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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She’s pandering to the gun lobby. Predictable.

This.

She has Secret Service protection. She’s never going to have to shoot an intruder. She has staff for that.

[Anonymous]

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.

Because she simultaneously calls for mandatory gun buybacks, i. e. confiscation, because gun violence is such a serious issue and at the same time she’s laughing about how she has a gun and she’ll just shoot someone ha ha ha, then says she’s just joking. Is gun violence serious, or not? That’s the double standard. Gun violence is serious when she wants to take guns away, but it’s a joke when she’s talking about using her own.

You mean the buybacks of assault rifles she mentioned? Are you really not smart enough to know the difference between assault weapons with high capacity mags meant for combat and traditional guns people keep in their homes for protection or deer hunting? Seriously? Are people this stupid? No wonder we've reach an impasse when trying to keep military rifles out of the hands of nut jobs. There are just too many nut job idiots among us.

The "nut job" is you, sweetie.

"Assault weapons" and handguns are EXACTLY the sort of guns -- the sort of "arms" -- that the Second Amendment was written to protect. Military weapons in the hands of We, The People, not just in the hands of the lackeys of the State.

[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.

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.

No army on Earth uses the AR15 as a 'standard infantry weapon."

NOT A SINGLE ONE.

So your sub-90 point IQ is noted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding: and for the most part, “citizens” typically don’t have access to “military rifles, which at this point almost universally are capable of fully automatic fire.

If you aren't smart enough to understand the difference between a traditional shotgun or revolver and an assault rifle that can take out 30 people in 45 seconds, you should probably refrain from commenting. Idiot

Walz cannot understand the different between combat zone and Italy, so what?

Wha. . . ?? He was in Afghanistan

No, he wasd not.

He is a liar and a coward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are laws for a reason and gun owners should know them. A unarmed teenager breaking in to quickly steal your purse - ok to shoot him?

Our officials in charge of changing gun laws - should at least acknowledge there are LAWS.

No one should break into someone else's home. That teenager is a criminal.

Well there's that one extreme of picking a fight with a random teenager who was walking outside minding his own business and then shooting him when the fight you picked with him starts going wrong... Zimmerman basically legalized random shootings of anyone you don't like with little grounds in many red state jurisdictions.

That said I don't think we need to worry about Kamala stalking random teenagers in her neighborhood and shooting them the way George Z did.

Another nutjob liberal ignores the FACTS of the Zimmerman case -- as brought forth at his trial -- and still peddles the lies and bullshit of the Saint Tray-Tray cult.

At Zimmerman's trial it was made crystal clear that the "stalking" was in fact done by Trayvon Martin: Zimmerman was attacked FROM BEHIND while he was walking back to his truck. Martin was the party who choose to turn around and pursue Zimmerman -- and Martin was the party who initiated a physical assault upon a smaller person, culminating in Martin attempting to beat Zimmerman to death by bashing Zimmerman's skull against a concrete sidewalk.

Zimmerman walked because his use of deadly force was in fact 100% justified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey Kamal:

Just try your little stunt and shoot a mere burglar breaking into your home, or a rapist, in the U.K.

The UK is civilized. The UK doesn’t encourage your wild-west vigilanteism and reckless gun-play in your home the way you do, Kamala.

Kamala: you would be rightfully charged with murder or attempted murder for doing what you proposed doing, whilst appearing on the Oprah Winfrey television program.

You ought to retract your statement in its entirety.

The UK is irrelevant on this thread.

The UK is irrelevant, period.

The US has the Second Amendment precisely because arrogant Brits thought they could seize Americans' guns. Instead of complying, Americans shot them in the face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are laws for a reason and gun owners should know them. A unarmed teenager breaking in to quickly steal your purse - ok to shoot him?

Our officials in charge of changing gun laws - should at least acknowledge there are LAWS.

No one should break into someone else's home. That teenager is a criminal.

