The California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), one of the largest state rifle and pistol associations in America and the oldest 2A organization in California, sits in a unique position to fully understand Democratic presidential hopeful Kamala Harris’ record on gun rights. It is in California, that Harris began and grew her legal and political career first as an assistant district attorney, then as attorney general of the state and on to become a U.S. senator for the state before becoming the current vice president. As vice president, she sat virtually unnoticed for 3½ years except for her stint as the Border Czar, under whose leadership or lack thereof saw a border that was porous to historical proportions, or as the head of President Joe Biden’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which is the administration’s effort to enact universal background checks, ban modern sporting rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and push red flag laws. Harris now also claims to have had a hand in every major decision made by the current administration in the White House over that same time period. Take that confession, er umm, statement as you see fit.
Given their front row seat to Harris’ political evolution on gun issues, CRPA reports they have “received numerous questions regarding the background and stances of Kamala Harris on Second Amendment issues.” In response, the group has released this Reporter’s Guide, which they hope will answer many of the pressing questions regarding Kamal Harris’ view on firearms as evidenced by her past actions, not simply by what she is claiming on the campaign trail as she seeks to broaden her appeal to more Americans.
In releasing the guide, CRPA noted in addition to answer questions the press has had about Harris on guns, they hope it will also “help with additional unanswered questions that should be asked by the press in the future.” While a great tool for the press, the guide also serves as a valuable tool to voters, particularly those who may own a firearm or want to one day own one, but are not necessarily ardent members of the 2A community. It will also serve voters who have no interest in or little knowledge of firearms issues personally, but do care about their rights as American citizens or for the newcomers to this country, the rights they will have should they ever earn citizenship.
What follows is taken directly from the CRPA’s Press Guide:
Harris’ Recent Comments on Guns
Kamala Harris has taken an interest in projecting to voters that she is not opposed to gun rights, at least insofar as it pertains to handguns. In a recent interview, she debuted her stance on the Second Amendment. The Vice President, who had previously never met a gun control proposal she didn’t like, said that if “somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot. [laughter] Sorry, probably shouldn’t have said that! [more laughter] But my staff will deal with that later.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSNSq19z2C4)
Then, in an interview with 60 Minutes, when asked what kind of gun she has, Harris answered that she owns a Glock handgun but did not specify what model or which generation. (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/aC6EK2in544)
Paired with her constant new refrain that she and her running mate Tim Walz are gun owners, the Harris Campaign wants to send the message to swing state voters that while Kamala Harris endorses universal background checks, red flag laws, and a ban on so-called “assault weapons” (i.e., common semiautomatic rifles), she is otherwise very much pro-Second Amendment. Harris is thus trying to give voters the impression that while she doesn’t want regular citizens to have guns like AR-15s (some of the most popular rifles in the U.S.), their right to own and acquire handguns is safe under a Harris administration. Without revealing the type of Glock Harris possesses, it is unclear if she possesses an unlawful firearm that is not allowed in California under policies that she fought to implement.
Historical Issues With Harris’ Current Comments
The trouble is, there is little reason to believe Harris’ recent comments are anything more than election pandering. Harris’ history makes her sudden claims of support for widespread handgun ownership suspect, as she has consistently opposed and obstructed that right for decades.
As district attorney in San Francisco, she backed Proposition H, which would have banned all handguns in the city had a lawsuit not stopped it. (https://thereload.com/kamala-harris-backed-san-francisco-handgun-confiscation-measure/)
Later, she led an effort by many district attorneys to urge the Supreme Court to rule that there was no individual right to keep and bear arms, and then held a press conference to criticize the Heller ruling when the Supreme Court ultimately disagreed with her by accepting the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. (https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_district_attorneys.pdf)
In 2013, acting as California Attorney General, Kamala Harris implemented the microstamping requirement of California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” which effectively banned the sale of modern handguns in California for a decade until CRPA’s lawsuit, Boland v. Bonta, got an Orange County federal court to enjoin enforcement of that requirement in 2023. (https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/infobuls/2013-BOF-03.pdf)
Then there is Harris’ hypocritical purported Glock ownership, a gun California defines as “unsafe”, regardless of the model and generation of Glock pistol it is.
