Kamala: Banning ‘Assault Weapons’ is Consistent With the Second Amendment [VIDEO]

Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris has been all over the board on guns. Well, mostly on the side of outlawing or confiscating them. Back in 2020, she openly advocated a federal “mandatory buyback” of “assault weapons.” In case you’re unclear, “mandatory buyback” is campaign speak for minimally compensated confiscation.

Now that she’s been thrust into running again with senescent Joe safely relegated to whatever it is he’s doing these days, un-named campaign operatives claim she’s changed her mind on the whole confiscation thing and she no longer thinks it’s a good idea. If you believe she wouldn’t sign a mandatory buyback bill into law within seven seconds of it hitting the Resolute Desk, I have a slightly used floating cargo pier I’d like to talk to you about.

Whatever her position on confiscation was or is (have you heard she owns a gun?!?), she’s actually been very consistent on her position regarding sales of new “assault weapons.” To wit: she wants an outright ban.

To be clear she wants a re-run of the failed Clinton “assault weapons” ban. Harris seems to think that when it comes to outlawing the sale of scary rifles, much like socialism, it’s not that the idea itself that’s faulty, it’s just the implementation. The Clinton ban was a great idea, it just wasn’t done well. Or something.

She made that clear in a disturbingly meandering interview yesterday, the first actual one-on-one sit-down she’s done since shoving Biden to the curb.

Because, you see, she says “they’re literally tools of war.” Well maybe, but so are all of these . . .

weapons of war

As for the constitutionality of banning “assault weapons,” good luck with that, Ms. Harris. There’s literally no text, history, or tradition in this country of banning civilian possession of firearms that have been actual weapons of war, let alone “high capacity” magazines. And now, with Bruen the law of the land, we’d be very surprised if an “assault weapons” ban passes muster with the Supreme Court if and when a case makes it that far.

Like most gun banners, Harris has literally no idea what she’s talking about when it comes to firearms, gun rights and the constitution. Like most gun banners, all she cares about is the tactical gesture of sticking it to her political opponents. Like most gun banners, making a material difference in reducing violent crime or saving lives isn’t even a consideration for her. Like most gun banners, she wants the average citizen to be disarmed and totally dependent on government for their self-defense.

Like most gun banners, it’s all about exerting control for Harris. That’s all that really matters.

And so it goes.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

6 thoughts on “Kamala: Banning ‘Assault Weapons’ is Consistent With the Second Amendment [VIDEO]”

  1. If we’re going to go down the “weapons of war” road we have to include sticks, stones, fists back in the day and of course the written word and today any computer device and the Internet as a whole.

    These are all literally “weapons of war.”

  2. Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR

    “There’s literally no text, history, or tradition in this country of banning civilian possession of firearms that have been actual weapons of war, let alone “high capacity” magazines.”

    In that case, re-open the select-fire registry…

  3. she’s from
    california, where multiple federal judges have held an assault weapons ban is consistent with the second amendment. in fact, many semi-autos are banned in the nation’s most populous state. not saying this is good, just saying it has passed muster in federal court and im not seeing the supreme court taking action to stop these gun bans.

    1. Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR

      “…just saying it has passed muster in federal court and im not seeing the supreme court taking action to stop these gun bans.”

      They can’t do everything at once, I’m confident they will get around to it sooner, not later.

      We have a huge one about to be heard in about 2 months, the ’80 percent Frames and Receivers case…

  4. But she said she wasn’t going to take anyone’s gun! Oh, I get it. She just says whatever she thinks wins her the moment without regard to honesty, like that Miner fella.

    “I have a slightly used floating cargo pier I’d like to talk to you about.”

    Add up everything the Puppet-Harris Admin has spent on funding war and war relief. Now add that to everything spent on illegal immigration. Now tell me how many cancer treatments that would pay for. The “give me healthcare” Dems are a joke. They get played every time.

Scroll to Top