Self-proclaimed gun owner and Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris revealed on 60 Minutes on Sunday that the gun she claims to own is a Glock and that she’s had it a long time.
The revelation came as she insinuated it should have surprised nobody recently when she said she was a gun owner.
“That was not the first time I’ve really talked about it,” she said, shaking her finger at host Bill Whitaker. “That’s not the first time I talked about it.”
The fact that the anti-gun presidential candidate might own any firearm as she continually tries to further restrict Second Amendment rights is sheer hypocrisy. But what is even more hypocritical is that she owns a Glock. Here’s why.
First, Glock pistols are semi-automatic—you know, they fire a round every time you pull the trigger. However, Kamala, her boss President Joe Biden and other anti-gun advocates like to fudge a little every now and then and say that semi-auto pistols are actually full-auto and can be used to “spray bullets.” Semi-auto rifles using the same mechanism are on their list to ban and confiscate.
But that’s not the only thing. Nearly every Glock model made is designed to accept those evil “high-capacity” magazines Harris and Biden are so keen on banning. If she really does own a Glock, I wonder if she’d like to reveal what the capacity of her magazine is.
Furthermore, what right does Kamala have to own a gun anyway. In court filings during the Heller case, Harris signed on to documents stating that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect an individual right, but only protects those who are in a militia. If she’s not in some militia that we haven’t heard about, she’s a doubly big hypocrite for owning a firearm.
Additionally, the Biden-Harris administration’s White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention recently collaborated with anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety and the City of Chicago to target Glock Inc. in a frivolous lawsuit alleging the company is responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms when criminals unlawfully attach an illegal device to Glock handguns to convert them to full-auto. In that situation, White House officials met privately with Glock representatives to demand a design alteration to their handguns—the very same kind of pistol the vice president claims to own.
When Kentucky U.S. Rep. James Comer, head of the House Oversight Committee sent questions about the matter on June 14 demanding answers, administration officials refused to answer them. Instead, White House Deputy counsel Rachel Cotton responded by accusing Comer of shilling for the gun lobby.
Comer’s response to the counter accusation was short and to the point.
“The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the U.S. House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate ‘any matter’ at ‘any time’ under House Rule X,” Comer reminded Cotton. “The White House should spend more time complying with Committee requests, and less time obstructing congressional investigations into potential misconduct and misuse of office by White House officials.”
Last but not least, let’s talk about California’s arguably illegal handgun roster. In California, citizens can only purchase handguns that have been certified by the state, and the number is dwindling year by year.
Interestingly, many Glock pistols are not on that handgun roster so thereby illegal for California residents to own. Gen 3 Glocks and below were grandfathered in as they were sold before the law was passed. But Gen 4 and 5 cannot be sold in the state. If she bought her alleged Glock new since 2009, it’s probably illegal for normal citizens of California to own. Unless, or course, she bought a Gen 3 or earlier at a gun show!
That brings us to Kamala’s biggest Glock hypocrisy of all. Harris previously supported handgun bans in both San Francisco, where she began her political career and served as district attorney between 2004 and 2011, and Washington, D.C., where she has served in federal office since 2017. Can you say, “Guns for me, but not for thee”?
In the end, the vice president’s Glock debacle is just another reason no gun owner should even think about voting for her on Election Day.
It’s Schrodingers gun.
Whether it exists or not is irrelevant. All it does is give people who already support her a tiny bit of ammo to berate those who don’t support her on grounds of gun control.
Simply: “She’s a gun owner too so the 2ndA is safe. You’re just a bigot and/or sexist.”
That’s all this story does.
RE: “The fact that the anti-gun presidential candidate might own any firearm as she continually tries to further restrict Second Amendment rights is sheer hypocrisy.”
I concour.
And “Tranz ’em” Tim hunts! He was in the military! He’s basically an expert gun person!
Most lefties are too ignorant about guns to understand the meaning of this story.
Yup.
Someone should ask her if she remembered to take the safety off..
Along with: What’s cylinder’s ammo capacity?
FYI: no cylinder: magazine connecting to the chamber…….
You’re an inspiration to us all, Captain Aspergers!
Ha, ha, ha.
Somebody sure did take the safety off.
Of her mouth.
She probably does own one. Just because she does doesn’t mean she has any desire to let the little people own one. Notice the whole carve out thing above. She should be asked about that and if there’s a privileged class in this country/a 2 tiered justice system.