Harris’s Support of Proposition H (Proposed San Francisco Handgun Ban)
As has now been covered by various outlets , Kamala Harris supported a 2005 ballot measure that banned San Francisco residents from possessing pistols. The San Jose Mercury News reported at the time: “Although Mayor Gavin Newsom has not taken a position, several of the city’s most liberal leaders are supporting the far-reaching ban — including District Attorney Kamala Harris and four supervisors who are listed as sponsors.” The measure also banned “all City residents, without exception, from selling, distributing, transferring and manufacturing firearms and ammunition.”
The CRPA, NRA, and Second Amendment Foundation sued to stop the ordinance from taking effect and were represented by Michel & Associates, P.C. In January 2008, a California state appeals court struck down Proposition H. It ruled San Francisco had overstepped its authority in instituting the ban.[1]
In addition to losing on the merits of the legal claims, the court also ordered San Francisco to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to the plaintiffs as prevailing parties in the suit. San Francisco appealed the decision, but the California Supreme Court declined to take up that appeal.
Harris Opposes the Individual Right Confirmed in the Supreme Court’s Heller Decision
The Supreme Court’s landmark case on the Second Amendment is District of Columbia v. Heller. In Heller, the high court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms and does not require participation in a collective entity like a militia. It also held that statutes banning handgun possession in the home violate this core Second Amendment-protected right. (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290)
In the leadup to the case, Kamala Harris helped organize a coalition of district attorneys to submit an amicus curiae brief that expressly urged the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Washington DC’s ban on handguns, and to rule against the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. (https://x.com/CRPAPresident/status/1839452104538419499)
Excerpts from that brief:
Following the Heller ruling against Harris’ position, she held a press event with then-Mayor of San Francisco Gavin Newsom to criticize the landmark decision https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-G1VGJBWcU
Harris Implements the Microstamping Technology Requirement for Semiautomatic Pistols in California as Attorney General
In 1999, the California legislature enacted the Unsafe Handgun Act, which barred the sale of new handguns in California unless they passed certain safety tests and included certain “features.” If the guns passed, they were included on the State’s handgun roster and able to be sold new in gun stores to the general firearms-eligible public. This prohibition did not apply to law enforcement, nor to an ever-expanding list of other quasi-law enforcement type government agency personnel such as the Department of Motor Vehicles, harbor or port districts, and the investigation division of the Department of Consumer Affairs.[2] Such exempt law-enforcement personnel could continue to purchase handguns that California law deemed “unsafe” at retail firearms dealers.
This immediately constrained the California handgun market, however, a few new guns continued to make it onto California’s handgun roster.
Enter “Microstamping”
Despite these strict requirements, one feature requirement passed by the legislature in 2007 had gone unenforced for years. The law included a requirement for microstamping, an experimental technology under which the firing pin of a pistol would include a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model and serial number of the pistol. The idea was that when the firing pin struck the cartridge to fire a bullet, it would leave an indentation on the spent casing that law enforcement could then use to identify the handgun used and its registered owner.
The idea was silly in several ways. Criminals usually use stolen guns, not their own, so identifying the registered owner was meaningless. At most, the identification mark would identify the initial lawful owner of the gun, whom it was stolen from. Even if it was a gun the criminal had purchased legally, they could file down the firing pin slightly to destroy the array of characters. Or, they could replace the firing pin with another. Or, they could make sure to collect their shell casings. Finally, they could just use a revolver for their crimes.
Additionally, the original microstamping requirement required micro stamped indentation on two locations of the brass casing, which made the technology essentially impossible to adapt. Years later, California later amended the requirement to only one location.
But aside from the comical ineffectiveness of the idea, the technology has also simply never existed outside of a laboratory setting. Even the gun-hostile California legislature recognized this, so they wrote into the law that it would only take effect once the Attorney General “certifies that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.” Thus, microstamping did not take immediate effect, and handguns that had at least an MDM and CLI like the Shield could be sold new in California, along with pre-2007 handgun models that were grandfathered into the Roster.
