Kamala Harris Seems Upset That GOP Is Saying Democrats Want To Ban Guns

Kamala is rated 7% by the NRA. She wants to do away with all private ownership of “assault rifles.” She supports massive restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. Democrats have stated that they want to take away the firearms from private citizens. They’ve openly talked about the “Australian solution”, the “UK solution,” the “New Zealand solution”

VP Harris tells the GOP to ‘stop pushing the false choice’ that ‘everybody’s trying to come after your guns’ after series of mass shootings

Vice President Kamala Harris told Republican leaders on Wednesday to stop spreading the “false choice” that “everybody’s trying to come after your guns.”

In an interview with “CBS This Morning” two days after a mass shooting in a King Soopers grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, that killed 10 people, Harris said that “it has to be possible that people agree that these slaughters have to stop.”

“And this is, again, reject the false choice of – and stop pushing it for sure – stop pushing the false choice that this means everybody’s trying to come after your guns,” she continued. “That is not what we’re talking about.” (snip)

The House of Representatives recently passed two bills that would close loopholes in the background-check system and make gun transfers between people without licenses illegal. One of the measures was supported by eight House Republicans.

What’s the false choice when Democrats say this is what they want? We could probably get some real solutions in place, but, we know that if Democrats get those two bills, plus a scary looking rifle ban (which never really worked last time), they’ll want more, especially when they make zero difference, because criminals don’t actually follow the law. And even Democrat moderates in the Senate are backing away from those bills

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence on Tuesday that Democrats were engaging in “ridiculous theater” and using mass shootings to take people’s guns away.

“Every time there’s a shooting, we play this ridiculous theater where this committee gets together and proposes a bunch of laws that would do nothing to stop these murders,” Cruz said. “What happens in this committee after every mass shooting is Democrats propose taking away guns from law-abiding citizens because that’s their political objective.”

Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, meanwhile, compared gun violence to drunk driving and gun owners to Muslims.

“We have a lot of drunk drivers in America that kill a lot of people. We ought to try to combat that too,” he said at the hearing. “The answer is not to get rid of all sober drivers. The answer is to concentrate on the problem.”

Why not go after the criminals who use firearms?

Is compromise possible? Republicans have gun control proposals too

“Thoughts and prayers alone are not enough. We need action,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said, echoing a line often used by Democrats after shooting tragedies. He called the House-passed bills “ridiculous theater” and said he and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, would reintroduce their own bill. They say their bill would target those trying to buy firearms who were banned from owning them by creating a federal task force to prosecute them. It would also allow for the hiring of more Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives (ATF) agents and implement other measures to strengthen existing gun laws. The bill received a majority vote when introduced in 2013 but did not meet the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

That’s because Democrats filibustered the bill. The same thing they want to scuttle. Why not enforce existing gun laws? I have zero problem with requiring a background check on every gun sale. Of course, what follows is Democrats pushing for gun registration, because that’s the only way to make sure, right? And they’ll want to know how many people have and where they are. No. Crack down on criminals.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

21 Responses to “Kamala Harris Seems Upset That GOP Is Saying Democrats Want To Ban Guns”

  1. drowningpuppies says:

    Why not go after the criminals who use firearms?

    What are you, a racist or something?

    Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    LOL. In 2012 a lunatic shot his way into Sandy Hook* elementary and slaughtered 20 six and seven year old children plus 6 other teachers and admins. As a nation we did absolutely nothing.

    So relax gun nuts. We will never do anything!

    The 2A guarantees your right to the firepower you imagine you need!

    *We understand that some on the far right consider this a hoax, but they’re idiots and a disgrace to humanity.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      LOL. In 2012 …

      Obama was President then so that Sandy Hook thing must have been his fault using Rimjob logic.

      Bwaha! Lolgfy https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • gitarcarver says:

      We get it. Your goal and the goal of others is to ban all weapons from being legally owned.

      Despite the fact that the CDC says guns are used somewhere between 500,000 – 3,000,0000 times a year legally for defense, (and that figure does not include brandishing) you want people to be unarmed and be robbed of the ability to defend themselves.

      You would rather support criminals than law abiding citizens.

