At a town hall event on October 21 in Royal Oak, Michigan, Democrat presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris was asked how she would make “impactful and immediate progress around gun violence” if she was elected with a Republican majority in Congress.
In her by-now classic “word salad” style, Harris responded that she thinks of the issue “through the lens of many experiences,” then touched upon the “direct trauma for those who have been directly affected by gun violence,” and ended up at “the macropoint” – namely, the “false choice” between thinking that one is either in favor of the Second Amendment or that “you want to take everyone’s guns away.” She offered herself as living proof of this “macropoint” because she’s not only a gun owner “in favor of the Second Amendment,” but believes in “assault weapons bans, red flag laws, universal background checks” and other “common sense gun safety laws.”
It was made obvious at the start of the October 21 event that it was tightly scripted. Moderator Maria Shriver told an audience member that only questions that had been “predetermined” would be permitted, with no spontaneous questions from the floor. Even within this forced and stilted setup, Harris fell flat. It took her until the last few seconds of the over five-minute exchange to actually deal with the question. “We need common sense gun safety laws and I will continue, I’ve done it throughout my career, work with all of our colleagues across the aisle and I know that we can make progress,” she said, “but I’m not trying to take anyone’s guns away from them.”
The explanation for Harris’ emphatic new identity as a gun enthusiast and supporter of constitutional freedoms is that she is struggling to put her past under wraps, a past in which she wholeheartedly embraced extreme gun bans and confiscation, and which has now come back to haunt her.
Harris supported a 2005 ballot measure, known as Proposition H, to strip San Francisco residents of their right to self-defense.
“The measure banned San Francisco residents from buying, selling, or even possessing handguns.” https://t.co/1f0a4vDpIA
— NRA (@NRA) October 28, 2024
A recent news article alleges that Kamala Harris circa 2006 suggested it would be “great” to ban all gun ownership. Harris, then the district attorney of San Francisco, was speaking at an event where she was asked about guns, carrying guns and gun bans: “Is there any justification for anyone to carry a gun, except for law enforcement? And why not ban them completely in the city?” Harris appeared to agree: “yeah, and it would be great to end world hunger and a couple of other things, too. Are we going to really be able to get rid of people owning and possessing guns? I don’t know. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to that right now. So I would not put all my effort into that as being the solution, because I think it’s a long way off.” Notably, this earlier version of Harris didn’t mention her staunch support of the Second Amendment or completely disclaim the idea of gun confiscation – as she does now – but instead, responded that getting rid of people owning guns was not immediately feasible.
Kamala Harris Once Suggested It ‘Would Be Great’ To Ban All Gun Ownershiphttps://t.co/9qtOWty4yT pic.twitter.com/Y8dYI1cHQV
— Washington Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) October 22, 2024
In case there’s any doubt as to what Harris meant, it is worth remembering that she was listed as a sponsor of a 2005 ballot measure that banned possessing, distributing or manufacturing handguns in San Francisco, with a mandatory confiscation provision (residents who possessed guns were required to surrender their guns to law enforcement within 90 days of the law’s effective date or face criminal penalties). The measure was invalidated after the NRA and other gun rights groups succeeded in a court challenge.
One could argue that Harris has since evolved in her beliefs and now views the issue through the lens of many experiences. However, as a candidate for the 2020 Democrat presidential nomination, Harris repeatedly voiced her support for outlawing and confiscating commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. A CNN article from that time (Democrats have spent years denying they’ll take people’s guns. Not anymore) noted that until then, Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had made a point of expressing support for the Second Amendment and repudiating the idea of gun confiscation, even as they demanded more gun control. By 2019, with three candidates, including Harris, openly in favor of mandatory gun confiscation, it was “a turning point for Democrats.”
In truth, Harris, like at least one other failed competitor in that race, has now found it expedient to refashion her progressive policies into a more mainstream-friendly “what can be, unburdened by what has been.” In 2019, Democrat presidential candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke famously announced, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47…!,” and then, like Harris, did a complete about-face when his gun-grabbing backfired and proved to be a political liability. In his subsequent run as a gubernatorial candidate in pro-gun Texas, “Hell Yes” Beto dialed it all the way back to, “I’m not interested in taking anything from anyone. What I want to make sure that we do is defend the Second Amendment. ” As it happens, Beto’s attempt to rebrand on guns at the expense of his credibility bombed with voters, and by late 2022, having lost three races in four years, a Texas newspaper speculated that O’Rourke’s political career was over.
As Harris strives to convince America that yep, she’s really okay with people owning and possessing guns, she faces the possibility that even voters who may not find her gun control policies (new or old) a total deal-breaker will nonetheless view her flip-flopping, bet-hedging, question-dodging, and incomprehensible homilies as phoniness, a neglect to master the election issues, and a lack of integrity. A Democratic strategist summarized the problem as no record, no transparent agenda and “no sense of character about her.” There isn’t “anything about her record that is particularly impressive, and … more generally what we are seeing in the polls is that voters are beginning to understand that there is really no there there with Kamala Harris,” he said. “There doesn’t appear to be any overarching argument she can make other than… ‘whatever positions I have taken that are unpopular, I am only too happy to alter to fit the political climate.’”
“what can be, unburdened by what has been.”
There is a reason Harris used the phrase “What can be, unburdened by what has been”.
Its a loose translation of what Karl Marx wrote, and means … ‘you have to wipe out the old to arrive in the new’, or to paraphrase it in Marx concept that has been used by every tyrant in history … “Try doing something with complete disregard for history.” (meaning do away with the history of freedom and dominate by tyranny). Its a Marx….ist-Leninist-Maoist concept ideology ‘plan piece’ for communism used to shift a society from freedom into a submissive dominated Marx….ist Socia—list commu- nism type of state.
AOC keeps using the phrase “we have a world to win” which comes from the end of the communist manifesto originally written in German.
Kamala is literally telling you what she is and wants to do with that phrase “what can be, unburdened by what has been.” she dreams of a submissive dominated Marx….ist Socia—list commu- nism type of state over which she is its tyrannical ruler.
Something else that tells us who Kamala is…
Kamala Harris, the Califorina AG who championed slave ownership.
While Harris was California’s AG in 2014, attorneys representing California inmates argued the state was slow to comply with a court order, which said non-violent repeat offenders were to be eligible for parole (meaning in this case release) after serving half their sentence to reduce overcrowding. This order meant that people to which this applied were legally free people, but the problem was they were still being held in a state of custody (illegal custody and not given ‘parole’ – e.g. their freedom, not a parole hearing thing – because of the court order) at the direction of AG Harris while arguments could be made in court to keep them in custody.
Harris’ office countered that allowing some offenders out of prison so quickly would hurt their labor programs – specifically, one that allowed certain prisoners to fight wildfires.
In violation of a court order these people were held in state custody, with Harris knowingly violating the order and at her direction to argue against the release. Now granted, the argument against the release was insane and Harris did direct her lawyers not to make that specific argument again (even though it was true because this is what those illegally captive people were being used for) …but the fact remains that Harris willfully and knowingly violated the court order (to argue against the release) thus intentionally and knowingly held people in illegal captivity for the purpose of forced labor or in other words what is known as slavery.
I was raised in the middle class.