non FFL.
      We’ll wait over here.

    13. avatar Dan from Detroit says:

      I’m a PoC that’s good with computers. Some of my PoC friends are too.
      We really like buying guns online because we get better prices that way. I’m all for making it even easier. Freedom is for everybody, or it’s for nobody. Which side of that are you on?
      Please stop acting like you speak for me and all PoCs.
      In fact … are you a PoC? If not, what qualifies you to speak for us?
      I personally find more intolerance for PoCs coming from the left than the right (you know, “adopt the ideas of ‘the party’ or else you are a race-traitor” stuff)

    14. avatar Minuteman says:

      That’s funny right there , I don’t care who you are. What a comedian you would make.

    15. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Hey Vlad, in most states private sales between individuals residing in the same state without background checks is legal? And the method of communication is irrelevant.

      But a sale between residents of different states does need to go through a FFL who will do a background check on the buyer.

      If you make a purchase at “GunsRus” online, they can only legally send to a FFL for final transfer and background check.

      Even in the gun-free paradise of Australia it is possible to buy guns online but the final transfer has to be done through a dealer.

    16. avatar Reno1947 says:

      Taking back your country.it never was your country to begin with.its Gods country but the wicked want to turn into a sewer.you will gain your vision but you won’t like it.we as a

      nation are committing suicide
      God will have the last word on the subject

    17. avatar Someone says:

      “2021 will mark the beginning of the end of your kind of violence and dominating rule of POC.”

      Tsk, tsk! Isn’t this statement racist? When in doubt, use simple test – flip the colors and read it again. If I called for end of your kind of violence (sugesting that my kind of violence is all right) and dominating rule of whites, I would be rightly called out as raging racist. Why is white supremacy bad and other colors supremacy good? MLK jr. dreamed about world where only the color of one’s character matters.

      Vlad, on top of being terminally stupid, is sad picture of racist bigot.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        And being a self-declared socialist, you can add rabid anti-semite as well.

  4. avatar john rowlinson says:

    I went to her site and what she is talking about is private sales. Private sales advertised online is the “loophole” she’s addressing. I don’t agree but… this article has a lot of words and none of them apply to the right the Senator is really trying to take away. The right to sell your firearm without govt. intervention.

    1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      I don’t even think Harris knows what her own policies are. She bends to wherever the political wings blow her way, as long as it’s in the general left direction. For further proof, compare her statements before, during and after the latest Democrat debates on healthcare.

      1. avatar Willy says:

        “…She *bends* to wherever the political wings *blow*…”

        Willy Brown…”You ain’t kidding!”

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Could be. If so, how does she plan to stop private sales? Passing totally unenforceable laws is not going to do it, even if you find a way to advise everyone who owns a gun what the law is, which would not be easy. Even if you made the background checks free to the user, paid for by the taxpayer as they should be, which the taxpayer would not stand for. Even then, nobody would pay any attention to such a stupid law, and by extension would pay less attention to laws which are actually valid. Compliance would be less than 20%. I own a gun I purchased in 1972. If I choose to sell it what would cause me to follow such a stupid law?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “If so, how does she plan to stop private sales? ”

        Easy peasy. First is the deterrent: law abiding citizens don’t want to break the law in general. Second, fear that a privately transferred firearm will end up in some sort of investigation, and the receiver doesn’t want to have to explain how they came into possession.

        At least, that is the public theory behind it. In all, it is just “doing something”, because every school shooting or other non-gang/criminal mass shooting involved privately transferred guns. Didn’t it?

  5. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

    “No one — anywhere in the United States — can order a gun online and take possession of it without undergoing a federal background check.”

    Even antique CMP M1s?

    1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

      Geoff: While I don’t know about the rifles, when the 1911s were going to be released, they announced the need for two (2) NICS checks. One when you ordered and one upon delivery. That and the cost dissuaded me from ordering one.

    2. avatar Jeff O. says:

      The CMP Garand sales are run through a background check, they say so on their site.

      Because of the supporting documents you have to send (Birth certificate, notorized letter form) you don’t have to be physically present or fill out the usual form, but they do submit it to the FBI. They get to operate a bit differently as they are a Federally mandated program.

