🤑 ⏳ Last chance to grab those Amazon Prime Deals! (Don’t miss out—click here to check them out!) 🛒✨

Kamala Harris Says She Has a Glock, but Many Glocks Are Barred in California by a Law She Supported

Last edited:
Kamala Harris says she owns a Glock despite supporting handgun bans in SF, prompting speculation it’s unregistered
Aren’t yall still speculating that she is an alien from Pluto? Why would anybody care what a bunch of kooks speculate about?
 
On what grounds is she going to confiscate lawfully held firearms and how exactly is she allegedly going to achieve this?

Our gun laws are enforced at the state level so are you claiming that she's going to personally push through a law to confiscate every known lawfully owned firearm in the country? Again, on what grounds?

There are plenty of groups who have and still are pushing an agenda to get gun "crime" categorized as a public health crisis. Is she doing that?

If not, what SPECIFICALLY is she doing that leads reasonable people to believe that she is planning a LAWFUL gun confiscation law and then event.

I don't agree with Red Flag laws because in my opinion, they by-pass the due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and tack it on after the fact in the form of a "hearing" but after the citizen has already been deprived of his "...life, freedom or property" in violation of the same

A Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibit the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the federal and state governments, respectively, without due process of law.​

Kamala will do it by Executive Order, never mind the legalities.

That's the way the D's do it.

That's what Sleepy Joe did as far as his scheme to transfer student loans to the taxpayers. And even after the courts slapped him down, he continues to try again and again.
 
Kamala will do it by Executive Order, never mind the legalities.

That's the way the D's do it.

That's what Sleepy Joe did as far as his scheme to transfer student loans to the taxpayers. And even after the courts slapped him down, he continues to try again and again.
So she's going to use legal means to do something that is blatantly unconstitutional?

Well I guess after the SCOTUS's latest ruling giving POTUS virtually unlimited immunity in his or her official presidential actions, I guess that could be argued to be a real possibility.

Probably wasn't want Roberts had in mind when he led that charge, but whatever. I try my best not to worry about things until necessary after having prepared to the best of my abilities. That's the category this one falls into.
 

Forum List

Back
Top