Attorney General Kamala Harris Puts Microstamping into Effect, Effectively Banning the Sale of New Semiautomatic Handguns in California
On May 17, 2013, then-Attorney General of California Kamala Harris decided to issue a certification that the microstamping technology is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions. From then on, a semiautomatic handgun could only be sold in California if it had certain features and microstamping. The obvious issue was that the technology did not exist outside of a laboratory setting, and it still does not today. Making a few micro stamped firing pins for an experiment is one thing, but mass production is another.
No new semiautomatic handguns entered the roster from 2013 on, so the law effectively mandated obsolescence in the semiautomatic pistol market while citizens throughout the country could choose from the newest models.
Kamala Harris’s action meant the overwhelming majority of Californians who were not exempted from the law could not purchase popular handguns first released after 2013, such as all Gen 4 & 5 Glocks, the Sig Sauer P365, Smith & Wesson M&P 2.0 models and many more models from dozens of arms makers.
The Hypocrisy of Kamala Harris’s Glock Handgun
In an interview with CBS’ popular program 60 Minutes, Kamala Harris claimed to own a Glock. She does not state what model, or which generation. In California, only Generation 3 Glocks can be sold to regular citizens because they were grandfathered onto the roster before the accessory requirements took effect (and before microstamping). But they are still legally considered “unsafe” handguns, even though they can still be sold due to the grandfathering. Why doesn’t Harris own a gun that California considers “safe” for regular citizens to purchase, considering her strong support and instrumental role she played in the Unsafe Handgun Act?
In fact, Harris not only supported the Roster by triggering the enforceability of the microstamping requirement, she also defended the law as Attorney General against various lawsuits, including in Pena v. Lindley. There, she argued that among other things, the roster was constitutional even though it required chamber load indicators, magazine disconnect mechanisms and microstamping, and had prevented new handguns from being sold in the state.[3]
Thus, if Harris owns a Generation 3 Glock, she is a hypocrite for owning a handgun that she argued is “unsafe” for citizens.
But the hypocrisy gets even worse if she owns a more modern generation of Glock pistol. Glock has continued to make the Generation 3 models almost solely for the California market, but its Generation 4 and 5 models, popular in the rest of the country, cannot be sold new to regular citizens in California, only legally exempt individuals (such as law enforcement).
If Kamala Harris has a Generation 4 or 5 Glock handgun, then she has a handgun that cannot be sold new to regular citizens in California thanks to a law she supported, expanded, and defended in court as Attorney General. While she enjoys the more modern pistol for her own protection, regular Californians have to either pay a fortune to buy that same gun secondhand in the resale market, or, they must settle for a handgun Kamala Harris and the law she backed had deemed “safe” enough for them.
It is unclear if Kamala actually owns a firearm or not, because in 2019 vague reports surfaced that she tried to get rid of her firearm before running for president. This has not been confirmed but should be something looked into for future reporting.
Questions to ask Kamala
A reporter who interviews Kamala should ask her:
- You have said on the campaign trail that your values have not changed. Does that apply to your position on gun rights?
- Do you regret your support of Proposition H in San Francisco? If so, why? Be specific.
- Do you stand by your amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Heller, in which you urged the Court to rule that there was no individual right to keep and bear arms (including handguns)? If your mind has changed and you now support that ruling, what caused you to change?
- Do you stand by your actions as Attorney General of California, which led to an effective decade-long ban on the sale of modern handguns to regular citizens in California until the law was declared unconstitutional last year? If so, how do you square that with your recent statements that make it sound like you do not oppose the right to own handguns?
- Why do you own a Glock handgun, of which the current models the Unsafe Handgun Act in California declares an “unsafe” handgun?
- What generation of Glock is it? What model?
- What is its magazine capacity?
- How did you acquire it? From whom – a retail dealer or a private party transfer?
- Is this the same firearm you had when you were a prosecutor or is it a purchase after you left that position?
- You have stated you have smoked marijuana before, correct? Are you aware that federal law prohibits people who smoke marijuana from owning a firearm? Did you smoke marijuana while owning and possessing a firearm?
- You have admitted to spoking marijuana. Was this while you were an elected official? Did you ever let your employer know that you were a marijuana user as a law enforcement official and that you could not be in possession of a firearm?