      1. avatar CharlieKing1 says:

        I believe the operative word here is ‘the ease’ of ordering one online. Reference the CMP sales of Garands and military issued 1911s, there is nothing easy about ordering something from the CMP. One has to jump through a bunch of hoops to buy from the CMP.

        Further, from what I’ve seen most of the folks that sell their weapons on-line to a private buyer usually conduct some verification of that person by looking at some form of state issued ID.

    3. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Even CMP M1s.

      In that, very specific and exclusive case, you get a form from the CMP, fill out all the same info as for a 4473, get it notarized, and send it to CMP. (Or that’s how it worked as of about 5 years ago.) CMP then runs the background check there; only after they get the go-ahead will they send you the rifle. For the 1911’s, they ship the pistol to an FFL where a second background check is performed. (As to why they changed the procedure for the pistols … the cynic in me would say “politics.”)

      So, yes, the Garand is to your door; no, in no way does it happen without a background check. The only difference is where the check is being conducted: your local FFL, or the CMP.

  6. avatar Dennis says:

    She’s way too ignorant about anything that doesn’t involve entitlement programs and non enforcement of the country’s laws!

  7. avatar rt66paul says:

    I think you don’t know about C&R long guns. While in Ca, it is not legal to get one shipped to you, many states allow for(and rightly so), transfer of C&R long guns, even to people who do not have said license within the same state..

  8. avatar rt66paul says:

    Kamala Harris has an agenda – she couldn’t be where she is being stupid, she is just another cog in the clockwork that is gun control.

  9. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “No one — anywhere in the United States — can order a gun online and take possession of it without undergoing a federal background check.”

    OK, gonna launch into this one, regarding ‘ignorant” regarding online gun sales.
    Wrongo Bongo, Nyet-ski, No Seegar. Know the territory, or tighten up your authoritorial skills, It is very possible (easy?) to arrange private sales of guns online…under the notion that buyer and seller reside in the same state. Where states allow, such sales are conducted sans background check.

    When we (me) point a finger at someone, there are four fingers pointing back at us. We should be careful how we do so.

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      It’s a daily occurrence on gun forums. The forum merely provides a way to advertise it and connect buyers and sellers, but has no association with the actual sale. You must be a member of the forum in order to post a private Buy/Sell/Trade. Details (regarding where and when for the buy/sale/trade) are worked out via private message/email between the seller and the potential buyer.

      No different than the same service provided by a local “Little Nickel” paper, or a hundred other similar enterprises – hardcopy or digital.

      Anyone who participates in any of the hundreds of gun forums is well acquainted with this service.

      You can’t stop the signal. 🙂

      1. avatar GunnyGene says:

        PS: Here’s an example from AR-15 dot com (a national popular site). It’s all perfectly legal and aboveboard.

        https://www.ar15.com/forums/equipment-exchange/

        1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

          This is no different from purchasing firearm from my local newspapers classifieds except buyers and sellers leave more of a paper trail. If weapons are shipped interstate there are other issues involved.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “…but has no association with the actual sale.”

        We recognize that, but the populace doesn’t. Private sales conducted via online contact is exactly the sorts of transactions the grabbers fear, and politicians publicize. Talking among ourselves, the original statement passes for shorthand. Read by the public, it is not accurate to their perceptions and beliefs (but beneficial to politicians).

        1. avatar GunnyGene says:

          True. Personally I think this is all about the “social democrats” getting their hooks into yet another source of revenue that they can use to control us. The old “He who has the gold, makes the rules.”

          Local, State, and Federal bodies would love to take a cut of every transaction, private or otherwise.

    2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “When we (me) point a finger at someone, there are four fingers pointing back at us.”

      I’m used to being given ‘the finger’ on a daily basis, figuratively, literally, and rhetorically.

      I call it the ‘You’re Number-One Finger Hat-Trick’… 😉

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        ‘You’re Number-One Finger Hat-Trick’…”

        I presume you use that phrase among polite company, only.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          Polite people like you wouldn’t hang out with the likes of me… 🙂

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Polite people like you wouldn’t hang out with the likes of me… 🙂”

          I’m here, aren’t I ?

      2. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        around here there is a pause followed by, “have you been told yet today?”