The gun is a symbol of power and privilege, and Quemala is flaunting her privilege over the common folk. Using a pedestrian Glock is a symbol of her being on the side of the establishment.
The persecution of President trump shows that there is indeed a 2-tiered justice system in today’s America.
….I’m more concerned about my Glock than hers…the elites will always have access to firearms
She is not telling the truth. She is not a gun owner at all. Show us her glock if she has one. Just like mayor Diane Feinstein showed everyone she had a revolver.
Poor Kamala, can’t quite pronounce Cock.
That was my thought. You beat me to it. 😉
With her mouth wide open I mis-read the title and thought it was an article about Willie Brown.
She might not be able to pronounce “Glock” but she certainly knows how to suck Glock.
Of course not. Her mouth is usually too full.
If she does have a Glock it was most likely issued to her when she was AG for Komifornia. She kept it as a souvenir and not return it to the state. In other words she STOLE IT!!
Maybe. Perhaps there is a real journalist out there. Who will report on where she got this gun, she now claims she owns.
Did she get her gun from the last gun store in San Francisco? That was forced to close by government edict.
At first I thought it said Kamala’s Big Cock Problem, and that the story was about Willie Brown.😂
She owned a Sig a few weeks ago. Seems like she owns whatever she needs to own at the time.
She currently “owns” a Glock so the country can see her giving up her own gun because it’s easily convertible into a machine gun and need to be banned. she owns a Glock so she can “have some skin in the game” even if it’s only a political stunt.
I’m no fan of Kamala. In fact, I think she’s downright evil.
But that said, I wouldn’t say this pistol issue is even close to being her biggest problem. The reality is she probably got a pistol for personal defense while acting as a DA. That isn’t uncommon or unreasonable–DAs get plenty of death threats from less-than-savory people.
Does she shoot? No, probably not. I doubt she even knows how to use the thing, and at this point, I doubt she even wants it (mostly because she gets gigantic personal security teams now).
Is that still hypocritical? Yeah, probably. But I doubt it sways the needle compared to any of her other, most pressing flaws.
“only protects those who are in a militia. If she’s not in some militia that we haven’t heard about“
Oh, but she is a member of the militia.
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
George Mason
And the United States Constitution grants Congress the authority to discipline and govern the militia, including setting rules and regulations to meet the requirements of the 2nd Amendment’s direction of a ‘well regulated militia’.
‘Article 1,
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.‘
Gosh, isn’t civics fun!
MajorLiar,
Well, other than the fact that you continue to reveal yourself as the product of a (VERY poor) public education, yes, “Civics” is fun . . . for grammar school kids. The last time I had a class labeled “Civics” was in grade school. Once I hit middle school and high school, I studied classes like “US History”, and “US Government” (oh, and, of course “AP US History”). Which is, one would note, consistent with your grade school understanding of history, government, and politics.
As for “Civics” being fun (what was your text a coloring book???), why don’t you regale us, again, with your BRILLIANT analysis of why your quoted portions of Article I authorize universal gun control. We know you are a simpleton, with a simpleton’s “understanding” of government and politics (you prove it here every time you post), but, SERIOUSLY, try to do better, eh? Oh, and by the way, did your logic circuits bother to register the inherent contradiction in your quotes?? If the militia is “all of the people”, and Congress is supposed to arm the militia, when do I get my government-supplied M-4???? Since I know something about the weapon, I hereby volunteer to be my unit’s SAW gunner, too, so send along my M-249 in the same shipment, you babbling @$$clown.
Maybe you have missed it Miner49er, but your beloved Comrade Kamal says the militia is the U.S. military.
“And the United States Constitution grants Congress the authority to discipline and govern the militia, including setting rules and regulations to meet the requirements of the 2nd Amendment’s direction of a ‘well regulated militia’.”
100% false
This was settled a long time ago by SCOTUS. This portion refers to the standing military under title 10 (orders or authority) (e.g. regular and reserve and national guard), or called into service (e.g. drafted).
It does not apply to the ‘unorganized militia’ which are ordinary citizens.
Learn what context means Miner49er.
“your beloved Comrade Kamal says the militia is the U.S. military”
She is partially correct, the Army National Guard is indeed the organized militia, governed and disciplined under the rules set forth by Congress.
“the ‘unorganized militia’ which are ordinary citizens”
Well yes, Kamala Harris, as a citizen , is a member of the ‘unorganized militia’ as defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as amended.