[1] “[T]he sheer breadth of Prop H makes it vulnerable to a preemption challenge,” Judge Ignazio John Ruvolo wrote for a unanimous state appeals court in Fiscal v. San Francisco. “As already noted, Section 2 of Prop H bans the ‘sale, manufacture, transfer or distribution’ of ammunition and firearms in the City, without exception. With narrow exceptions, Section 3 bans the possession of handguns by San Francisco residents, including possession within the sanctity of homes, businesses, and private property.”
[2] CAL. PENAL CODE § 32000(b)(6).
[3] https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Pena_Appellees-Answering-Brief.pdf
Sorry Camel Toe we are not that stupid.
We saw you for who you are decades ago. As we did your VP pick.
This is typical bait and switch for votes. Don’t fall for it fence sitters,she here to take your guns
“At the time, even the media gave Harris the title of “border czar,”
Some even reported that she would have “the lead role on the overall border and regional issue.”
Border Czar? Yeah, more propaganda bullshit.
The “media” is not in charge of appointing anybody to any role in government.
“she here to take your guns“
Don’t worry, Trump has been planning to take your guns for years, as proven by his public statements:
“Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court because that’s another system. Because a lot of times by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida, he had a lot of [firearms], they saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time. So, you could do exactly what you said but take the guns first, go through due process second.”
President Donald J. Trump, February 28, 2018
Once again Miner49er, your TDS makes intentionally erroneous lacking-context statements making your post 100% false.
Learn what context means Miner49er.
“making your post 100% false“
Somehow you neglected to mention which parts of my post are false.
While I understand making vague claims is your specialty, could you be a bit more specific about what part of my post is false.
Why yes, Miner49er. I did neglect to mention which parts of your post are false. That’s because its obvious and it makes your post 100% false and just another excretion of your TDS mental illness and meaningless.
I made no vague claim, its right there in front of you in your own words. You just need to understand what context means.
Official White House briefing:
THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for being willing to do this, and I really appreciate. And also today, I’ve — I said when we became a team and got elected, that the Vice President was going to be the last person in the room. She didn’t realize that means she gets every assignment.
In addition to that, there’s about five other major things she’s handling, but I’ve asked her, the VP, today — because she’s the most qualified person to do it — to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help — are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border.
So this new surge we’re dealing with now started with the last administration, but it’s our responsibility to deal with it humanely and to — and to stop what’s happening.
…they don’t have to wonder about is that where the President is. When she speaks, she speaks for me. Doesn’t have to check with me. She knows what she’s doing, and I hope we can move this along.
Wow! The Puppet gave her full control of this. “She speaks for me. [She] doesn’t have to check with me.” It was her job! They were complaining about migration that started under the previous administration. They were going to stop it! Go check out a graph of border crossings by the year. What an absolute historic failure!
Official White House briefing:
THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for being willing to do this, and I really appreciate. And also today, I’ve — I said when we became a team and got elected, that the Vice President was going to be the last person in the room. She didn’t realize that means she gets every assignment.
In addition to that, there’s about five other major things she’s handling, but I’ve asked her, the VP, today — because she’s the most qualified person to do it — to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help — are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border.
So this new surge we’re dealing with now started with the last administration, but it’s our responsibility to deal with it humanely and to — and to stop what’s happening.
…they don’t have to wonder about is that where the President is. When she speaks, she speaks for me. Doesn’t have to check with me. She knows what she’s doing, and I hope we can move this along.
Wow! The Puppet gave her full control of this. “She speaks for me. [She] doesn’t have to check with me.” It was her job! They were complaining about “migration” (AKA illegal immigration) that started under the previous administration. They were going to stop it! Go check out a graph of border crossings by the year. What an absolute historic failure!
So you are ‘bolding’ only some parts of his statement, clever selective editing technique.
Let’s look at the whole statement:
“I’ve asked her, the VP, today — because she’s the most qualified person to do it — to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help“
So the president asked her to “lead our efforts with Mexico and the northern triangle countries”
That in no way put her in charge of the entire border, or makes her the ‘border czar’ as some media termed it.