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      really no different than putting an ad in the paper…..just a different means of communication…

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Sam, that is NOT “ordering a gun online”, that is a private sale. Any semblance of “ordering a gun online” requires a FFL and a background check, unconstitutional as they are.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Any semblance of “ordering a gun online” requires a FFL and a background check,’

        If you are knowledgeable. But, I can find a gun for sale online, arrange face-to-face and buy the gun, no questions asked. In the life of anti-gunners, that is an online sale loophole. The gun is “ordered” online. The gun is transferred offline, in person. This “loophole” is the source of all guns possessed by gangs and criminals, and provides all the firearms for mass shootings.

        Can’t project your own knowledge and understanding about gun sales onto the wacko anti-gunners.

  10. avatar Jay Y says:

    She may never have prosecuted a crime where a firearm was used, other than gun control where the individual was otherwise law-abiding. When I lived in California 20+ years ago only 1 in 5 crimes committed with a firearm was charged as such. Many that were charged would plea away the firearms charge to avoid what was then a 5-year minimum sentence.

  11. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    The only thing she is not ignorant of is being Willie Brown’s,willie receptacle, she had that one figured out,other wise she is the epitome of ignorant.

    1. avatar Diksum says:

      It has been reported that her parents were Jamaican and Indian, and therefor has no black in her. I know of at least one black that has been in her, if you know what I mean.

  12. avatar daveinwyo says:

    kamala harris is too ignorant to be President.
    There, fixed it for ya.

  13. avatar doesky2 says:

    She is a real piece of sheet saying that Michael Brown/Furgeson was a murder despite the conclusion of a grand jury and Obama’s DOJ.

    If she didn’t have the Leftist MoFoMedia flying air cover for her that would have been an immediate disqualification from the race.

    Of coarse Biden got the same air cover when he kicked off his campaign with the lie about Charleottseville.

    Gawd this country is going downhill.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      theirs is a strategy of lies…an appeal to the ignorant….

  14. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Not just gun laws, son, not just gun laws!!

  15. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Kamala Harris is Too Ignorant About the Nation’s Gun Laws to be President”

    Not only is that the truth, but she’s too ignorant about the Constitution to be POTUS, but then again, that can be said for most of the left, including any of the 2020 candidates…

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Not only is that the truth, but she’s too ignorant about the Constitution to be POTUS…”

      Ya’ll do realize “ignernt” is not the same as “stupit”, rat?

  16. avatar FoghornLeghorn says:

    she is not ignorant – she doesn’t care…. and remember she got where she is by giving a knob job to willie brown…. so there can’t/won’t be any me too or clinton issues … right?

  17. avatar former water walker says:

    Dumbocrats are too ignorant to be President…FIFY!

  18. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    quote———————There’s only one problem with this, of course. As just about anyone who reads this blog knows, there is no online sales loophole. —————————————–

    ———————quote

    Not True:

    Harris knows exactly what she is talking about because guns on line are indeed just one click away.

    Casein in point:

    Web sites like the “Gun List” and also chat forums about guns advertise second hand guns for sale every hour of every day and to make it look legal claim its only face to face sales within the State. Many times this is true but many times it is not as anyone can meet anyone on a street corner after chatting on line in gun chat rooms or visiting the “Gun List” even if you are not living in that state and the seller more often than not wants hard immediate cash and really could not care less who he sells his gun to or where the buyer lives and even if he does indeed live within the State the seller has no idea whether or not he is selling to a criminal or a nut case and again as long as he gets the cash he could not care less. All this is exactly why Harris wants universal background checks to stop the flow of second hand guns into the hands of nut cases and criminals.

    1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

      Even then there are legal limitations she isn’t mentioning. Shipping arms isn’t like dropping them in the mail with my Visa payment

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        That is exactly what happens except for the credit card payment rather its mailed to the seller and when he gets the cash he mails the gun with no paperwork. Again I know for a fact that this is happening and its even been mentioned on chat rooms that sell guns warning people who use these sites not to do it.

        1. avatar Red says:

          “…Again I know for a fact that this is happening…”

          Since you and the facts play as well together as ‘sweaty’ T.N.T., how many guns have you acquired and sold by this method?

