Kamala Harris Says Anyone Who Breaks Into Her House Is ‘Getting Shot’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She said she would let her staff “clean it up” 9instead of owning her statement while she’s saying it).

Staff now saying she was just joking.

Guess you thought it was a serious issue. Not to her! She’ll just commit gun violence. Hahaha….

If it weren't for double standards, democrats would have no standards at all.

How and in what context is this a double standard situation? Harris has a pistol that serves the purpose of securing her homestead in the event of an unwelcome intruder. No one should have a problem with this. If you have a problem with that, perhaps it's you harboring the double standard.

Did Harris make that choice of what firearm to own? Yes she did.

Do other people get that same choice? Not according to her.

She should have had the freedom to choose between any six-shooter or deer rifle on the market? Of course she should! Should she have access to military assault rifles, grenades, missiles, tanks, bombs... you know weapons intended to kill or wound lots of people very quickly.... no, of course she shouldn't have that choice and anyone with an IQ above 90 agrees with me. If you disagree, please do your best to explain why private citizens should have access to grenades, bombs, or assault rifles.

So she's going to send the police into people's private residences to "inspect" firearms?

Have you ever heard of the 4th amendment?

No, silly, we're (hopefully) going to stop manufacturing weapons of mass destruction to be sold to and carried by private citizens. How does this not make sense to you? The feds aren't going to bang down your door to take your guns you two-bit redneck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She said she would let her staff “clean it up” 9instead of owning her statement while she’s saying it).

Staff now saying she was just joking.

Guess you thought it was a serious issue. Not to her! She’ll just commit gun violence. Hahaha….

If it weren't for double standards, democrats would have no standards at all.

How and in what context is this a double standard situation? Harris has a pistol that serves the purpose of securing her homestead in the event of an unwelcome intruder. No one should have a problem with this. If you have a problem with that, perhaps it's you harboring the double standard.

Did Harris make that choice of what firearm to own? Yes she did.

Do other people get that same choice? Not according to her.

She should have had the freedom to choose between any six-shooter or deer rifle on the market? Of course she should! Should she have access to military assault rifles, grenades, missiles, tanks, bombs... you know weapons intended to kill or wound lots of people very quickly.... no, of course she shouldn't have that choice and anyone with an IQ above 90 agrees with me. If you disagree, please do your best to explain why private citizens should have access to grenades, bombs, or assault rifles.

So she's going to send the police into people's private residences to "inspect" firearms?

Have you ever heard of the 4th amendment?

No, silly, we're (hopefully) going to stop manufacturing weapons of mass destruction to be sold to and carried by private citizens. How does this not make sense to you? The feds aren't going to bang down your door to take your guns you two-bit redneck.

That's not what she stated.

https://www.aol.com/news/kamala-harris-once-said-police-133749018.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She said she would let her staff “clean it up” 9instead of owning her statement while she’s saying it).

Staff now saying she was just joking.

Guess you thought it was a serious issue. Not to her! She’ll just commit gun violence. Hahaha….

If it weren't for double standards, democrats would have no standards at all.

How and in what context is this a double standard situation? Harris has a pistol that serves the purpose of securing her homestead in the event of an unwelcome intruder. No one should have a problem with this. If you have a problem with that, perhaps it's you harboring the double standard.

Did Harris make that choice of what firearm to own? Yes she did.

Do other people get that same choice? Not according to her.

She should have had the freedom to choose between any six-shooter or deer rifle on the market? Of course she should! Should she have access to military assault rifles, grenades, missiles, tanks, bombs... you know weapons intended to kill or wound lots of people very quickly.... no, of course she shouldn't have that choice and anyone with an IQ above 90 agrees with me. If you disagree, please do your best to explain why private citizens should have access to grenades, bombs, or assault rifles.

Your definition of an assault rifle?

A standard infantry weapon for modern armies that is light, portable, and can quickly and accurately deliver a high volume of fire to create mass casualty in a brief period of time. AR-15 is an example. I don't have a need for that weapon in my house just as I don't have a need for bombs.

It isn't up to you. It's none of your business.