      You would rather women be stalked and attacked than allow them to defend themselves. You would rather allow home invasions than allow people to defend themselves. We get it. You hate law abiding citizens.

      You yourself have claimed that you have weapons and yet will not get rid of them. Once again, the left won’t do what it demands others do.

      As to Sandy Hook, the fact of the matter is that the shooter was mentally in. Despite the fact there were laws on the book allowing for him to be at the very least evaluated, no one did that. Instead of strengthening laws on mental health issues and or allocating money to mental health issues in that state, politicians tried to make more laws that deprived people of their rights, and made more victims.

      We get it.

      The left hates freedom and the left hates law abiding citizens.

      Then again, all the left has is hate.

  3. Professor Hale says:

    “I have zero problem with requiring a background check on every gun sale”

    Camel’s nose. Slippery slope. Half a loaf, then another half, then another half. For democratic party, it is never enough. We may as well resist them now because we know they are not going to be satisfied with any small victory. The Democratic party is violently opposed to personal freedoms of any sort. You can’t have Utopia if people are free to opt out of it.

    Would you require a background check for a person to make his own gun? Firearms are 14th century technology. Any 7th grader can make one with supplies from Lowes. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of the Potato gun?

    Finally, even with full gun confiscation, and 100% compliant citizens, there are still plenty of guns available for anyone who wants one. Hint: The police will still have them.

    The starting point for reasonable gun control is repeal of the NFA in it’s entirely, abolish the BATFE, and enforce the full faith and credit clause for the acts of some states issuing firearms carry permits.

    • gitarcarver says:

      “I have zero problem with requiring a background check on every gun sale”

      Camel’s nose. Slippery slope.

      I am with Teach on this. I have zero issues as well.

      The problem, however, is not the background check. Gun owners should want to ensure that they are not selling weapons to people who are legally not able to have a weapon (felons, mentally ill, etc.) In fact the NRA and other gun rights groups have said as much. That is what they want as well.

      The problem is the data from that background check. The NICS system currently is supposed to delete all requests after issuing approval to the retail seller after a certain amount of time.

      If the government can assure people 1) that the current data has been deleted (including backups) and 2) subsequent data from private sales will be deleted as well, I have no problem with a background check. Such a deletion of data would eliminate any ability to create a Federal or state registry of gun ownership.

      I haven’t met or known a gun owner who given the idea that a private sale could have a background check and then the seller and buyer would be wiped away doesn’t support that idea.

      Law abiding gun owners want to be responsible not only in ownership, but is selling weapons. We need to come up with a system to do that.

      Whether anyone can, or will trust the Federal government to do so, is another story so I do understand the hesitation and reluctance.

      • Professor Hale says:

        Today the State of Virginia repealed their own death penalty for violent crimes. The state doesn’t even trust themselves when it comes to deciding matters of life or death, but police still carry lethal weapons to carry it out.

        Armed citizens are the logical response to state, federal and local police that you can no longer trust. I don’t trust them to not violate my civil rights, the most important of which is my right to self preservation. I certainly cannot trust them to protect me from violent criminals.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Absolutely, every American resident should be armed to defend themselves against state overreach in the form of local, state and federal police, not to mention for protection against petty criminals and mass murderers.

          According to gitarcarver there are some 3 million instances per year of residents using firearms to discourage crime.

          Among modern societies, the US has by far the highest murder rate. Imagine how bad it would be without all those 3 million interventions!! We’d be the murder capital of the globe.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            More Rimjob logic from St. Louis no doubt. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_wacko.gif

            Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • gitarcarver says:

            Absolutely, every American resident should be armed to defend themselves against state overreach in the form of local, state and federal police, not to mention for protection against petty criminals and mass murderers.

            We all know that you don’t believe this as you have stated since the first day that you started posting here that citizens should not have the right to bear arms.

            Secondly, this bit of rubbish from you shows a lack of understanding of rights and freedoms. If people want to exercise their rights, they should be able to.

            According to gitarcarver there are some 3 million instances per year of residents using firearms to discourage crime.

            As I said, the stat from the CDC is that guns are used in defense 500,000 – 3,000,000 times a year and that stat does not include brandishing a weapon.

