Kamala Harris Admits Her Hypocrisy About Guns

22
1650

A recent statement by Kamala Harris shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who is aware of her past.

See, Harris likes to present herself as a “woke” leftist and anti-gunner, but it looks like she’ll say whatever she thinks will get her elected even though she’s a complete hypocrite about it.

Her recent statement about gun ownership is a perfect example of this hypocrisy. Harris has been putting herself out there on the campaign trail as someone who wants to strip the entire country of our Second Amendment rights. She said that because she thought that it would get her elected, but, in this case, at least, she actually means to do it.

Advertisement

But that doesn’t stop her from owning a firearm herself. It’s another example of anti-gunner “guns for our protection, but not for you” hypocrisy. Kyung Lah writes,

Sen. Kamala Harris, whose stump speech includes impassioned calls for banning assault weapons and universal background checks, put it very simply: Yes, she owns a firearm.

“I am a gun owner, and I own a gun for probably the reason a lot of people do – for personal safety,” the California Democrat said Thursday. “I was a career prosecutor.”

The weight of that phrase was a reminder of the personal risk Harris has faced in her career in law enforcement, from being an Alameda County criminal prosecutor, San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general.

A Harris campaign aide said the weapon she owns is a handgun, which she keeps locked up, as a responsible gun owner. According to the aide, the handgun was purchased years ago.

Lah’s CNN article quoted above immediately tries to go into spin mode to make it okay for Harris but not for little people like little people which is what we’ve come to expect from CNN and Harris both.

More typical anti-gunner hypocrisy.

Advertisement

22 COMMENTS

  1. freaky harris (Nor Biden) san correctly spell the word gun let alone discuss them intelligently. Nasty witch.

  2. Well her and Dianne Feinstein have something in common. Their both hypocrites who own guns and think others should’ve denied the same rights . Another Democratic example of do as I say not as I do.

      • And all the soldiers that carry evil assault weapons, handguns, wear body armor… You know all the things we are not allowed in Democrat bizzarro world. Once the rulers give up all their security, only then can they even talk about “reasonable” gun laws. They can never take any “arms” the Second Amendment is very clear on that…

    • DiFi famously gave up her .38 snubby many years ago and had it melted down, at the time she was calling for much stricter gun control. She has armed security; she doesn’t need a gun.

  3. Her hypocrisy doesn’t surprise me in the least. It is clear that when it come to firearms, all these democrat politicians and so-called elites believe that only they should be afforded the rights and protections that the 2nd Amendment provides. As to average citizens? We are worthy enough to keep and bear arms to hunt, much less keep to protect ourselves, our family or our property with.

    • During the campaign Tulsi Gabbard tore her up about sending so many blacks to prison for marijuana while Harris herself was smoking it. Also about keeping people she had proof that they were innocent in prison just so the state would have more cheap labor. Harris dropped out of the race shortly after.

      • She also only received less than 3% of the votes needed to remain in the hunt for the Democratic nomination. More importantly, she also accused her current boss to be a racist and rapist before dropping out of the presidential race. I hear she got where she is by doing whatever it takes to get elected (keeping the method under covers). She has been prostituting herself throughout her entire career.

  4. Don’t be deceived. Leftists don’t really want to ban firearms. They want only to relieve you of yours while these social predators retain theirs.
    Now that they have corrupted and dominate our federal government by unopposed sedition and subversion Leftist enemies of our humanity, like the hollowed out unelected and geriatric case illegitimately occupying our nation’s White House at the moment, want to ban civilian firearms so only they them and are thereby unimpeded in using theirs to dominate you.

  5. A HARRIS CAMPAIGN AIDE SAID THE WEAPON SHE OWNS IS A HANDGUN, WHICH SHE KEEPS LOCKED UP, AS A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER. ACCORDING TO THE AIDE, THE HANDGUN WAS PURCHASED YEARS AGO.

    I’ll bet Caramella keeps it locked up on a body belt/holster or hidden under her breast.
    Any takers?