Have you ever seen mangled six year old children after they've been stuck by a bullet fired by an assault rifle? Who does and doesn't have access to weapons of mass destruction is everyone's business. Idiot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She said she would let her staff “clean it up” 9instead of owning her statement while she’s saying it).

Staff now saying she was just joking.

Guess you thought it was a serious issue. Not to her! She’ll just commit gun violence. Hahaha….

If it weren't for double standards, democrats would have no standards at all.

How and in what context is this a double standard situation? Harris has a pistol that serves the purpose of securing her homestead in the event of an unwelcome intruder. No one should have a problem with this. If you have a problem with that, perhaps it's you harboring the double standard.

Did Harris make that choice of what firearm to own? Yes she did.

Do other people get that same choice? Not according to her.

She should have had the freedom to choose between any six-shooter or deer rifle on the market? Of course she should! Should she have access to military assault rifles, grenades, missiles, tanks, bombs... you know weapons intended to kill or wound lots of people very quickly.... no, of course she shouldn't have that choice and anyone with an IQ above 90 agrees with me. If you disagree, please do your best to explain why private citizens should have access to grenades, bombs, or assault rifles.

Your definition of an assault rifle?

A standard infantry weapon for modern armies that is light, portable, and can quickly and accurately deliver a high volume of fire to create mass casualty in a brief period of time. AR-15 is an example. I don't have a need for that weapon in my house just as I don't have a need for bombs.

It isn't up to you. It's none of your business.

Have you ever seen mangled six year old children after they've been stuck by a bullet fired by an assault rifle? Who does and doesn't have access to weapons of mass destruction is everyone's business. Idiot

No, actually, my right to a firearm is none of your business.

I don't care if you rename them to WMDs for debate. Changing terms doesn't change the 2A.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She said she would let her staff “clean it up” 9instead of owning her statement while she’s saying it).

Staff now saying she was just joking.

Guess you thought it was a serious issue. Not to her! She’ll just commit gun violence. Hahaha….

If it weren't for double standards, democrats would have no standards at all.

How and in what context is this a double standard situation? Harris has a pistol that serves the purpose of securing her homestead in the event of an unwelcome intruder. No one should have a problem with this. If you have a problem with that, perhaps it's you harboring the double standard.

Did Harris make that choice of what firearm to own? Yes she did.

Do other people get that same choice? Not according to her.

She should have had the freedom to choose between any six-shooter or deer rifle on the market? Of course she should! Should she have access to military assault rifles, grenades, missiles, tanks, bombs... you know weapons intended to kill or wound lots of people very quickly.... no, of course she shouldn't have that choice and anyone with an IQ above 90 agrees with me. If you disagree, please do your best to explain why private citizens should have access to grenades, bombs, or assault rifles.

So she's going to send the police into people's private residences to "inspect" firearms?

Have you ever heard of the 4th amendment?

No, silly, we're (hopefully) going to stop manufacturing weapons of mass destruction to be sold to and carried by private citizens. How does this not make sense to you? The feds aren't going to bang down your door to take your guns you two-bit redneck.

That's not what she stated.

https://www.aol.com/news/kamala-harris-once-said-police-133749018.html

You have to say a bunch of stupid things in order to be a modern day successful politician in California. She is a national politician now and she has no reason to say or do ultra-liberal California things. Kamala is a normal, decent person and she isn't coming for your guns Cletus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She said she would let her staff “clean it up” 9instead of owning her statement while she’s saying it).

Staff now saying she was just joking.

Guess you thought it was a serious issue. Not to her! She’ll just commit gun violence. Hahaha….

If it weren't for double standards, democrats would have no standards at all.

How and in what context is this a double standard situation? Harris has a pistol that serves the purpose of securing her homestead in the event of an unwelcome intruder. No one should have a problem with this. If you have a problem with that, perhaps it's you harboring the double standard.

Did Harris make that choice of what firearm to own? Yes she did.

Do other people get that same choice? Not according to her.

She should have had the freedom to choose between any six-shooter or deer rifle on the market? Of course she should! Should she have access to military assault rifles, grenades, missiles, tanks, bombs... you know weapons intended to kill or wound lots of people very quickly.... no, of course she shouldn't have that choice and anyone with an IQ above 90 agrees with me. If you disagree, please do your best to explain why private citizens should have access to grenades, bombs, or assault rifles.