            Still, what is your issue? That people have to use a weapon? Or that people should not have the right to defend themselves?

            Among modern societies, the US has by far the highest murder rate.

            Which is an indication of how the left has taught people that lives have no value and that people can have and take what they want.

            Once again, we get it. You’d rather have 3,000,000 more victims amongst law abiding citizens because you hate the people in this country.

            After all, all the left has is hate.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        All gitarcarver has are lies and BS.

        We called the Sandy Hook murderer a lunatic, you lunatic.

        Like we said, America did nothing after Sandy Hook, so we’ll do nothing now. Our “freedoms” demand we do nothing. Who decides if a citizen is “too crazy” to no longer have 2A rights?

        20 dead children is a small price to pay for freedom. Except maybe if it’s your child. If we can’t protect innocent children we can protect no one.

        The only way to stop a bad guy with an AR-15 is a good guy with a fully automatic machine gun. Why aren’t you advocating machine guns which are effectively illegal, in violation of your 2A rights?

        If you’re going to allow the bad guys to have semi-auto weapons of war, don’t the good guys deserve a fully auto? Don’t we have a 2A right to have a machine gun!?! Why do we tolerate such dictatorial oppression?

        In case gitarcarver is unfamiliar with it, here’s the text: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        No age limits, no reference to mental illness, no reference to type or number of Arms, no reference to felons. Some of our so-called “freedom”-loving co-citizens want to limit the rights of others. Why shouldn’t a 7th grader carry a pistol to school to discourage bullies? Why can’t someone not in touch with reality carry a AR-15 everywhere he goes?

        So it begins. This week, a Patriot entered a Publix in Atlanta carrying 4 pistols and 2 long guns and wearing tactical gear, and the police grabbed him as he left the rest room! What crime had he committed?? The 2nd Amendment doesn’t mention the number of firearms you can have OR where you can have them, including schools, grocery stores, churches etc. Are those signs on businesses saying guns are not allowed a violation of your rights?? Can anyone point out where the 2A mentions background checks?

        We get it. gitarcraver doesn’t believe in freedom at all!

        8 years of Obama and we kept our guns. 60+ days of Biden/Harris and we’ve kept our guns.

        We should do the right thing and eliminate ALL firearms restrictions as our Founding Fathers intended.

        If you can take away god-given rights based on any whim a gitarcarver has, where will it stop?

        If someone is guilty of defamation he doesn’t lose his free speech rights!

        • drowningpuppies says:

          More Rimjob logic. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_wacko.gif

          Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

        • gitarcarver says:

          We called the Sandy Hook murderer a lunatic, you lunatic.

          Right off the bat, you start with the name calling.

          Like we said, America did nothing after Sandy Hook, so we’ll do nothing now.

          I get it. You think that people should not have the rights to defend themselves. However, the Sandy Hook shooter was known to be mentally unstable and laws prevented him having access to weapons. Conservatives want those laws enforced. People on the left want to take away freedoms and rights.

          In case gitarcarver is unfamiliar with it, here’s the text: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

          That’s correct. But even the founding fathers and the those who influenced them knew that no right is an absolute. The same principle applies to speech in that not all speech is allowed. There is a huge difference between some restrictions and what you want, which is the right of self-defense to be eliminated.

          8 years of Obama and we kept our guns. 60+ days of Biden/Harris and we’ve kept our guns.

          So you refuse to give up your guns as you demand others do.

          Secondly, we have seen the erosion of rights such as magazine capacity, etc from the left. That would be akin to saying “we don’t like what this person puts on a canvas, so we are going to ban paints.

          If you can take away god-given rights based on any whim a gitarcarver has, where will it stop?

          Projecting again? With the left, it is always projection. I am the one in this conversation trying to protect the rights of law abiding citizens and you are the one trying to take them away.

          Oh sorry….you want to protect the rights of criminals such as rapists to keep their weapons.

          If someone is guilty of defamation he doesn’t lose his free speech rights!

          First, defamation is not a crime – it is a civil offense. Secondly, courts can and do restrict the speech activities of people based upon convictions.

          Once again, wrong on the facts and wrong on the law.