She wasn’t put in charge of the border crossings, or the border patrol, that’s the responsibility of the Director of homeland security.
Your intentional mischaracterization doesn’t change the facts of history:
“Kamala Harris assigned to tackle immigration’s causes, not border security
Claims that Harris was named the “border czar,” responsible for overseeing U.S. border enforcement, have become a talking point for Republicans. But Biden didn’t put Harris in charge of overseeing border security.
Maria Ramirez Uribe, PolitiFact
Published
August 5, 2024, 10:09 a.m. ET
Biden asked Harris “to be the chief diplomatic officer with Central American countries” and address the root causes that make people leave their home countries, said Michelle Mittelstadt, communications director for the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.
Managing the border “has always been” the Homeland Security secretary’s role, Mittelstadt said.“
And Kamala Harris has indeed made diplomatic trips to work with our southern neighbors to stem the flow of illegal immigrants:
“Harris says Mexico talks ‘candid,’ pledges investment to stem migration
By Nandita Bose and Frank Jack Daniel
June 9, 202112:47 AM EDTUpdated 3 years ago
MEXICO CITY, June 8 (Reuters) – U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris told Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador that she saw him as a partner in tackling migration as they agreed on Tuesday to deepen economic ties and invest to improve conditions in Central America.
The administration of President Joe Biden has been struggling with the number of migrant children and families arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, mainly from Central America, and Biden has tasked Harris with trying to solve the issue.“
Selective editing and lying is all y’all have got. Sad
Miner, I bold relevant parts for the people that skim the comment section. If I was selectively editing it, then I would have selectively edited it! I wouldn’t have included parts that you think I was trying to hide. I wasn’t trying to hide anything (obviously). Her job was very specific. It was literally to stem “the migration to our southern border.”
Mayorkas is in charge of actual border security. If Kamala had done her job of stemming the flow, then actual border control wouldn’t have been such a big deal. But she didn’t do her job of stemming the flow. As a matter of fact, the flow was at a level never before seen in any country in the history of the world. It was, and is, an epic failure.
“Your intentional mischaracterization…”
What mischaracterization? I quoted the actual White House briefing transcript. Show me what I mischaracterized. You seem to be hung up on the title of border czar. Reread my comment that you responded to. I never even said border czar LOL. Then you call me a liar because baseless insults is all you ever have. Well that and your constant lies. What did I lie about exactly? Quote me. Let’s hash this out.
“If Kamala had done her job of stemming the flow“
Now you are moving the goalposts again, Kamala Harris‘s job was to work with the other countries to stem the flow of illegal immigrants, and that’s not going to happen immediately. The problem has taken decades to develop and it will take quite some time to completely “stem the flow”.
“The Real Story of Kamala Harris’s Record on Immigration
Republicans have attacked the Vice-President as the Biden Administration’s “border czar,” but her remit was always to address the root causes farther south.
By Jonathan Blitzer
July 28, 2024
“On Wednesday night, in a televised address from the Oval Office, Biden noted, accurately, that unauthorized border crossings are now lower than they’d been when Donald Trump left office. (According to data obtained by CBS News, Border Patrol is on pace to arrest fewer than sixty thousand migrants in July, which would be the lowest number of monthly apprehensions since September, 2020.) Yet Republicans, who’ve capitalized on the general perception of mismanagement under Biden, claimed he was lying. “Biden really just said border crossings are lower now than under President Trump,” Representative August Pfluger, of Texas, said on X. “First we’re supposed to believe Kamala was never the border czar and now this??”
To answer Plfuger’s question, in a word: yes. The number of crossings has dropped significantly in the past five months, owing mostly to increased efforts by the Mexican government to arrest migrants before they reach the U.S. As for Harris, in early 2021, she was tasked with addressing the “root causes” of migration from the so-called Northern Triangle of Central America—Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. At no point in her tenure as Vice-President has she been in charge of managing the border.“
You claim Harris should’ve fixed it in the past three years, yet you ignore the fact that Donald Trump had ultimate authority as the President of the United States with 4 years to “stem the flow” and he failed miserably.