MajorLiar,
Don’t you EVER get tired of stepping on every rake you see??? Even IF Kamal-toe the Ho is a “member of the unorganized militia”, she is a citizen/resident of KKKalifornia. KKKalifornia doesn’t PERMIT the sale of Glocks to KKKalifornia civilians, for the reasons I cited to jsled, your fellow Leftist/fascist idiot.
Sorry, batter out, MajorLiar – Kamal-toe is either a liar or a criminal (but then there’s the whole “and” thing, isn’t there?).
“Well yes, Kamala Harris, as a citizen , is a member of the ‘unorganized militia’ as defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as amended.”
100% false
As vice president, and she is a U.S. citizen, that’s true, but she is not categorically ‘a citizen’ in terms of the ‘unorganized militia’ because as vice president she is automatically exempt from classification (or ‘service’ or participation) as ‘militia’ in either organized or unorganized under Title 10 § 247 (which makes no distinction for exemption from either but rather lumps it all together as exemption from ‘militia’)
§ 247. Militia duty: exemptions
(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the
United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
Title 10 § 247 makes no distinction for exemption from either ‘organized’ or ‘unorganized’ militia but rather lumps it all together as exemption from ‘militia duty’.
Comrade Kamala is not “a member of the ‘unorganized militia’ ” because she can’t ‘serve’ in either the ‘organized’ or ‘unorganized’ because she is exempted from ‘duty’ as either, she is specifically exempted due to her status as VP.
As vice president she is ‘exempt’ from being a member of a militia, not ‘prohibited’ from being a member.
But the fact is, like VP Harris, most of the people on this list aged out of the militia years ago:
“10 U.S.C. § 311
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.“
I think it behooves us to look back upon the founding fathers thoughts on the militia:
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
George Mason
It is up to Congress and the Supremes to decide who those “few public officials” are.
“She is partially correct, the Army National Guard is indeed the organized militia, governed and disciplined under the rules set forth by Congress.”
False.
Although the “Army National Guard” is (part of) the “organized militia” they are only subject to “governed and disciplined under the rules set forth by Congress” when placed under title 10 orders. The rest of their time is under Title 32 which places them “governed and disciplined under the rules set forth by” the state government to which they belong.
.40 cal,
Yeah, MajorLiar (and most other idiot, anti-RKBA Leftist/fascists) ALWAYS conveniently skips over that whole “while in service” to the US government, part, dunnee? Consistent with his idiot views of politics, history, economic, international relations, science, religion, and mathematics. He also conveniently overlooks the fact that, under HIS idiot interpretation, no one under 18 or over 45 apparently has any RKBA. As usual, MajorLiar is both factually incorrect, ahistorical, and stupid.
A commie quoting the constitution is like an atheist quoting the bible. They will never truly grasp the subject matter and will almost always use it improperly to justify some bullshit.
the 2A doesn’t require militia membership…never did…
MINOR49er, Apparently you have a problem with reading comprehension. The Second Amendment guarantees an INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT to own and carry a firearm. See the Heller, McDonald and Bruen decisions. It seems that the preamble of the 2nd Amendment only sets forth reasoning for allowing personal gun ownership. You will find that in the Bruen decision.
> Furthermore, what right does Kamala have to own a gun anyway. In court filings during the Heller case, Harris signed on to documents stating that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect an individual right, but only protects those who are in a militia. If she’s not in some militia that we haven’t heard about, she’s a doubly big hypocrite for owning a firearm.
Um, what the fuck?
Either you think there’s a personal right, in which case Harris has the right to own a gun, or you don’t, in which case you shouldn’t be posting here.
This conditional “she doesn’t believe in it so she doesn’t have the right” is the absolute worst construction, completely devoid of conviction, and you belie the fact that /you/ think rights are conditional, not absolute.
How dare you.
OMG. A civil rights denier claiming outrage at civil rights being denied.
You fascists are consistent.
Well, the statement in the OP was pretty illogical. Whether or not one has a RIGHT doesn’t mean that one does not have a governmental PRIVILEGE (which is how gun owners are treated in California).
jsled,
Allow me to explain to your ignorant @$$ EXACTLY why Kamala Harris has no such “right” to own her (claimed) Glock. While Kamal-toe the Ho was AG of KKKalifornia, she supported (and was aggressive about enforcing) KKKalifornia’s “handgun registry” which limited the specific handguns us poor peons were allowed to purchase and own. Glock pistols were conspicuously absent from that list due to (i) no loaded chamber indicator, (ii) no mag well disconnect, (iii) almost all Glocks come equipped with “high-capacity magazines” (i.e., standard, OEM magazines), and (iv) lacked “microstamping”. So, NO, she couldn’t legally buy a Glock in Commiefornia.