Well there's that one extreme of picking a fight with a random teenager who was walking outside minding his own business and then shooting him when the fight you picked with him starts going wrong... Zimmerman basically legalized random shootings of anyone you don't like with little grounds in many red state jurisdictions.

That said I don't think we need to worry about Kamala stalking random teenagers in her neighborhood and shooting them the way George Z did.

Another nutjob liberal ignores the FACTS of the Zimmerman case -- as brought forth at his trial -- and still peddles the lies and bullshit of the Saint Tray-Tray cult.

At Zimmerman's trial it was made crystal clear that the "stalking" was in fact done by Trayvon Martin: Zimmerman was attacked FROM BEHIND while he was walking back to his truck. Martin was the party who choose to turn around and pursue Zimmerman -- and Martin was the party who initiated a physical assault upon a smaller person, culminating in Martin attempting to beat Zimmerman to death by bashing Zimmerman's skull against a concrete sidewalk.

Zimmerman walked because his use of deadly force was in fact 100% justified.

Zimmerman's history of menacing people with guns (just check his rap sheet) sullies your fable a tad bit

[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.

Because she simultaneously calls for mandatory gun buybacks, i. e. confiscation, because gun violence is such a serious issue and at the same time she’s laughing about how she has a gun and she’ll just shoot someone ha ha ha, then says she’s just joking. Is gun violence serious, or not? That’s the double standard. Gun violence is serious when she wants to take guns away, but it’s a joke when she’s talking about using her own.

You mean the buybacks of assault rifles she mentioned? Are you really not smart enough to know the difference between assault weapons with high capacity mags meant for combat and traditional guns people keep in their homes for protection or deer hunting? Seriously? Are people this stupid? No wonder we've reach an impasse when trying to keep military rifles out of the hands of nut jobs. There are just too many nut job idiots among us.

The "nut job" is you, sweetie.

"Assault weapons" and handguns are EXACTLY the sort of guns -- the sort of "arms" -- that the Second Amendment was written to protect. Military weapons in the hands of We, The People, not just in the hands of the lackeys of the State.

Agree.

The Second Amendment, which Harris is on record saying she supports, does NOT protect hunting. It was not written to protect Olympic target shooting.

It was written to protect the individual civilian right to own an arm (plus ammunition) for a firearm “in common use” (Heller; McDonald).

The most commonly bought and commonly owned firearm in the USA in 2024 is the AR15. Ownership is constitutionally protected from government infringement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are laws for a reason and gun owners should know them. A unarmed teenager breaking in to quickly steal your purse - ok to shoot him?

Our officials in charge of changing gun laws - should at least acknowledge there are LAWS.

No one should break into someone else's home. That teenager is a criminal.

Well there's that one extreme of picking a fight with a random teenager who was walking outside minding his own business and then shooting him when the fight you picked with him starts going wrong... Zimmerman basically legalized random shootings of anyone you don't like with little grounds in many red state jurisdictions.

That said I don't think we need to worry about Kamala stalking random teenagers in her neighborhood and shooting them the way George Z did.

Another nutjob liberal ignores the FACTS of the Zimmerman case -- as brought forth at his trial -- and still peddles the lies and bullshit of the Saint Tray-Tray cult.

At Zimmerman's trial it was made crystal clear that the "stalking" was in fact done by Trayvon Martin: Zimmerman was attacked FROM BEHIND while he was walking back to his truck. Martin was the party who choose to turn around and pursue Zimmerman -- and Martin was the party who initiated a physical assault upon a smaller person, culminating in Martin attempting to beat Zimmerman to death by bashing Zimmerman's skull against a concrete sidewalk.

Zimmerman walked because his use of deadly force was in fact 100% justified.

Well, everyone remembers Zimmerman was one of those “white Latinos,” so, a white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s pandering to the gun lobby. Predictable.

This.

She has Secret Service protection. She’s never going to have to shoot an intruder. She has staff for that.

So doesn’t that make it more likely her gun will somehow go out on its own and shoot Kamala’s husband or step-daughter? You always claim: it’s the gun, not the person.