    2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      I forgot to mention that people who meet in chat rooms sometimes do mail second hand guns to people who are not in possession of an F.F.L. Advertisements on chat rooms and on sites like the Gun List should be made illegal which means that Harris is indeed correct when she says ordering guns with a click of the mouse is happening and should be stopped. This does not mean places like Gun Broker would become illegal either as the web site would be responsible for keeping records of who was selling and who was receiving the weapon and who was the end buyer. In this way any seller that did not ship to an F.F.L. would be traceable and liable for prosecution as well as being banned from GunBroker. Right now as far as I know there are no safeguards in place that make places like GunBroker keep records on their buyers and sellers and guarantee the sale was legal from seller to buyer.

      So how would this all work. First the Seller would have to take the gun to a store front seller who has an F.FL. if the seller himself did not have an F.F.L. Only then would the gun be advertised for sale on line. It would work exactly the same as taking your gun to a gun store and putting it for sale “on consignment” only its on consignment on line. When the sale was made the Store in possession of the gun for sale would then sell it at the store to the person who won it on line or ship it to another F.F.L. holder who then would in turn sell it to the buyer who had won it on line.

      Harris is again correct when she says that right now people are indeed buying guns on line with the click of the mouse as there are just too many loopholes when selling guns on line.

      1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

        Will,:sales done illegally (shipment across state boundaries) are no different then any other illegal activity facilitated by the internet.(Drug sales come to mind).
        Further an illegal sale of a firearm is a violation of both laws about wire transfers and postal laws.

      2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        “…I forgot to mention that people who meet in chat rooms sometimes do mail second hand guns to people who are not in possession of an F.F.L….”

        Go ahead and attempt that and the Postal Inspectors will step in and they are sworn Federal Law Enforcement…I’ve been in a huge mail distribution center and they spy on their own people just waiting to pounce. They have a bit of a complex since people don’t take them seriously…until they do.

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          Sorry you do not live in the real world . Guns and dope are shipped by ups and also fed ex and the postal service everyday and not all of them are declared as such either. Yes some people are caught but a lot of them are not. I know this for a fact.

      3. avatar rt66paul says:

        There are already laws about mailing guns and the like. Making another law is just redundant. If you sell or buy like this, you are breaking the law, pure and simple. Having another law against this is not going to help anything, even the district attorney doesn’t need more choices to convict someone.
        More laws are NOT the answer, how about enforcing the ones on the books?

    3. avatar Ing says:

      All these “loopholes” you refer to are called freedom, Vlad.

      Jethros, hillbillies, champagne sippers, and people of all colors share it. Don’t fear it. Embrace it.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        Tell that to the grieving families of a teen age girl working at a convenience store that got her brains blown out in a robbery by a nut case that easily bought his gun second hand with no paper work. Really no sane person could disagree that this does not happen all the time.

    4. avatar frank speak says:

      …except there is no evidence that is really happening…criminals get their guns via straw-purchasing or theft…and the mass murderers just purchase them legally….it’s a solution in search of a problem….

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        Police records show it happens all the time. The Chicago study traced guns used in crime and they were on average 11 years old and had went through many hands and of course with no paperwork.

        Sorry try again your fantasies are not reality when you check the facts.

  19. avatar sound awake says:

    shes too ignorant about everything to be anything
    plus shes to the left of diane feinstein on the death penalty for cop killers
    which is to say:
    shes against it

    1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      Why should harming a government employee, especially one who often instigates any violence that occurs, merit a stiffer penalty than harming a citizen? If anything, harming a citizen should be worse than harming an agent of the state. Citizens are more important than government employees.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Citizens are more important than government employees.”

        Government employees (like cops) aren’t citizens?

        How many tiers of law are sufficient?

  20. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Im sure she is almost as stupid about guns as are most Libitards. They as a group 101% believe what they are told or read about guns from their own people.
    I remember when my father was alive a WW2 vet. When I showed him my AR15. He said to me, why do you have a machine gun??
    He was dumber then dirt about guns.
    I had to explain to him the difference between a M16 or M4 and a AR15. He thought they were all machine guns. He believed it because both the VP and President said they were. This was during the Clinton ban years.
    Harris isn’t as dumb as she looks. She just doent care if the lie is easier to believe then the truth would be.