OH, she got the magic LEO exemption! you will say next. Yeah, well, right back atcha, jsled, you Leftist liar – if SHE has all the rights I have, then I have all the rights SHE claims. If I can’t buy one, she can’t either. Piss off, you leftist/fascist liar.
The willing lackey speaks.
Just remember the “Nuremberg defense” is no longer valid.
“the “Nuremberg defense” is no longer valid“
It certainly didn’t work for these traitors, most of them have been sentenced to prison.
“Trump has called all patriots”: 210 Jan. 6th criminal defendants say Trump incited them
February 14, 2024
On December 19, 2020 Trump tweeted, “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” Trump’s tweet, and others like it, generated a massive response from his supporters, who received them as “marching orders.” Kelly Meggs, a Florida member of the Oath Keepers, wrote in a message around the time of the post, “He called us all to the Capitol and wants us to make it wild!!! Sir Yes Sir!!! Gentlemen we are heading to DC pack your shit!!”
Another defendant wrote in her group chat, “[W]e’re going back to Washington January 6th. Trump has called all patriots. If the electors don’t elect, we will be forced into civil war.”
Many of the most violent insurrectionists acknowledged that they were incited by Trump. Two members of the mob who led life-threatening attacks against Metropolitan Police officers Daniel Hodges and Michael Fanone both claimed that they were incited to violence by Trump. Fanone’s attacker, Daniel Rodriguez, said, “I thought [Trump] was calling for help. I thought we were doing the right thing.”
Nicholas Languerand, who assaulted officers with a traffic barrier, pepper spray can, and other objects, posted a “#MessageFor45” on Twitter four days after Trump’s “will be wild” tweet, saying “We’re picking up your messages, and we’re listening. We’re ready to do this thing. We’re ready to fight to defend our republic against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Douglas Austin Jensen, who chased Capitol Police officer Eugene Goodman up a flight of stairs inside the Capitol, told investigators, “Trump posted make sure you’re there, January 6 for the rally in Washington, D.C. … and then he got us all fired up to go to [the Capitol].”
So glad you’ve signed off on using the system to grind your political enemies down, roland/miner.
I will remind you of that.
“your political enemies”
Those aren’t political opponents, those are violent criminals, who attacked police officers in an attempt to disrupt a joint session of Congress and stop the certification of our presidential election.
Nuremberg 2.0 is already in progress, do not attempt to adjust your TV set.
“Four Men Sentenced for Actions During Jan. 6 Capitol Breach
Friday, September 20, 2024
For Immediate Release
U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Columbia
Group Participated in the First Breach of the Restricted Capitol Grounds
WASHINGTON – Four men from Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia were sentenced to various terms after they were convicted of multiple felony and misdemeanor charges related to their conduct during the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol. Their actions and the actions of others disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress convened to ascertain and count the electoral votes related to the 2020 presidential election.
Sentenced on Sept. 19, 2024, by U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb are Stephen Chase Randolph, 34, of Harrodsburg Kentucky; James Tate Grant, 31, of Cary, North Carolina; Jason Benjamin Blythe, 28, of Fort Worth, Texas; and Paul Russell Johnson, 38, of Lanexa, Virginia.
Randolph was sentenced to 8 years in prison, 36 months of supervised release, and ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution.
Grant was sentenced to 36 months in prison, 36 months of supervised release, and ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution.
Blythe was sentenced to 30 months in prison, 36 months of supervised release, and ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution.
Johnson was sentenced to five years of probation, conditions of which include, intermittent confinement on the weekends for the first year, followed by two years of home and ordered to pay a $25,000 fine and $2,000 in restitution.
A fifth defendant, Ryan Samsel, 40, of Bristol, Pennsylvania, will be sentenced on February 4, 2025“
political prisoners…hardly violent criminals…these people just got caught up in all the excitement and used poor judgement…now attacking a capitol cop should earn you jail time…but most didn’t do that…just walked in wandered around and eventually left
“hardly violent criminals…these people just got caught up in all the excitement“
Not violent?
