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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

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.

There is no such thing as an assault rifle. Why are democrats so uninformed and downright dumb when it comes to firearms?

Why would one need to know the difference beyond the basics? How about you simply sum up why you need the type of f***ing weapon that you couldn't use for actual hunting or protecting your family? Why do you need more than handguns and hunting rifles? Explain why you need the type of weapon that allows for 100 rounds a second? What kind of psycho needs that and considers it normal?

It is a legit defense weapon. Sorry but it is.

Lots of weapons are "legit defense weapons". You don't live in a movie. There is no elite strike team rappelling down from helicopters to breach your house from all sides. You don't need an AR-15 to do the job.

The way things are going, you tweet the wrong thing and you'll have a strike team rappelling down your chimney by the time you hit post.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am one of those liberals that Fox News is constantly warning about. I hate all guns and I would love for the government to confiscate them all. I think the only people who should have them are police and military.

I’m enthusiastically voting for Harris, but yes, I am a little disappointed that she’s a gun owner. But obviously she’s a responsible one and I get that it’s politically expedient for her to have one. So whatever.

One of the few honest replies.

See, this is your problem. You want to believe this one post and ignoring all of the others, because that's what it is to be a conservative gun nut. Your only "validation" is being seen as victims of the "woke/DEI/commie/cancel culture/ blah blah blah" left when you aren't. You claimed Obama was going to take your guns, he didn't. You claimed Biden would. He hasn't.

You want to believe every Dem gives a damn about you simply owning hand guns or a rifle. The majority believe you have no business owning an AR. You're not using it for hunting (there would be nothing left of your kill). There's something seriously wrong with someone desperate to own them.

You do realize that AR-15s are varmint guns, don’t you. They would be used to take care of animals like coyotes that are threatening a farmer’s livestock. An AR-15 while lethal is actually a very under powered weapon for hunting. Much less powerful that a .308 or 30.6 which are more traditionally used to hunt deer or other larger game.

Varmint guns OMG. Farmers handled coyotes with rifles for generations.

We can agree that if someone shows a legitimate need to fight back packs of coyotes, they can get a special AR-15 permit.

An AR-15 is a rifle. One bullet per one pull of the trigger

They were banned before and everything was fine. They will be banned again.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Read earlier post where the US Code for the definition of a militia is defined. It covers the average citizen. No restrictions. Better solution is 1) enforce existing gun laws, 2) prosecute to the max all gun crimes, 3) address mental health issues - we have 10% of the asylums as we did in the '60s and half the population - ask yourself why every single one of these mass shootings is done by someone under care of a shrink/therapist and/or an SSRI.

[Anonymous]

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.

The term well regulated in the context of language usage in the 1790s meant well prepared. So that would mean people would need to have appropriate weapons with which to train and become well prepared/proficient.

But good try.

[Anonymous]

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.

And conservatives can’t read. And don’t know history.

“A well regulated militia” . We had no professional military and no national guard when that was written. And you could have guns but the government gave you the bullets.

Unfettered access to every gun under the sun is indefensible to anyone with a brain who isn’t a psychopath ammosexual. No civilized society would put up with the violence and trauma we bring upon ourselves with this stupid obsession with guns.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

And conservatives forget that the constitution was meant to be amended to suit the needs of the population. Thomas Jefferson even thought it should be rewritten every 20 years to avoid having the people beholden to a document that no longer served their welfare.

[Anonymous]

I’m happy to compromise with the gun nuts who insist on not evolving the meaning and intentions of the second amendment as society and gun manufacturing have evolved. Fine - then you get the guns and ammunition that were available when the second amendment was written. Compromise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually am one of those liberals that Fox News is constantly warning about. I hate all guns and I would love for the government to confiscate them all. I think the only people who should have them are police and military.

I’m enthusiastically voting for Harris, but yes, I am a little disappointed that she’s a gun owner. But obviously she’s a responsible one and I get that it’s politically expedient for her to have one. So whatever.

Same-same.

Will admit, I’m a little disappointed in her if this really is true and not just a election tactic to fool the NRA morons out there. If it IS a rise, it’s brilliant, btw. But if it’s true and she really does own a gun, it’s disappointing but not a deal-breaker for me. I can look past it.

But she has run on a promise of confiscating guns through a buy-back program, and I’m going to be REALLY mad if she doesn’t make good on that - because I don’t like being lied to by people I support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am one of those liberals that Fox News is constantly warning about. I hate all guns and I would love for the government to confiscate them all. I think the only people who should have them are police and military.

I’m enthusiastically voting for Harris, but yes, I am a little disappointed that she’s a gun owner. But obviously she’s a responsible one and I get that it’s politically expedient for her to have one. So whatever.

One of the few honest replies.

See, this is your problem. You want to believe this one post and ignoring all of the others, because that's what it is to be a conservative gun nut. Your only "validation" is being seen as victims of the "woke/DEI/commie/cancel culture/ blah blah blah" left when you aren't. You claimed Obama was going to take your guns, he didn't. You claimed Biden would. He hasn't.

You want to believe every Dem gives a damn about you simply owning hand guns or a rifle. The majority believe you have no business owning an AR. You're not using it for hunting (there would be nothing left of your kill). There's something seriously wrong with someone desperate to own them.

When you say things like that, it immediately lets everyone know you don’t know anything at all about guns, or hunting. You’ve basically told everyone you’re an idiot and a fraud in that one sentence. And now they can discount everything you say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it change your view of gun ownership or of Kamala Harris?

No to both.

I don't want to ban guns. I want gun control and a ban on assault weapons (like the one we used to have - it worked!). I want it to be a felony if your minor child obtains access to a gun and harms themself or others. These are not radical ideas. I like target shooting with a handgun myself.

You sound more like a maga than a Democrat. You need to spend some serious introspection time on this and get your damn head back on straight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Harris supports gun confiscation, mandatory sale to the government.

Keep trying, lyin’ MAGA sh*tbag!

DP

That’s NOT a lie. It’s in her campaign platform. That’s one of the biggest reasons many people whom I know support her, support her.

Because she has PROMISED that she will do gun confiscation. If she doesn’t, she may be a 1-term president herself. She made a promise. She damn well better keep it and do confiscation.

BULLSHIT. You can’t “do" “gun confiscation,” moron. Firearms are legal. There are 400 million of them in the U.S. No one’s coming for your guns, idiot.

It is not confiscating that will be effective . we put resources to buy back programs and then stop selling the assault weapons. It is accomplished with money if we are serious that we want to get rid of certain weapons.

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.

No you will not. First -- the so-called assault rifles will keep being sold and there will be no restrictions. Why? Votes are not there in Congress and will not be. In any event cannot under Second Amendment. There will be no change in Sup Ct for 20 years. In the next 20 years, at least half the time will have republican presidents so no I doubt this will change. Even if none of that mattered there are too many guns out there to make even a slightly meaningful dent.

What we could do is enhanced background checks, create a red flag system, enhanced firearms training, enhanced enforcement of gun violations, better protect schools -- all that could be done by Harris in the first year if she wanted to as president.

Blush!t.

Put four more of the right kind of Justices on the USSC and we can reinterprete the second amendment once and for all.

[Anonymous]

I want to see Kamala fire her gun at a range. Had she said what type of gun she owns? Does Doug have a gun or just Kamala?