Allow me to use your own sentence to put a sharper point on the issue:
“If Donald had done his job of stemming the flow, then actual border control wouldn’t have been such a big deal.”
“Now you are moving the goalposts again, Kamala Harris‘s job was to work with the other countries to stem the flow of illegal immigrants, and that’s not going to happen immediately.”
I’m not moving any goalposts. I laid out the president’s directive verbatim. The end goal was to stem the flow of illegal immigrants, or as they’ve been calling them, “migrants” (that never plan on leaving – it’s another euphemism). What do you mean it isn’t going to happen immediately? The first thing the Puppet-Harris Admin did was get rid of all of Trump’s border policies that were working. Illegal crossings went from around 400k/yr under Trump to over 2m/year under Puppet-Harris.
If they really wanted to “stem the flow” then the first thing they would do is change their policies. They’ve been pretending (lying) that they had to have that “border bill” in order to reduce illegal immigration. After the poison pill bill failed to pass, and because it’s election season, they changed their policies to limit illegal crossings. In other words, they could have done that from day one. The flood of illegals into our country is INTENTIONAL. You know that. I know that. I said that would happen after the 2020 election. You bet me that it wouldn’t happen. You lost that bet. Some ignorant people don’t know that because the media works for the DNC. Liars like you will never admit the truth.
“If Donald had done his job of stemming the flow, then actual border control wouldn’t have been such a big deal.”
Trump era border crossings vs border czar Kamala era border crossings, compare and contrast. Which number is larger? 400 thousand or 2 million plus? Despite your best efforts to pretend otherwise, I know you aren’t that slow. Be honest for once in your life.
Yes indeed Kamala Harris is a real piece of shit.
But aren’t you glad that no matter what she has said, what she has done, or what she will do America is going to be proud to call her Commander in Chief (or else☠)
Commie in Chief maybe.
Wait, wait, wait a minute. Why do we care what she has done in the past? Aren’t we supposed to ignore everything in her past and only give credence to her latest “plans” and “policy positions”???
And on the same vein, aren’t we supposed to ignore her political party’s clear and consistent track record and only give credence to her latest “plans” and “policy positions”???
“Aren’t we supposed to ignore everything in her past and only give credence to her latest “plans” and “policy positions”???“
Excellent description of how MAGA Republicans are ignoring Donald Trump‘s past public statements about “taking peoples guns first and worrying about due process later”.
They also use this intentional amnesia technique with his commitment to provide a “comprehensive health care plan better than Obama’s in two weeks”.
As well as his “Infrastructure Week” improvement plans that just never seemed to materialize:
“How ‘Infrastructure Week’ Became a Long-Running Joke
President Trump on Wednesday more or less torpedoed plans to pursue a bipartisan deal to rebuild the nation’s roads, bridges and broadband networks.
By Katie Rogers
May 22, 2019
WASHINGTON — At this point in the Trump presidency, “Infrastructure Week” is less a date on the calendar than it is a “Groundhog Day”-style fever dream doomed to be repeated.
Roughly two years after the White House first came up with the idea of discussing, for all of seven days, the pursuit of a bipartisan agreement to rebuild the nation’s roads, bridges and broadband networks, President Trump more or less torpedoed those plans on Wednesday in a Rose Garden speech. In the process, he gave Democrats a helpful sound bite when he said he would not pursue a legislative agenda while under investigation by House committees.
He also gave them another opportunity to charge that Mr. Trump, who has promised to deliver on an infrastructure plan since his first days in office, doesn’t really care about working together on one at all.“
The Commiecrats figure that female + nonbinary + marxist equals close to half of the popular vote – from there they can cheat, if necessary.
The hypocrisies, word salads, incompetencies, attacks on the Bill of Rights and outright lies play well with that base. Expect more of the same.
Tinfoil time – the late Tupac Shakur’s Auntie is Joan Chesimard, an escaped copkiller living in Cuba – a heroine to the West Coast Left.
P Diddy is suspected by some of being involved in Tupac’s murder. Might this explain why the Biden DOJ suddenly noticed that Mr Diddy is maybe not all that nice?
