Kamala Harris often emphasizes that she is a gun owner in an effort to convince voters that she is not opposed to the Second Amendment. During an interview with Oprah Winfrey, she even laughed and said that anyone who invaded her home would “get shot.” (Does this standard also apply to invading countries?) But her Dirty Harry routine won't work for everyone. Consider an MSN commenter I recently featured as a Comment of the Day.
“She is a gun owner,” the man wrote. “So did Stalin, Hitler, Saddam. Naturally, gun control didn't apply to them, and they made sure of that.”
Evidence has now emerged that Mr. Harris also believes that “guns are for me, not you.”
So nearly 20 years ago, the now Democratic presidential candidate sponsored a measure to confiscate the handguns of San Francisco residents.
The measure was so extreme that even then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a notorious gun control advocate, balked.
Harris also advocated for gun confiscation in 2019, when she was running for the Democratic presidential nomination. These are just a few examples of why this politician ranks as the most left-wing senator of 2019. Note that this also means she is left behind by Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont), the only avowed socialist in the Senate. (Harris has since flipped many of the positions that earned her that ranking. Political ambition can work wonders, at least temporarily.)
Harris 1.0, Harris 2.0, and…what’s next?
The New York Post reported on Harris' handgun seizure efforts, writing:
Vice President Kamala Harris has publicly identified herself as a gun owner during her past two White House bids.
But nearly 20 years ago, even some prominent gun control advocates became wary when the San Francisco district attorney at the time supported a gun confiscation measure.
The San Jose Mercury News reported at the time that Harris was listed as a sponsor of Proposition H, which would ban San Francisco residents from owning, distributing or manufacturing handguns.
“San Francisco is trying to protect the local level of gun control proposals,” said California attorney Chuck Michel, who represented the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups in the challenge. “(Harris) never encountered a gun control law that she didn't like.” I informed Reload of the countermeasures…
Harris, 59, does not appear to have spoken out extensively about the bill. The measure was approved by San Francisco voters on Election Day 2005, but was struck down by a state court before it could take effect.
If enacted, the bill would exempt certain professions, such as law enforcement (and influential left-wing politicians?), and give residents four months to surrender their weapons.
power grabber and gun grabber
This hostility to the Second Amendment is a pattern echoed by Harris. As the Washington Examiner wrote on Friday,
Authoritarian impulses have always been part of Harris' gun control worldview. During the 2020 primaries, she boasted that as president she would give Congress 100 days to pass any gun control legislation she wanted. If Congress refuses, Harris said she would enforce it through executive order. This is not a twisted interpretation of the vague promise she made. She actually said that on national television. “If elected, I will give Congress 100 days to get its act together and find the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. If Congress fails to do so, I will take executive action,” Harris said.
Similar to the constant questions asked of Ms. Harris: Was she lying in the 2019 primary when she was trying to position herself as the most left-wing Democrat, or was she lying now as a centrist Democrat? Was he lying when he was trying to portray it?
If you still don't know the answer, consider this great article courtesy of Fox News.
As San Francisco's district attorney, Kamala Harris will require legal gun owners in her area to ensure that authorities “enter” their homes and ensure that their firearms are properly stored under a new law she helped author. He said there is a possibility of testing to see if the situation is true.
“We're going to ask everyone in our community to act responsibly. Just because a person legally owns a gun in the sacred confines of a locked home doesn't mean we can enter that home and carry a gun.” 'It doesn't mean we don't check to see if there's.' You're doing your job responsibly and safely,' Harris told reporters in May 2007.
Still proposing bad gun policies
In reality, Harris hasn't changed. She's just massaging her message to improve her electoral chances. Consider how she supports so-called “assault weapons bans” that trample on freedom without reducing crime in the slightest. reason?
“Assault weapon” is a propaganda term. The firearm in question is simply a semi-automatic rifle. (That is, one bullet is fired each time the trigger is pulled.) Most importantly, the FBI recommends that “personal weapons, defined as hand, fist, or foot weapons, are preferred over rifles of any kind.” is being used to commit more murders. In other words, imagine if you could somehow remove all the long guns, often referred to as “assault weapons,” from the streets. We won't even be able to move the needle on the murder rate.
This also raises questions. The Post also reported that Harris “has dodged repeated questions about whether she wants to ban handguns.” And it comes across. Additionally, fake “assault weapons” are rarely used in murders. Handguns are used in 59% of gun homicides. So if Ms. Harris wants to ban the former, why doesn't she also ban the latter, given her full powers?
So who should we believe, the Harris who came to power or the Harris who campaigned? The late poet Maya Angelou, a person she claims to absolutely admire, long ago provided the answer. It was given to me.
“Believe someone only when they show you who they really are,” she warned.
