Kamala Harris on Gun Control

Status
Not open for further replies.

SharpDog

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
3,203
Location
Tennessee
Kamala Harris: President Needs ‘Courage’ to Embrace Failed Gun Control Policies

TL;DR: She wants universal background checks and an assault weapons ban:

Democrat presidential hopeful Kamala Harris is bemoaning what she sees as President Trump’s lack of courage to push failed gun control policies.
Harris has two specific policies in mind–universal background checks and an “assault weapons” ban–both of which have been on the books in California for decades and neither of which have prevented the numerous high profile shootings witnessed there.

Whereas universal background checks have been a demonstrable failure in California, simple retail background checks have been a failure nationwide since 1998, at least as far as stopping mass shooters is concerned. Far from avoiding such checks in order to acquire guns, the vast majority of mass shooters during the past decade have simply avoided developing a criminal history, then walked into a gun store and passed a check for their firearm.

As for an “assault weapons” ban, mass shooters prefer handguns over AR-15s, AK-47s, and similar firearms by a margin of nearly three to one. And if we cast a more general look at murders in general, the Washington Post reported that 75 percent of all firearm murders since 1991 were committed with a handgun.

On February 19, 2018, Breitbart News reported the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice report showing the 1994 federal “assault weapons” ban could not be credited with any reduction in crime.

But Harris believes it is a show of “courage” to push universal background checks and an “assault weapons” ban.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-courage-embrace-failed-gun-control-policies/
 
What's new, she's an anti.

Yes and most 2020 candidates have the same position (or worse) but IMHO it's good to understand just what the alternatives are when we vote for our RKBA in 2020. There are some that will equivocate on this because their RKBA is not the most important issue to them. At least they can understand what they will be risking.

BTW, IMHO universal background checks is code for de-facto gun registration.
 
Kamala Harris' so-called "assault weapons ban" -- at least according to what she's said so far -- amounts to a ban on imports. Hardly any such weapons, including clones of foreign designs, such as the PTR-91, are imported. This is just one more of her carefully calibrated positions that are designed to look good to the Democratic base, but can be sold as "moderate" for the general election. This, like most of her proposals, is a nothingburger. An Eric Swalwell, she is not.
 
These are not her final objectives. Don't be fooled by words merely spoken to the press etc. She feigns moderation and anything else, in order to become a Presidential Candidate. And it is such correct thinking in California.

Her "views" are only the lukewarm start of what most politicians of "this type" actually want-first gun Registration, then the gradual elimination of private gun ownership.
Begin with a police interview (UK style), several expensive hours of classroom "gun theory" plus costly practical training (Germany requires both types of tng.) to merely buy a bolt-action rifle. Ludicrous obstacles at first, as huge tariffs are placed on ammo, which also would require a background check.

Handguns would gradually be made illegal, or only permitted for the very well-connected and wealthy. Look at the decades of this fact in NYC and Chicago.

Few politicians ever speak the truth about their views of gun issues, or with sincerity.
 
Last edited:
ANY infringement, ANY, is totally unacceptable.

If they want anything, they must give back something in return.

Ex: using harris’ proposal above. No go unless we get (just for example) National Constitutional Carry. Simply common sense negotiations.
 
Her "views" are only the lukewarm start of what most politicians of "this type" actually want- the gradual elimination of private gun ownership by way of one day having registration.

Few politicians ever speak the truth about their views of gun issues, or with sincerity.
I think you have it backwards. Politicians -- at least the successful ones -- respond to the public on issues like gun control, instead of leading the public. Democrat elected representatives are antigun because their constituents, in the states and gerrymandered districts that they come from, are demanding that from them.

On a national level, Democrats are in a bind. They have to pander to their antigun base in order to win primaries and get nominations. Then they have to be less antigun to win general elections. That's a tricky dance that they have to do.

Our problem is not with the politicians, but with the rank and file voters. Unfortunately, in many places, guns have been successfully demonized. And it wasn't the pols who did this.
 
If they want anything, they must give back something in return.

Ex: using Harris’ proposal above. No go unless we get (just for example) National Constitutional Carry. Simply common sense negotiations.
Sounds good in theory. Unfortunately, nobody is prepared to negotiate. Not the pro-gun side, and not the antigun side. (And if you dare suggest this kind of negotiation, you will be denounced as a sellout by your own side.) It's going to boil down to raw electoral power. Sad to say, our long-term prospects don't look good.
 
Kamala Harris' so-called "assault weapons ban" -- at least according to what she's said so far -- amounts to a ban on imports. Hardly any such weapons, including clones of foreign designs, such as the PTR-91, are imported. This is just one more of her carefully calibrated positions that are designed to look good to the Democratic base, but can be sold as "moderate" for the general election. This, like most of her proposals, is a nothingburger. An Eric Swalwell, she is not.

She supports and assault weapon ban but realizes it won’t pass Congress. She says she’ll use an executive order to ban the import of assault weapons.

I’d guess that every single candidate would be for both an assault weapon ban and universal background checks. I could be wrong but I’m not aware of any candidates with “sensible” gun control positions. Some of them are just more vocal about their uninformed views on guns.
 
I’d guess that every single candidate would be for both an assault weapon ban and universal background checks. I could be wrong but I’m not aware of any candidates with “sensible” gun control positions.
On the surface, yes, there seems to be an antigun consensus among the Democratic candidates. But if you drill down into the details, there's quite a bit of variation. Beto O'Rourke, for example, would ban the commercial sale of assault weapons, but would let current owners continue to use them "safely and responsibly." Elizabeth Warren doesn't want to adversely affect long-time gun collectors (meaning she wants grandfathering?). Amy Klobuchar seems to be appealing for the Fudd vote, asking of any gun control measure, “Would this hurt my Uncle Dick in the deer stand?” And so on.