  21. avatar Narcoossee says:

    You are giving her, and those like her, the benefit of the doubt by presuming ignorance.

    I’m much more inclined to believe the far worse scenario: That they *do* know the laws, and that they *do* know the statistics, but are willfully lying to advance their agenda, which is far more far-reaching than firearms ownership. To understand that agenda, we need look no further than the U.K., where the rights of its subjects are being systematically removed. THAT is the ultimate agenda of the so-called Progressives.

  22. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    That headline is needlessly wordy. A better version:

    “Kamala Harris is Too Ignorant to be President.”

  23. avatar Truth man says:

    Sir,

    I disagree. KabbalahHaretz is unfit because:

    Kamala Harris is a fake black person who is a proxy for her Jew banker husband, who has a plan to pander to blacks so he can rip them off on housing loans.

    She got ahead by having an extra-marital affair with Mayor Willie Brown. When she tried to get Willie to leave his wife, he was like “b——, I’m from the old school. Yeah right!” She also had an affair with Beau Biden. She has no kids.

    Besides, only men should be president.

  24. avatar AlanInFL says:

    We all know that she inhaled.

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      she never exhaled.

  25. avatar Will Drider says:

    I’m going to get some haters for this one but we as firearm enthusiasts always shout “Those statements are lies, look at the Facts”. And when the pro gun narritive slaps back no one corrects them. Lets really look at the facts: The Harris version is only half truth as is the Author’s response. Harris by reason of her past employment and the Author for his “expertise” (after all he is Calling her out as being incorrect). Both then posit their information with deliberate obmissions. Any State that doesn’t mandate all firearm transfers be completed by using a FFL for private firearm transfers and do them face to face (without shipping): can in fact be agreed upon with a couple computer key strokes. You meet, inspect, swap goods/cash and your done. Same half truths flail around Gun Show loopholes when in face the issue is Private Sales by individuals “at” gun shows.

    It takes only a few sentences to get the real information out for public consuption but neither side wants to do that.

  26. avatar Billy Bob says:

    Lie a watha will be the dems candidate. The only thing in question is who her vp will be. I thought it would be Buttgig, maybe will be, still.

    1. avatar Knute(ken) says:

      I’ll lay you 2 to 1 odds that it will be Bernie the foolish. Ten will get you twenty it WON’T be faux a hontas.

  27. avatar B.D. says:

    Every twitter post by these democratic idiots is instantly refuted by about 15 people and they end up in top comments. Trumps is the same way, but we all know the idiots who comment on his stuff are basically soy boys, antifa, racists, and plain ol idiots. Not saying I agree with Trump or his insane twitter feeds, but the difference between the two comment sections is why the left is, well, so retarded. Seriously. It’s borderline a learning disability at this point. Like they skipped every history class, every economics class, ignore the past… etc etc. I just don’t understand how in a country designed the way ours is, they are okay with giving the government more power and actually believe that other people…. any one, any person in a position of power or control, will actually keep them safe. Every argument from these idiots is the same circle jerk of repetitiveness, and you cannot talk to them at all. You cannot refute their “facts” with actual common sense or forward thinking. It’s not going to end well… that is for sure. For them…

  28. avatar Swarf says:

    Kamala Harris is Too Ignorant About the Nation’s Gun Laws to be President

    It didn’t stop Trump.

  29. avatar Hannibal says:

    I doubt that any of the contenders, including the incumbent, actually know how gun laws work in the US.

  30. avatar Dan says:

    Since when has ignorance…..about ANYTHING…..kept a brain donor from seeking and holding office.
    In reality KamelToe Harris isn’t ignorant about gun laws….she just hates guns and wants disarmed.
    That means the ONLY gun laws she wants are the ones that disarm us. The rest are unimportant.

  31. avatar Will says:

    So let me get this straight… the writer of this article thinks that Harris isn’t qualified to be President, but Trump is!!!!! GTFOOH. And fuck gun laws idiot.