Your definition of an assault rifle?

A standard infantry weapon for modern armies that is light, portable, and can quickly and accurately deliver a high volume of fire to create mass casualty in a brief period of time. AR-15 is an example. I don't have a need for that weapon in my house just as I don't have a need for bombs.

It isn't up to you. It's none of your business.

Have you ever seen mangled six year old children after they've been stuck by a bullet fired by an assault rifle? Who does and doesn't have access to weapons of mass destruction is everyone's business. Idiot

Your party's stance on soft-on-crime, social justice, restorative justice and allowing criminals to go free because you want to is just one of many examples one should own as many firearms as they can.

At this point, I don't really care what you want. You've lost all credibility by putting a soft-headed prosecutor who believes in reparations (her own statements) at the top of your ticket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kamala will take your guns first and your free speech after

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She said she would let her staff “clean it up” 9instead of owning her statement while she’s saying it).

Staff now saying she was just joking.

Guess you thought it was a serious issue. Not to her! She’ll just commit gun violence. Hahaha….

If it weren't for double standards, democrats would have no standards at all.

How and in what context is this a double standard situation? Harris has a pistol that serves the purpose of securing her homestead in the event of an unwelcome intruder. No one should have a problem with this. If you have a problem with that, perhaps it's you harboring the double standard.

Did Harris make that choice of what firearm to own? Yes she did.

Do other people get that same choice? Not according to her.

She should have had the freedom to choose between any six-shooter or deer rifle on the market? Of course she should! Should she have access to military assault rifles, grenades, missiles, tanks, bombs... you know weapons intended to kill or wound lots of people very quickly.... no, of course she shouldn't have that choice and anyone with an IQ above 90 agrees with me. If you disagree, please do your best to explain why private citizens should have access to grenades, bombs, or assault rifles.

So she's going to send the police into people's private residences to "inspect" firearms?

Have you ever heard of the 4th amendment?

No, silly, we're (hopefully) going to stop manufacturing weapons of mass destruction to be sold to and carried by private citizens. How does this not make sense to you? The feds aren't going to bang down your door to take your guns you two-bit redneck.

That's not what she stated.

https://www.aol.com/news/kamala-harris-once-said-police-133749018.html

You have to say a bunch of stupid things in order to be a modern day successful politician in California. She is a national politician now and she has no reason to say or do ultra-liberal California things. Kamala is a normal, decent person and she isn't coming for your guns Cletus.

Oh, that's comforting.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She said she would let her staff “clean it up” 9instead of owning her statement while she’s saying it).

Staff now saying she was just joking.

Guess you thought it was a serious issue. Not to her! She’ll just commit gun violence. Hahaha….

If it weren't for double standards, democrats would have no standards at all.

How and in what context is this a double standard situation? Harris has a pistol that serves the purpose of securing her homestead in the event of an unwelcome intruder. No one should have a problem with this. If you have a problem with that, perhaps it's you harboring the double standard.

Did Harris make that choice of what firearm to own? Yes she did.

Do other people get that same choice? Not according to her.

She should have had the freedom to choose between any six-shooter or deer rifle on the market? Of course she should! Should she have access to military assault rifles, grenades, missiles, tanks, bombs... you know weapons intended to kill or wound lots of people very quickly.... no, of course she shouldn't have that choice and anyone with an IQ above 90 agrees with me. If you disagree, please do your best to explain why private citizens should have access to grenades, bombs, or assault rifles.

Your definition of an assault rifle?

A standard infantry weapon for modern armies that is light, portable, and can quickly and accurately deliver a high volume of fire to create mass casualty in a brief period of time. AR-15 is an example. I don't have a need for that weapon in my house just as I don't have a need for bombs.

It isn't up to you. It's none of your business.

Have you ever seen mangled six year old children after they've been stuck by a bullet fired by an assault rifle? Who does and doesn't have access to weapons of mass destruction is everyone's business. Idiot

Your party's stance on soft-on-crime, social justice, restorative justice and allowing criminals to go free because you want to is just one of many examples one should own as many firearms as they can.