          We all get it. You hate freedoms and rights.

          After all, all the left has is hate.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Why do you want keep me from protecting myself with a fully auto rifle? If an Oath Keeper strolls into Kroger with their Faxon FX I need to be ready with my M4A1 for protection. I also want a sawed off Kalashnikov USA KS12 semi-auto 12g with a magazine. I’d carry both at all times.

            “shall not be infringed”… Remember?

            Sounds to me as if you want American freedoms to stop with you!

            Now you’re even advocating leftist background checks (i.e., gun registration)!! Won’t that lead Biden/Harris to your door?? And probing background checks just might make some gunseekers reluctant to exercise the 2nd Amendment right. How many people will die from not being able to defend themselves because of your intrusive background checks?

            Like a good little leftist you want to arbitrarily pick and choose who has 2nd Amendment rights.

            “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

            What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

            You want to take 2nd Amendment rights away from those who have committed no crime but whom you deem mentally ill.

            Why do you hate the 2nd Amendment and the right of Americans to defend themselves?

  4. Kye says:

    Biden administration will tell Supreme Court that police can confiscate guns from homes without a warrant (msn.com).

    Nazi fascists just like I said.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Actually thought it was a joke on reading your comment but it’s not.
      The Joey/VeepThroat maladministration is a actually arguing that very thing. (Note: The plaintiff is white.)

      Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • gitarcarver says:

      This is a “community caretaking” case that has been the discussion on many fronts.

      One of the most striking things is the lack of agreement on the facts.

      1) Plaintiff says that during the initial incident / fight with his wife, he slid an unloaded gun across the table saying “why don’t you just shoot me now?” Plaintiff’s wife said she told the police on separate interviews the gun was unloaded and also said the thought the gun was unloaded, but wasn’t sure.

      2) When interviewing the plaintiff on the back porch, two officers said he was calm and cooperative. A third officer said the plaintiff was agitated and uncooperative. It was the third officer that initiated the entry into the home.

      3) Plaintiff said he agreed to go to the hospital if and only if his guns would not be seized. The police deny saying that.

      4) Police asked the wife where the second weapon was, and she told them after, according to her, the police said the plaintiff had agreed to the confiscation of the weapons. The police said they made no such statement.

      The disagreements don’t factor into the analysis of the case which is the expansion of the “community caretaking” standard.

      The Biden administration is arguing against precedent. It is also arguing against the idea that when law enforcement can get a warrant, they should. There was no pressing time constraint in searching the home. No crime had been committed. Even if one wants to say the police were looking out for the community or the health of the petitioner, all that goes away when the petitioner is discharged after a basic psych eval not admitted to the hospital and the police would not return the weapons.

      Can law enforcement enter a home without a warrant on the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment which previous cases have only applied to cars and specifically barred homes within the exception? That’s the question in this case.

  5. Kye says:

    This is a tad lengthy but I guarantee it’s worth the read. Not only that but so are the comments.

    This is the demofascist game. And why we either become American or die.

    https://theworthyhouse.com/2021/02/23/on-the-brawndo-tyranny/

  6. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Why do people who can think and have sound logic (otherwise known as conservatives) rebuke further laws controlling or taking guns or even do not desire further background checks.

    The answer is that we do not trust our own government. The stolen presidential election, the over reaction and media hoax involving COVID, the inability of policing organizations to do their jobs, the complete and total failure of the FBI, the destruction of our major cities by minorities and the collaboration of Dem politicians, the efforts of Dem politicians to not reform the police but to eliminate them.

    Now more than ever we need weapons, the more like military weapons the better. Most people I know are gearing for war and you are not on the right side.

  7. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Even more oppression of Patriots by Demofascists. Bryan Carroll visited the U of Kentucky Hospital in body armor and firearms and the police arrested him. Americans can no longer protect themselves under Biden/Harris tyranny.

    How much longer will Patriots tolerate this targeted abuse by the Demofascist, militarizes Stasi, Deep State, Biden/Harris tyrants. If you wait too long they’ll have us all in chains!!

    Mr Trump has been beaten down by the system so a new leader is needed.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10890 access attempts in the last 7 days.