  32. avatar Chuck says:

    Kamelnose Hairyass is making much ado about a statistically small percentage of firearms, and something that is already against the law, regardless of your State. For both the seller and buyer, to transfer a weapon via USPS is already a felony offense, whether you’re an FFL holder or a private citizen.
    Someone reading on Fascistbook or Craig’s list (and good luck passing that by their monitors), of the sales status of a firearm, contacting the seller, meeting with the seller and buying the firearm privately, is still legal in a good portion of the lower 48 States. As long as the State has not legislated that private sales must go through an FFL holder, the sale is not technically illegal. Which is why the ATF hasn’t changed their ruling as of yet. It may come down the pike in the future, but we’ll see on that. The conundrum this creates is how is John Q. Gunowner supposed to know that Myron Wantsagun is legaly permitted to buy his firearm? The answer is he doesn’t.
    Still, the number of guns privately purchased and then used in the commission of a crime varies year to year, but the percentage is between 5 – 15%. Not a huge statistical number by any means. Five to Fifteen less murders per 100 capita makes a dent but not a real big one in the grand scheme of things. The issue most gun owners have with these laws is that it’s a blanket over all private firearms transfers, whether they’re sold, lent or given. Under these laws (and I live in a State that passed this a few years back), I cannot lend a gun to my wife, son and daughter, or give them a gun when they’ve reached the legal age of possession. So, if I want to will my modest collection to my family, I have to go and pay for the NICS background check on each person I decide to give a firearm too. This is what most of us disagree with about these laws.
    What reduces gun crime, and there are several studies that have been done that point this out, is a strict and even application of the laws we already have. Case in point, in 2017, a Texas man was arrested and charged with making “straw purchases.” How many did he make? SIXTY Straw Purchases over a two year time period. 60!!! Now anyone who’s filled out form 4473 knows there is a box you check certifying you are the end user of the weapon you’re buying, and that you will retain possession of the weapon. Checking “yes” means the sale is not a straw purchase. Checking “No” means the application will be denied. So this crook buys these weapons for his homies that can’t legally own one, and he knows it because he has to answer the question What’s his judgement? A fine and 6 months probation by an Obama era judge. This dude should have been looking at a mandatory prison sentence, but Nooo, he get’s a slap on the wrist.
    …And thus fell Rome.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      quote——————The conundrum this creates is how is John Q. Gunowner supposed to know that Myron Wantsagun is legaly permitted to buy his firearm? The answer is he doesn’t.
      Still, the number of guns privately purchased and then used in the commission of a crime varies year to year, but the percentage is between 5 – 15%. Not a huge statistical number by any means.——————-quote

      I often wonder if guys like you take the time to read and comprehend what you write. Try giving that garbage response to the grieving families of a store clerk that got her brains blown out by a criminal that robbed her and killed her and never should have been able to buy that gun so easily.

      And by the way your statistics are pure bullshit. The Chicago study proved the overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes were 11 years old and had passed through many, many hands and none were vetted.

  33. avatar David Keith says:

    Kamala Harris, too ignorant period, to be elected as anything.

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      she never exhaled.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        this appeared here why.

  34. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    In this case two tiers of law.

    Citizens wbo happen to be govt employees bave the same law as all citizens.

    In their role as govt employees, they are under additional law, that they do not abuse the borrowed authority they wield.

    Extending special priveleges and immunities to govt functionaries is right out, especially extra rights, n especially beyond their service. Special gun carve outs for ex law-enforcement are ths worst kind of multi-tier law. Multi-tier encorcement is a close second.

  35. avatar Wiregrass says:

    She really wants to ban private transfers, but she knows that when people on the fence, and some of them own guns, realize the full ramifications of what that entails, she knows she’ll lose support for it. But make it sound like an internet transaction from a gun dealer, and the unthinking will be all for it.

  36. avatar Ralph says:

    Oh, well. If her Presidential aspirations do not bear fruit, I propose that Ms. Harris should become an actress and star in a movie called “Free Willy.”

    Hint — it’s not a remake and has nothing to do with a captive orca.

  37. avatar Joe says:

    Don’t return the favor with lies of omission and or ignorance of your own. I personally, have gone online, selected the firearm I’d like to purchase, and then met a PRIVATE PARTY in the Walmart parking lot within the hour to take possession of my new gun without a background check. She’s purposefully misleading and so are you.

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