Kamala Harris owns a gun. Are you surprised or mad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprised, yes. Mad, no. You can get a lot of enemies as a prosecutor, no less as a Black woman. Maybe it makes her feel safer. I, personally, don't think it's a smart move because it can be used against you, and isn't ever the protection you think it is.

I agree.

WUT? What difference does the race of the prosecutor make?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not surprised nor mad.

Does she stockpile guns? Did she purchase them legally? Did she have proper training? Does she store them responsibly? Does she have crazy machine gun like weapons that no civilian ever needs?

The details matter. She also supports reasonable, responsible gun legislation, so I'm not the least bit bothered as a non-gun owner.

“Stockpile.” WTF does that mean? More than one? More than three? How many kinds?

“Machine gun like weapons.” There is no such thing. A firearm is a machine gun or it is not.

“Civilian.” Kamala Harris is a civilian. The police are civilians.

“Needs.” A good life is defined by fulfilling wants, not just needs. Who are you to decide what others need?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dear, right-wing gun "enthusiasts":

Most people on the left have no problem with gun ownership, but want stricter background checks and also see no point in any civilian owning a military-grade weapon. Your Rambo fantasies of taking on the govt, would end the moment some 20yo in Quantico, sitting at a screen, eating lunch, sent a drone and decimated your entire neighborhood.

“Military grade.” What does that mean. A bolt action hunting rifle made in 1903 is “military grade.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have any problem with handguns or hunting rifles stored safely and managed responsibly. I think most sane people would agree. The unique issue in our country is the worship of firearms and the ability for ordinary citizens to own machine guns. Would there still be mass shootings if they were all done by regular rifles and nothing changed legally? Sure. But many lives would also be spared. The theoretical buybacks refer to assault weapons. I do agree that those desiring to operate automatic weapons need to be heavily evaluated and trained the way someone who wants to drive an ambulance would be. That’s a separate issue from simply owning a gun.

I am open to correction, but believe there has never been a crime committed with a lawfully owned automatic weapon since they were first made subject to regulation by the National Firearms Act in the 1930’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have any problem with handguns or hunting rifles stored safely and managed responsibly. I think most sane people would agree. The unique issue in our country is the worship of firearms and the ability for ordinary citizens to own machine guns.

Just how many people do you think have these? Sale has been banned for decades.

Machine guns are heavily regulated but their lawful sale has not “been banned for decades.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have any problem with handguns or hunting rifles stored safely and managed responsibly. I think most sane people would agree. The unique issue in our country is the worship of firearms and the ability for ordinary citizens to own machine guns.

Just how many people do you think have these? Sale has been banned for decades.

The PP means semi-automatic long guns with extended clips. Mass shooters just looooovvveee extended clips. If you want to kill a lot of people, quickly, extended clips are a must-have. But Mass shooters can always count on Republicans for support, so all is well and nothing changes. MAGA!

Thoughts-n-Prayers,
-Democrat gun owner.

Semi-automatic long guns almost universally use “magazines,” not “clips,” which typically hold 5 to at most 8 rounds.

You really need to get informed before ranting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of Dems own guns. Biden owns a gun; Walz owns a gun.

Most Dems aren't against gun ownership, but rather against assault rifles and the easy access to guns.

This. I have zero problem with handguns, hunting rifles, dueling pistols, whatever.

I have a huge problem with assault rifles being so easily accessible that even teenagers can get their hands on one. There is no good reason to have an assault rifle. It is not a defensive weapon. It cannot be used to hunt. It is good for nothing but mass murder. A ban on assault rifles is supported by the vast majority of Americans. It is not an extreme position at all.

The firearms you are referring to are not assault rifles. They do not have full auto capability. They are mechanically indistinguishable from “non-scary looking” firearms that have been around since the late 1800’s. They are in fact used for hunting, and the most popular one is chambered for a “varmint hunting” cartridge. They also are powerful defensive weapons capable of deterring attack by their mere presence.

[Anonymous]

I’m a lifelong Dem and Harris for the win. Did she need that plug? It felt a bit weird. I get that she said it to emphasize that we’re not coming for your guns. But my immediate thought was there are many young girls, including her nieces, watching. Not voters, but very impressionable. They’re living in fear already because of school shootings. I dunno man. Wasn’t necessary. In fact, don’t think Biden would approve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of Dems own guns. Biden owns a gun; Walz owns a gun.

Most Dems aren't against gun ownership, but rather against assault rifles and the easy access to guns.

+1
I’m pretty fine with handguns and hunting rifles being widely owned coupled with strong red flag and background check laws.
I wish we would ban anything similar to what might be used by a soldier in combat.

Like the bolt-action rifles and pump shotguns our military uses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We will start with the assault rifles first. Then it will be easier to gradually move on to other types, until we eventually get rid of every last one.

+1. Start with the assault guns and then immediately move to the sniper-style guns with the built-in telescopes that can hit a child from half a mile away. Why does anyone need a gun that can shoot 200 yards away? How is someone two soccer fields away from you possibly a threat, even to the most paranoid white male?

Assault guns and sniper guns. Get the rest in a few more years after that.

Have you ever held a rifle? Looked through a telescopic sight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals think the Second Amendment was written just after the Founding Fathers just finished a 2-week hunting excursion...

It was written after they just finished fighting a tyrannical government in 1791, just years after the Revolutionary War.

Shall not be infringed.

"well regulated militia"

1) Not interpreted as an individual right till modern times.

