Senator and vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris has made no secret of her willingness to strip Americans of their constitutional right to bear arms, but what does she really think about heavy firepower?
If a picture is worth a thousand words, then Harris appears to be fully in support of firearms that have so frequently been besmirched as “assault weapons” by the left, including Harris. Photos of Harris from a campaign event in Florida last week, showed the high profile politician surrounded by police officers, armed to the teeth with not just weapons, but what democrats call “weapons of war.”
This choice by Harris to allow herself to be in the presence of such weaponry is in stark juxtaposition to her official position, which is that they are a danger and a menace to society. Or so she would have you believe. In reality, it seems that the senator just wants only those under her direct command to have use of the weapons, not those pesky voters who are stuck on their rights.
“Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the Courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action,” she said during a CNN town hall according to The Western Journal.
“We need reasonable gun safety laws in this country, starting with universal background checks and a renewal of the assault weapon ban,” she added, according to The New York Times, “but they have failed to have the courage to act.”
Republicans and conservatives, in general, are painted as war-hungry hillbilly militia any time the desire to preserve the second amendment is brought into an area of the public arena. Its seen as unevolved to want to be the one that has the ability to bring the biggest gun to the gunfight, however, the progressives of today seem to have forgotten (or are willfully deleting) our colorful history of firearms.
It was the citizen’s right to carry arms that won us our freedom in the 1700s and it was our government’s adherence to the “biggest gun” policy that won again in World War II. But beyond the history that can be pointed to as the good reasons that a citizen might need a gun, just going back to “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” should remind Americans that they will no doubt suffer untold distress if they elect a presidential administration that doesn’t want to go by the rules that it wants its citizens to adhere to.
Harris made her position on the right to bear arms clear when she was running her own presidential campaign, and her stark opposition to it was overshadowed by some of her more flamboyant fellow candidates, such as by Beto O’Rourke’s “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.” However, her position was no less clear: only those under government control should carry big guns.
In addition, the far-left progressive vice presidential candidate has shown interest in defunding the police, also known as the people carrying the guns for her. She told “The View” in June of this year that “a big part of this conversation really is about reimagining how we do public safety in America, which I support,” according to the Western Journal.
A separate interview with The New York Times stated that Harris said, “Many cities in our country spend one-third of their entire budget on policing. With all the responsibilities those cities have, one-third on policing? Put it in the context of the fact that over the last many decades, we have essentially been defunding public schools. If anyone thinks that the way we’re going to cure these problems is by putting more police on the street, they’re wrong.”
Comments are closed.