During the September 10 presidential debate, President Donald Trump correctly highlighted Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris’s support for gun confiscation. A visibly defensive Harris claimed, “We’re not taking anybody’s guns away. So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.”
Harris supports gun confiscation. Harris has repeatedly expressed support for a mandatory gun “buyback” program where Americans would be forced to turn over their firearms to the government for a set price – in other words: gun confiscation.
Here is Harris supporting gun confiscation, in her own words:
- At a September 2019 campaign event, Harris told reporters that confiscating commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms was “a good idea.” Elaborating on her support for a compulsory “buyback” program, Harris added, “We have to work out the details — there are a lot of details — but I do…We have to take those guns off the streets.”
(Sahil Kapur, Kamala Harris Supports Mandatory Buyback of Assault Weapons, Bloomberg, September 6, 2019)
- On the September 16, 2019 episode of “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” Harris reiterated her support for gun confiscation. During a question-and-answer session, an audience member asked Harris “Do you believe in the mandatory buyback of quote-unquote assault weapons and whether or not you do, how does that idea not go against fundamentally the Second Amendment?”
The candidate responded, “I do believe that we need to do buybacks.” Making clear that she believes Americans’ Second Amendment rights are for sale, Harris added “A buyback program is a good idea. Now we need to do it the right way. And part of that has to be, you know, buy back and give people their value, the financial value.”
(The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon, NBC, September 16, 2019, Watch the Video)
- On October 2, 2019, Harris called for gun confiscation during an MSNBC “gun safety forum.” During the event, Harris had the following exchange with MSNBC anchor Craig Melvin.
Melvin: As you know, the ‘94 assault weapons ban, it didn’t apply to weapons that were purchased before 1994. What would you do about the millions, specifically assault weapons, that are already in circulation? What do you do about those?”
Harris: Well, there are approximately 5 million, to your point Craig. We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory buyback program. It’s got to be smart, we got to do it the right way, but there are 5 million at least some estimate as many as 10 million and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets.
(2020 Gun Safety Forum, MSNBC, October 2, 2019, Watch the Video)
- On October 31, 2019, Harris called for gun confiscation at a public television candidates forum in Ankeny, Iowa. Responding to a question about gun control, Harris answered, “I support buybacks.” The forum moderator then asked Harris, “How mandatory is your gun buyback program?” Harris made clear, “It’s mandatory.”
(IPTV Presents Conversations with Presidential Candidates, Iowa PBS, October 31, 2019, Watch the Video)
I’m sick of the line about “taking guns off the street.” The vast majority of guns are not “on the street,” which is a term generally referring to mean “in the hands of criminals.” But the vast majority of guns are actually in the gun safes, gun cabinets, and otherwise in the homes of American citizens who obey the law, and will never commit a crime with their guns. Rather, these good citizens will use their guns recreationally, for competition, for hunting, and if ever needed, for defense of themselves and their families against criminals who are trying to do them great bodily harm, even murder them. But when politicians say they want to “take guns off the street,” where do they go? Right to law-abiding citizens, who are then punished, via punitive laws. Punished for the crimes committed–not by these law-abiding citizens–but by a tiny minority of criminals. Does it ever occur to politicians to, instead of punishing law-abiding citizens, to crack down on criminals? It doesn’t seem like it.
Well Mark, like pet owners it seems the left wing democrats have given their pets a cute name called ‘justice impacted individuals’. So like pet owners think, the left wing democrats also think their pets get some pampering so don’t expect them to recognize their pets are actually viscious animals that need to be locked up.
“Does it ever occur to politicians, instead of punishing law-abiding citizens, to crack down on criminals?”
No, they do not want to crack down on criminals. Their goal is, as I am sure you know, to criminalize good citizens, take their guns, and as far as is possible, create as many ‘gun free zones’ as possible.
Trump 2024 a Real Fighter. https://youtu.be/sr-EHcUPat4
If we had a mature Congress and SCOTUS CJ, these statements would be viewed as making her ineligible for office. She cannot take the oath of office without lying, and if she does not honestly take the oath of office, she is not eligible for the presidency, so the Chief Justice simply should refuse to give it to her, PERIOD. Secretaries of State should pull her from the ballot due to her self-stated ineligibility. They won’t of course, as we now are under authoritarian rule and the “pen and a phone” bullshit. But this broad MUST BE STOPPED.