Gun control group leveled up the cringe with a school sh**ting video game.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb11dXeTn90
‘We’re No Stranger To Firearms’: Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders Praises New (Sig Sauer) Ammunition Center.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlPP1K4L3FQ
“We’re No Stranger To Firearms’: Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders
Well, that’s a rare bit of honesty from Governor Sanders:
“Arkansas has the fourth-highest murder rate in the U.S. with a rate of 11.8 homicides per 100,000 residents“
Some folks are wondering, did Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders make this announcement from her $19,000 podium?
“Arkansas has the fourth-highest murder rate in the U.S. with a rate of 11.8 homicides per 100,000 residents“
Wow, that’s a lot. It seems that Arkansas NEEDS more guns so that the citizens can better defend themselves.
“It seems that Arkansas NEEDS more guns“
Well you know, Arkansas already has one of the highest gun ownership per capita rates in the United States:
“The gun ownership rate in Arkansas is 51.8%, making it the fourteenth state with the highest gun ownership rate in the US. In addition, there are 44.3 guns per 1,000 people, making Arkansas one of the states with the most guns per capita.”
With the fourth highest homicide rate out of the 50 states, I’m not sure that’s working out so well for them right now.
which has nothing at all to do with “‘We’re No Stranger To Firearms’: Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders Praises New (Sig Sauer) Ammunition Center.”
Why did you leave out the “…Praises New (Sig Sauer) Ammunition Center.” part? Cherry picking out of context again so you can troll with more non-sense.
“Arkansas has the fourth-highest murder rate in the U.S. with a rate of 11.8 homicides per 100,000 residents“
by criminals, not by law abiding gun owners. Ya afraid to say that “not by law abiding gun owners” part aren’t you. So yes, more law abiding citizens of Arkansas need to be armed with firearms to protect themselves from the criminals, so thanks for bringing up that need for more law abiding citizens of Arkansas needing to be armed.
And just what kind of ‘homicides’? For example, justifiable homicide (AKA self defense) or murder homicide?
Plus, ‘homicides’ how? For example, was it knives or blunt objects used in some homicides?
Yet you post this vague statement implying its somehow all homicide by gun because ‘firearms’ was used in my post. This alone makes your post reply disingenuously false and intentionally deceptive, more excretion from your mental illness obsession with trolling.
Ya know Miner49er, if you knew what context was maybe you could be a real discussion participant. Instead you troll with your TDS and trolling obsession mental illness and ignorance and cherry picking out of context.
Why even respond to Miner?? Anyone who comes here regularly knows the Troll for what it is. Ignore it.
SHOCKING: Dept. of Defense quietly gives itself permission to “lethally” engage Americans?
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty8fgoxRCS0
LAWYER: Top 5 Ways Cops Take YOUR Guns.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDNUXIRErLc
Claims That Florida Police Chief Who Signed Gun Ban Order Faced Death Threats Appear to be Bogus.
h ttps://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/gun-control/claims-that-florida-police-chief-who-signed-gun-ban-order-faced-death-threats-appear-to-be-bogus/
Threats from himself?
Thanks, Kamala: ‘Trans’ Murderer Rewarded With Taxpayer-Funded Surgery.
h ttps://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2024/10/16/thanks-kamala-trans-murderer-rewarded-with-taxpayer-funded-surgery-n4933370
“A mentally ill murderer who brutally killed a couple to obtain the money for a transgender surgery achieved his goal, thanks to policies that now-presidential candidate Kamala Harris pushed. Democrats’ moral of the story: killing innocent people is the best way to fulfill your deranged dreams.
…
And we can lay the blame on Commie Kamala Harris, the Trans Fairy who makes murderers’ dreams come true. She still and more strongly than ever supports taxpayer funding of ‘transgender’ surgeries for criminals in jail and also for illegal aliens. … ”
****************
Border Patrol Threatens Mass Resignations If Harris Wins (and… The 16,000 members of the National Border Patrol Council, the union representing border patrol agents, endorsed Donald Trump on Tuesday.)
h ttps://pjmedia.com/rick-moran/2024/10/16/trump-receives-unanimous-endorsement-from-bord-patrol-union-n4933372
Comments are closed.