“Two members of the mob who led life-threatening attacks against Metropolitan Police officers Daniel Hodges and Michael Fanone both claimed that they were incited to violence by Trump. Fanone’s attacker, Daniel Rodriguez, said, “I thought [Trump] was calling for help. I thought we were doing the right thing.”
Nicholas Languerand, who assaulted officers with a traffic barrier, pepper spray can, and other objects“
Yeah, more of that ‘law and order’ bullshit from the conservatives.
I guess we just ignore the george floyd ‘mostly peaceful protestors’ Comrade Kamala (helped by her support) got out of jail after being arrested for their crimes of looting, vandalism, burning down property, attacking police officers, for their attempts to disrupt a whole country, basically to start a racially motivated civil war led by a BLM leadership of self-confessed mark – ist socia-list racists who wanted it to happen.
Although she (supposedly) didn’t directly donate money (even though in a way she did because she personally contacted various people with money and asked them to donate and they did) to the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF), she lent her support and voice to them and urged donations by others which was used to bail them out of jail (thus helped get them out of jail). She used used her official accounts as a vice presidential candidate to express her support for the fundraising effort.
“urged donations by others which was used to bail them out of jail“
Yes, Andrew our jurisprudence system accused defendants are indeed permitted to be bailed out of jail.
Hey wait a minute, I thought y’all said no one was arrested for the BLM protests, now you admit they were jailed and required to post bond. Woopsie!
There’s nothing wrong or illegal about advocating for protesters just because you don’t agree with the protesters.
Use of government position to encourage bail funds for rioters is a good thing now?
LOL
LMAO even. You are through the bottom of the barrel glowie.
Lol go back to R3ddit Josh
Well, it just does go to show that KamelToe is a hypocrite, don’t you think? She thinks she can own a GLOCK but not we commoners. If she even does own a GLOCK or any other firearm.
My questions are:
Does she have a California concealed carry permit for her pistol?
Did she have one for Washington DC?
Does she travel with her pistol?
Magazine capacity?
Does she have safe storage for her pistol?
A California CCW is no good in D.C. She couldn’t possess with a CCW, even a local permit, a firearm on federal property, which includes Congressional grounds and building, the White House, and her residence as VP. Further, she has a had a personal protection detail since her days as California AG, replaced with Secret Service when she became a nominee for VP. She has no need to carry.
Well, it sees our resident Leftist/fascist idiots, MajorLiar and jsled the Commie moron, are feeling the Dimocrat panic, and trying to cover for the lies and babbling incompetence of their UNVOTED FOR “candidate” (while watching her collapse into a pile of incoherent word salad every time she does some softball “interview”). Kamal-toe, the Lying Ho (and “”Second Gentleman” Doug “Nanny Humper and Girlfriend Beater” Emhoff, her “new age” soyboy “husband”, were residents of KKKalifornia at all times in question, and “lock pistols ain’t on the KKKalifornia (uncon.stitutional) “Handgun Registry”, so NO, she couldn’t legally own a Glock pistol in KKKalifornia . . . so she’s a liar, or a lawbreaker, or both.
A few more brilliant outings like 60 Minutes, Colbert, Call Her Daddy, and The View, and even the Dimocrats’ patented Magic Mail-in Ballot Machine won’t be able to save her pathetic “candidacy”. And boy howdy, that VP pick is sure workin’ out well, innit??? Fat Tampon Timmy “Stolen Valor” Walz, the jazz hands LIAR who bugged out on his unit immediately prior to actual deployment to a combat zone (which would have been his FIRST, EVER deployment to an actual combat zone), and then went off to China just in time for the Tiananmen Square Massacre (NOT!!!). You idiots are as pathetic as your candidates . . . which, strangely, kinda makes sense. Go back to your circle jerk; the adults are speaking, here.
give her credit for going on 60 minutes…but she performed poorly with obfuscating answers to pointed questions
can we fact check that it’s registered in her home state of California?
is she a felon for not registering?
Guns are registered when they are purchased through the California Dealer of Record form, aka DROS (California’s separate background check). The registration is “permanent” since the DOJ does not delete records even after receiving a notice of transfer.
Ahem. Fact checking on the OP. Fact is that due to the massive size of the market, NEW Glock Gen 3s are still manufactured and sold in California.
I bought a Glock 19 here a few years back. Don’t know the gen number. Has finger grooves in the grip.