  6. A HARRIS CAMPAIGN AIDE SAID THE WEAPON SHE OWNS IS A HANDGUN, WHICH SHE KEEPS LOCKED UP, AS A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER. ACCORDING TO THE AIDE, THE HANDGUN WAS PURCHASED YEARS AGO.
    I’ll bet Harris keeps it locked up with a body holster or hidden under her shirt somewhere.
    Any takers?

  7. Quote: “A HARRIS CAMPAIGN AIDE SAID THE WEAPON SHE OWNS IS A HANDGUN, WHICH SHE KEEPS LOCKED UP, AS A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER.” Quote: “I AM A GUN OWNER, AND I OWN A GUN FOR PROBABLY THE REASON A LOT OF PEOPLE DO – FOR PERSONAL SAFETY,” At least one of these statements is a lie. A gun owned for personal safety that is kept locked up does not protect any one.

  8. Un-overturned supreme Court cases on Natural-born citizens
    (What court supersedes the supreme Court?)
    ===============================================
    The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
    “The native or indigenes are those born in this country of parents who are citizens
    results: Kamala’s parents were not citizens.
    ————————————————————————————–
    Shanks v. Dopont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
    …for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.
    result: U.S. not the country of Kamala’ father.
    —————————————————————————————
    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
    At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were native, or natural born citizens.
    result: Kamala not a natural born citizen of the U.S.
    —————————————————————————————-
    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
    (same quote as Minor v. Happersett)
    On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country, (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies, etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term natural born citizen.
    result: Kamala is still not a natural born citizen of the U.S.
    ———————————————————————————————-
    Mixed allegiances are an unnecessary threat. That’s why the founders created a special class of citizen exclusively for the qualification of president of the United States

    • Sounds like the exact argument that everyone tried with Obama..listen I dislike her as much as anyone else, but she was born in Oakland. Regardless if her parents were citizens or not, “natural born citizen” is anyone born in this country. Hints the term “anchor babies” where people from Mexico come over to have their baby (the baby is a citizen so the family stays in the country to take care of it). Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship (unless born to a person serving in a foreign army on US soil or political position located in the United States like at an embassy for example). So she is a natural born citizen as it pertains to the 14th amendment and therefore qualifies to be vice president

  9. A locked up handgun does no one any good. Does she think an intruder will wait for her to load it or take the trigger guard off if it? I guarantee you if the intruder is armed his gun is loaded. I know,I know. It’s so a child doesn’t get ahold of it. So then why have it? Train and teach your children the danger of unsafe handling of firearms. Take them to the range so they understand the power that the hand gun possesses. Then teach them how to safely handle a firearm. Now if they’re too young for that then it won’t be hard to keep the gun out of their reach. My father started me on a BB gun at 4 years old and a long gun at 8 years old and I never,NEVER would’ve thought of simply getting a gun out to play with it. I knew better because my dad took the time to teach me,train me and I can confidently say,I know everything there is to know about how to safely handle any firearm and have never even come close to having an accident or mishap of any sort. So children or no children,own a gun. I own several and I have two boys who also have been taught well how to safely handle any firearm. Just like me,they were taught to respect the power and take owning a gun very seriously. And they damn sure never thought of shooting up a classroom and neither did my entire generation. Guns don’t do any damage unless there is a human finger on the trigger. My guns don’t load themselves and they damn sure don’t shoot themselves. So it all boils down to if you’re going to own a firearm and you’re a parent,be a better parent and these school shootings and other mishaps won’t happen. And leave the law abiding gun owner alone. We aren’t out shooting people and breaking the law. No matter how many laws they pass the criminal won’t follow them and all that’s going to end up happening is the honest individual is going to be left unprotected against the armed criminals who don’t do background checks or buy their guns at the local sporting goods store. It’s ludicrous to think more laws will deter crime. The crime rate will rise if nothing else. Chicago-strictest gun laws in the country has the highest rate of gun crime in the nation. Politicians and their version of gun control only hurts the honest law abiding citizen. Period.

  10. Didn’t she take an Oath of office to Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States when she took office? Is she already trying to violate that oath? Impeach her and her flunkies’, Biden, Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, and a few other crooked politicians before they destroy this great country of ours.

  11. Are the criminals running the Democratic Party? Do you trust a criminal? Do you trust the Democratic party to run our government?

Comments are closed.