At this point, I don't really care what you want. You've lost all credibility by putting a soft-headed prosecutor who believes in reparations (her own statements) at the top of your ticket.

My "party"? What is my party? It isn't just Democrats that can clearly see why private citizens don't need access to military grade weaponry. Anyone in this country and across the globe that has an IQ over 90 has been able to put two and two together to figure this out. Conservatives, liberals, Muslims, Christians and Jews of all colors with any basic reasoning skills have been able to figure this out...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Love this! Notice how Archie sees the benefit of private citizens having access to "pistols" instead of assault rifles for self protection. Most people of his generation were smart enough to know the difference between a pistol and an assault rifle. These NRA duped fools these days are just too simplistic to understand that pistols and assault rifles aren't the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so incredibly stupid of her.

Doesn’t she understand, during a break in, the gun will just get taken away from her and used against her?

+ 1

Everyone knows this.

Statistically, it would be used against her *If she doesn’t have appropriate training*. Does she really impress you as someone who would get threats, get a handgun, and not bother to to get good training and periodically go to the gun range? She’s been over prepared for everything in her life.

ok, Rambo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Love this! Notice how Archie sees the benefit of private citizens having access to "pistols" instead of assault rifles for self protection. Most people of his generation were smart enough to know the difference between a pistol and an assault rifle. These NRA duped fools these days are just too simplistic to understand that pistols and assault rifles aren't the same thing.

Y'all cain't take away mah freedom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She said she would let her staff “clean it up” 9instead of owning her statement while she’s saying it).

Staff now saying she was just joking.

Guess you thought it was a serious issue. Not to her! She’ll just commit gun violence. Hahaha….

If it weren't for double standards, democrats would have no standards at all.

How and in what context is this a double standard situation? Harris has a pistol that serves the purpose of securing her homestead in the event of an unwelcome intruder. No one should have a problem with this. If you have a problem with that, perhaps it's you harboring the double standard.

Did Harris make that choice of what firearm to own? Yes she did.

Do other people get that same choice? Not according to her.

She should have had the freedom to choose between any six-shooter or deer rifle on the market? Of course she should! Should she have access to military assault rifles, grenades, missiles, tanks, bombs... you know weapons intended to kill or wound lots of people very quickly.... no, of course she shouldn't have that choice and anyone with an IQ above 90 agrees with me. If you disagree, please do your best to explain why private citizens should have access to grenades, bombs, or assault rifles.

Your definition of an assault rifle?

A standard infantry weapon for modern armies that is light, portable, and can quickly and accurately deliver a high volume of fire to create mass casualty in a brief period of time. AR-15 is an example. I don't have a need for that weapon in my house just as I don't have a need for bombs.

It isn't up to you. It's none of your business.

Have you ever seen mangled six year old children after they've been stuck by a bullet fired by an assault rifle? Who does and doesn't have access to weapons of mass destruction is everyone's business. Idiot

Your party's stance on soft-on-crime, social justice, restorative justice and allowing criminals to go free because you want to is just one of many examples one should own as many firearms as they can.

At this point, I don't really care what you want. You've lost all credibility by putting a soft-headed prosecutor who believes in reparations (her own statements) at the top of your ticket.

My "party"? What is my party? It isn't just Democrats that can clearly see why private citizens don't need access to military grade weaponry. Anyone in this country and across the globe that has an IQ over 90 has been able to put two and two together to figure this out. Conservatives, liberals, Muslims, Christians and Jews of all colors with any basic reasoning skills have been able to figure this out...

Pistols are military-grade and should be banned.

Kamala is setting a horrible, vigilante example by owning a a handgun!

You are obviously an idiot. We should send you into Gaza or Ukraine with a .38

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Love this! Notice how Archie sees the benefit of private citizens having access to "pistols" instead of assault rifles for self protection. Most people of his generation were smart enough to know the difference between a pistol and an assault rifle. These NRA duped fools these days are just too simplistic to understand that pistols and assault rifles aren't the same thing.

Y'all cain't take away mah freedom.

- said Kamala, then she yelled ‘Murica! F**K YEAH!!