2) The amount of gun crime and ease of straw purchasing makes the current status of "well regulated" questionable

3) Modern weapons mean individuals would need to own nukes, missiles, etc. to have the power to counteract the government. Nobody wants that and if you do, you're a lunatic and should have your sanity evaluated.

The Founders fought their government. Our entire country (the colonies) fought their government.

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776


“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

You know the maga(t)s have lost when they start pulling out scripts written like 400 years ago by dead white men who owned slaves.



YOU LOST MAGA!!!! SUCK IT!!!!

You know the ranting, ignorant leftists have lost when they start justifying their freedom of speech and immunity from compulsory religious observance based on scripts “written like 400 years ago by dead white men who owned slaves.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have any problem with handguns or hunting rifles stored safely and managed responsibly. I think most sane people would agree. The unique issue in our country is the worship of firearms and the ability for ordinary citizens to own machine guns.

Just how many people do you think have these? Sale has been banned for decades.

The PP means semi-automatic long guns with extended clips. Mass shooters just looooovvveee extended clips. If you want to kill a lot of people, quickly, extended clips are a must-have. But Mass shooters can always count on Republicans for support, so all is well and nothing changes. MAGA!

Thoughts-n-Prayers,
-Democrat gun owner.

Semi-automatic long guns almost universally use “magazines,” not “clips,” which typically hold 5 to at most 8 rounds.

You really need to get informed before ranting.

Pedantic nitpicking isn't the devastating counterargument you seem to think it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not surprised nor mad.

Does she stockpile guns? Did she purchase them legally? Did she have proper training? Does she store them responsibly? Does she have crazy machine gun like weapons that no civilian ever needs?

The details matter. She also supports reasonable, responsible gun legislation, so I'm not the least bit bothered as a non-gun owner.

“Stockpile.” WTF does that mean? More than one? More than three? How many kinds?

“Machine gun like weapons.” There is no such thing. A firearm is a machine gun or it is not.

“Civilian.” Kamala Harris is a civilian. The police are civilians.

“Needs.” A good life is defined by fulfilling wants, not just needs. Who are you to decide what others need?

Kindergartners do a whole unit of differentiating wants and needs. Maybe stop by your nearest elementary school and ask for some info. Maybe I need to point out that you should be unarmed.

A gun that is more than is required for hunting or protection is certainly a want not a need. As a society, we do get to decide that some wants do not get to be fulfilled. That’s usually how laws work. The opinions of the majority of Americans regarding whether anyone who wants an assault rifle should get one is fairly clear. Polls consistently show that most people support some degree of limitation. This might be stricter permit laws or not being able to purchase certain ammunition. Unfortunately, it is impossible to make the wishes of the majority law due to weak lawmakers dependent on NRA dollars. This isn’t something to be proud of. This is a sign that our government is broken.

I grew up in a house with lots of guns. I learned to shoot when I was 12. I think all my relatives had (locked) display cases of old guns. My uncle made guns. All of these relatives support stricter gun laws. Most people who own guns are not rabid gun freaks. Those are just the people like this pp with the loudest voices saying the weirdest things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have any problem with handguns or hunting rifles stored safely and managed responsibly. I think most sane people would agree. The unique issue in our country is the worship of firearms and the ability for ordinary citizens to own machine guns.

Just how many people do you think have these? Sale has been banned for decades.

The PP means semi-automatic long guns with extended clips. Mass shooters just looooovvveee extended clips. If you want to kill a lot of people, quickly, extended clips are a must-have. But Mass shooters can always count on Republicans for support, so all is well and nothing changes. MAGA!

Thoughts-n-Prayers,
-Democrat gun owner.

Semi-automatic long guns almost universally use “magazines,” not “clips,” which typically hold 5 to at most 8 rounds.

You really need to get informed before ranting.

Pedantic nitpicking isn't the devastating counterargument you seem to think it is.

Wait a minute — you mean knowing the difference between a magazine and a clip is NOT the kind of information that will change people’s minds about gun legislation??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not surprised nor mad.

Does she stockpile guns? Did she purchase them legally? Did she have proper training? Does she store them responsibly? Does she have crazy machine gun like weapons that no civilian ever needs?

The details matter. She also supports reasonable, responsible gun legislation, so I'm not the least bit bothered as a non-gun owner.

“Stockpile.” WTF does that mean? More than one? More than three? How many kinds?

“Machine gun like weapons.” There is no such thing. A firearm is a machine gun or it is not.

“Civilian.” Kamala Harris is a civilian. The police are civilians.

“Needs.” A good life is defined by fulfilling wants, not just needs. Who are you to decide what others need?

Kindergartners do a whole unit of differentiating wants and needs. Maybe stop by your nearest elementary school and ask for some info. Maybe I need to point out that you should be unarmed.

A gun that is more than is required for hunting or protection is certainly a want not a need. As a society, we do get to decide that some wants do not get to be fulfilled. That’s usually how laws work. The opinions of the majority of Americans regarding whether anyone who wants an assault rifle should get one is fairly clear. Polls consistently show that most people support some degree of limitation. This might be stricter permit laws or not being able to purchase certain ammunition. Unfortunately, it is impossible to make the wishes of the majority law due to weak lawmakers dependent on NRA dollars. This isn’t something to be proud of. This is a sign that our government is broken.

I grew up in a house with lots of guns. I learned to shoot when I was 12. I think all my relatives had (locked) display cases of old guns. My uncle made guns. All of these relatives support stricter gun laws. Most people who own guns are not rabid gun freaks. Those are just the people like this pp with the loudest voices saying the weirdest things.

What is sufficent for protection?

The most capable and reliable firearm you can afford.