One thing I have to say is that all this is going to look very different, on the Democratic side, once the nomination is wrapped up. The Democrats know that the election will come down to the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and/or the Sun Belt states of Florida and Arizona. Gun owners are a crucial voting bloc in all these states. The Dems can't afford to alienate these gun owners too much, and that's why they're going to fall strangely silent on the issue.
 
Last edited:
Beto O'Rourke, for example, would ban the commercial sale of assault weapons, but would let current owners continue to use them "safely and responsibly."
How generous of him to let me exercise my rights. And just what constitutes safely and responsibly? Only storing them and using them at government approved ranges when they allow me to do so? No thank you.

fall strangely silent on the issue.
A wolf would be wise not to howl among the lambs. That does not make him less of a wolf.
 
They cant beat us at the ballot box. Just make sure you're there.
Unbiased professional observers, like Charlie Cook, Larry Sabato, and Nate Silver, are listing Virginia in the Democratic column. It's not expected to be competitive.

I'm beginning to see an antigun hysteria starting to take hold in northern Virginia. All the local pols have jumped on the bandwagon.
 
Last edited:
In threads like this, someone always defends anti gun Democrats, and muddies the waters with guesses. They are antis, and have proven they want all of your guns, period. Vote for Dems who are not. That's tough these days unfortunately.

I do get tired of all the "That anti dem doesn't really want to take your guns, they are just pandering", because they have proven when the bill gets voted on, they vote for gun control.

If freedom and gun ownership (Same thing) is important to you, find liberals to vote for who are not anti gun, they're out there. Or conservatives, if that is your leaning.

Stop voting for anti gun politicians and pretending they are not, or will stop voting that way, or just hoping not enough antis get in to pass bad legislation.

Don't listen to the closet antis and sheep in wolfs clothing who patrol forums.
 
It may come down to a choice of politicians who are less antigun than others, and not a choice between those who are pro-gun versus those who are antigun. After all, we can't really say that even Trump is pro-gun. Yes, his rhetoric is pro-gun, but all his actions so far have been antigun. And even his vaunted Supreme Court picks have yet to deliver.
 
I think you have it backwards. Politicians -- at least the successful ones -- respond to the public on issues like gun control, instead of leading the public.

Harris has been successful in her career.

CA politicians like to spew that CA is "leading the nation" in XYZ hogwash hash tag public policy. Harris grew up in that environment.

Now, don't get me wrong. It's more of saying what people want to hear to create followers than it is actually leading.

But that's what's happening on the national circuit right now.

More threads have been started about Harris's position than all others combined.

Also, you mentioned that she has said ban AW 'imports'.

Do you really think that's what she meant?

Keep in mind.....she was CA's top lawyer.


Don't underestimate her. She calculating and canniving. Shes creating followers and she knows that the word 'imports' will easily dropped once the timing is right.
 
I just went through three “ background checks” to buy ammo at three different stores in the past two days.

It cost me an additional three bucks. I bought 3,500 .22 LR, 200 7.62x39 and 100 .223 rounds.

It was a total waste of time, my money and their energy; as this stupid exercise will not stop one murder, prevent one shooting or reduce crime one iota. It was simply the start of making firearm possession so onerous that I, and millions of other Ca gun owners, quit trying.

Do not think for one second that Kamala “I banged my way into office” Harris will support your right to purchase, own or shoot any firearm now or ever.

Stay informed and you’ll stay vigilant.
 
I think you have it backwards. Politicians -- at least the successful ones -- respond to the public on issues like gun control, instead of leading the public. Democrat elected representatives are antigun because their constituents, in the states and gerrymandered districts that they come from, are demanding that from them.

On a national level, Democrats are in a bind. They have to pander to their antigun base in order to win primaries and get nominations. Then they have to be less antigun to win general elections. That's a tricky dance that they have to do.

Our problem is not with the politicians, but with the rank and file voters. Unfortunately, in many places, guns have been successfully demonized. And it wasn't the pols who did this.

It is not enough to "follow" the sentiment of the voters. We have a Constitution and Bill of rights. At some point, real leaders have to say "no" to their followers because it violates a Constition al principle.

Now, of course, Ms. Harris doesn't believe assault weapon bans violate the 2nd amendment, and many liberals (and some of other persuasions) agree with her. That only shows how ill educated many Americans are.
 
No matter what they say, all of these communists that want want to be president have an identical position on guns. They want to ban all of them and disarm the country. Except for the criminals of course. They will pretend that they sort of support the second amendment a little bit with only a few little restrictions. But that is all a lie. They are trying to appease the mindless slobs that support them while at the same time trying to convince the slightly more rational that they only hate freedom a little bit. In the end, they are all the same.
 
Trump is an anti and has taken actual anti-2A steps and voiced very anti-2A sentiments.

All the dems are anti-gun, too.

Where’s my actual pro-gun choice?

We better be careful who we elect - Article 2 let’s the president do whatever he or she wants (sarcasm).
 
AlexanderA: Very good points. It seems to sometimes work both ways, as when vast masses of people echo media comments such as "Who Needs an AR-15?". Whether this idea was created by politicians or only the mainstream media isn't always clear to me.

After the FL high school massacre, even (fairly pro-gun) wives of some very pro-Sec. Amendment gun owners began to echo the media mantra "...an AR-15?". They asked this question once, then forgot about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top