Anonymous wrote:It's a ridiculous and irresponsible statement to make from someone prioritizing safer gun legislation. You can't just shoot anyone who enters your home - conditions need to be met first.

More concerning is a comment about shooting someone and then saying she shouldn't have said it and her staff will clean that up. If she can't handle herself on these topics how will she interact with Xi and other world leaders? They will not find these blithe comments so cute. What a mess, Democratic Party

Anonymous wrote:It's a ridiculous and irresponsible statement to make from someone prioritizing safer gun legislation. You can't just shoot anyone who enters your home - conditions need to be met first.

More concerning is a comment about shooting someone and then saying she shouldn't have said it and her staff will clean that up. If she can't handle herself on these topics how will she interact with Xi and other world leaders? They will not find these blithe comments so cute. What a mess, Democratic Party

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...

So, you are OK with public officials having guns?

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...

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.

Democratic politicians are not “soft on crime,” they are pro-crime.

They created the conditions and encouraged the 975 violent carjackings in D.C. alone last year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

She knows the mindset and intelligence level of people stupid enough to break into people's homes. They aren't nice people. They're dangerous and ofen have no regard for human life. Get out of your bubble.

So why can’t she just call 911?

Anonymous wrote:

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!

She knows the mindset and intelligence level of people stupid enough to break into people's homes. They aren't nice people. They're dangerous and ofen have no regard for human life. Get out of your bubble.

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!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kamala fantasizes out loud about her desire to shoot someone and democrats are ok with it? What a strange election cycle we are trapped in.

She is sick sick SICK!

WTH is wrong with her?!?!?!

Anonymous wrote:I put so much efforts in fighting against the gun in US. She is a huge disapoitmetn and despite my plans to vote for her, I am skipping this election all together. I believed her when she campaigned against the guns in 2019, and now she turned around to please some voters. She is stupid to realize that she lost more votes than she gained: gun fans are not going to believe her and people who are anti-guns are just going to turn their backs on her.

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?

Anonymous wrote:Kamala fantasizes out loud about her desire to shoot someone and democrats are ok with it? What a strange election cycle we are trapped in.