Read the article again. The article says Gen 3 Glocks can be sold in California. It says,
“Gen 3 Glocks and below were grandfathered in as they were sold before the law was passed. But Gen 4 and 5 cannot be sold in the state.”
Comrade Kamala got her gun as an elected ‘law enforcement officer’ because she was San Francisco’s District Attorney, then California’s Attorney General. She was exempt from the restrictions/requirements we need to adhere to because in California due to her status she did not need to undergo a background check, did not need to get a permit, and could have any gun she wanted (in California they have a list of their ‘approved’ guns for normal people, but due to her status it did not apply to her).
She is not a gun owner like us, she is the elite able to bypass that which restricts us or is required of us. She was able to carry without permit then, and is able to even now carry without permit in any state due to her status as VP (the president and VP are exempt from carry requirements in all states if they wanted to also carry, even though they normally don’t. Nor are they restricted as to the type of firearm they can have, yes, even machine guns if its a government owned machine gun, and are exempt from NFA requirements).
When she says she supports the 2A, its a lie. She doesn’t support the 2A, she supports her version of the 2A she wants to impose on us and thinks all constitutional rights and the 2A are suppose to be government granted permissions controlled by government. She is not a gun owner like us, and anyone that falls for that “Oh, I own a gun. I’m like you.” BS from her is a fool.
Whether Harris owns a weapon or not is irrelevant. Her record is one of radical disarmament for most citizens. While I can give a number of reasons to not support or vote for her, this is one none of us should overlook. Same with Tampon Tim (A)Walz. Neither of them would allow the average citizen the basic arms of an infantry/militiaman. Showing both are no matter the soundbites, they are anti Constitional, anti BOR Dementiacrat authoritarian fascists.
Are the privileges she enjoys something that, noblesse oblige, she would extend to us ordinary, law abiding citizen types? I’m unlikely to hold my breath while awaiting her answer, but Iam curious.
I replied to a roland freisler/miner49er comment and both our comments vanished.
“Glock”? Maybe she mispronounced it???
If she bought her Glock after the Clinton AWB/10 round mag limit law passed and when she was an ADA in Alameda or SF Counties or SF DA or CAAG she could purchase any handgun or even an AR-15 with adjustable stock, flash suppressor, etc. She also could purchase std. cap magazines and even a 100 round double drum mag for her AR-15. Like all other states with mag cap limits and gun bans LE personnel are exempt if their dept. allows. LE includes prosecutors. When she was SFDA or CAAG she was the boss. In CA many LGS’s have LE only displays just for cops. CA’s LE exemption has lead to several recent prosecutions and convictions of LEO’s for illegal firearms sales of off roster handguns. Many of the transfers were done bypassing a CA FFL which by law all transfers have to be performed by an FFL. CA law also requires that when moving into CA with your firearms you must registered each with the CADOJ. You can’t bring your CA non-compliant AW’s or suppressor’s, SBR’s, SBS’s and night vision sights.
So the vice president and prospective president is a gun owner. Good for her. That said, the following question remains unanswered. One wonders why. Perhaps some administration spokesperson could answer the following question. EXACTLY what are the Assault Weapons that she would ban. For those suffering from an acute case of historical ignorance, the Semiautomatic Rifle, having been around since prior to World War 1, is nothing new and or strange. Even earlier, John Browning took a lever action rifle, likely one that he had designed, and turned it into a an Automatic Rifle. What else is new, one might ask. On that subject, for the moment, Enough Said.
They can take them all!
She’s lying she doesn’t own a Glock, she’s probably not even aware that her Secret Service detail are issued them.
People seem to be putting a lot more thought into Que Mala’s answer than she’s even capable of giving it. When I hear someone who’s obviously ignorant about guns drop the name “Glock”, I know they’re only doing it because it’s made its way into pop culture to the point that people who couldn’t pick a Glock pistol out a lineup full of toaster ovens are still familiar with the name.
She was a prosecutor for a long time. They make enemies on the job. She probably has, and supports an LEO carve out. Thin blue line and all that. Patrol rifles for cops that are somehow assault weapons for everyone else.
As someone who fled CA, in part to get away from the oppressive gun laws, I see one inaccuracy in the article. In the early 2000s – and perhaps even now – Glock has kept the Gen 3s in production, largely for the CA market. She may very well have bought one new without using a law enforcement exemption.
Comments are closed.