Free Speech

Kamala Harris Promises To 'Disarm Violent Hate' by Seizing Guns From Bigots

The Democratic presidential contender suggests that "racist threats or anti-immigrant manifestos" could justify federal gun confiscation orders.


Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.), who is seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, says that if elected she will push legislation that would authorize federal courts to issue gun confiscation orders against people who express opinions that may indicate an intent to commit a hate crime. These "domestic terrorism prevention orders" would "temporarily restrict a person's access to guns if they exhibit clear evidence of dangerousness," including "violent racist threats or anti-immigrant manifestos."

Harris' plan to "disarm violent hate" is pretty vague, so it's hard to say whether it would be consistent with the First Amendment. If the bill she imagines would merely create a federal "red flag" law focused on a subset of people deemed a threat to others, that would be bad enough, since these laws generally give short shrift to due process. But her description of the problem she is trying to address suggests that constitutionally protected speech might by itself be enough to suspend someone's Second Amendment rights.

"From El Paso to the Tree of Life Synagogue, and from Poway to Mother Emanuel Church," her campaign website says, "one thing is clear: Guns are the weapon of choice for domestic terrorists and perpetrators of hate crimes….Whether it's violent racist threats or anti-immigrant manifestos, signs of impending violence are often evident before tragedy strikes." While that may be true in retrospect, it does not mean that all racists, nativists, white supremacists, or anti-Semites who express their views online, or even a significant percentage of them, are bent on mass murder.

Harris mentions the 2018 shooting in which Robert Bowers murdered 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue. Prior to the attack, Bowers posted a bunch of anti-Semitic comments on Gab. In his bio, he described Jews as "the children of satan," and his posts and reposts railed against Jews and the Latin Americans whose illegal immigration he believed they were facilitating. "He was clearly obsessed with Jews," Alex Amend of the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote after the attack. "In the small window into his account currently available, it's evident he engaged with numerous antisemitic conspiracy theories that have long been in circulation among neo-Nazis and white nationalists."

But the clearest intimation of impending violence did not appear until the morning of the attack: "HIAS [the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society] likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. Screw your optics, I'm going in." By the time that message was posted, it was too late for police intervention, let alone a "domestic terrorism prevention order."

It's not clear how the law Harris supports would distinguish between run-of-the-mill anti-Semites and the tiny percentage of them who, like Bower, translate their hateful beliefs into homicidal action. If everyone who circulates messages like the ones Bower posted would be a candidate for a gun confiscation order, the law would be casting a very wide net, undermining First Amendment as well as Second Amendment rights.

A similar problem is evident in connection with another shooting that Harris mentions: the 2015 attack in which Dylann Roof murdered nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Several months before that attack, Roof posted a manifesto that described blacks as inferior to whites, minimized the evils of slavery, defended segregation, and called for "drastic action" to "take…back" the country. Here is the passage that, in retrospect, distinguished Roof from all the racist idiots with equally odious views who do not commit mass murder:

I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country. We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.

Since we know what Roof ended up doing, that passage seems like an obvious threat of violence. But "fight" and "tak[ing] it to the real world" are so ambiguous that it's hard to see how Roof's venting would qualify as a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment. In combination with other evidence, such talk might suffice to show that someone poses a "significant" danger, the standard typically prescribed by red flag laws. But by itself, racist pontificating is constitutionally protected, and it is rather troubling that Harris does not even mention freedom of speech as a consideration.

Although Harris says the law she favors would be aimed at individuals "who may imminently perpetrate a hate crime," it's not clear what that means. As with red flag laws generally, the devil is in the details.

NEXT: ThinkProgress Panics Over Unlicensed Cosmetologists

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Seizing guns from “bigots” or in other words her political enemies allowing her criminal allies to engage in political terror silencing opposition. Give Harris credit for one thing; she knows the leftist playbook.

    1. “She knows the leftist playbook” sounds like violent hate speech, so you better watch for the swat team.

      1. I see you know the playbook, too.

        1. “Seizing guns from bigots” sure sounds like a threat to me. I’m not sure Kamala owns any guns we could seize from her, but I’m pretty sure her bodyguards are armed – maybe we could just take those. For her own safety.

          1. I am making 10,000 Dollar at home own laptop .Just do work online 4 to 6 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do

            …….. Read More

      2. “you better watch for the swat team” sounds like violent hate speech.

    2. Quit whining.

      Solve the problem or watch others solve it.

      And then whine some more.

      1. Fuck you, you illiterate fascist piece of garbage. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere. Angry morons like you are not going to be able to terrorize your enemies like your ideological brothers did in 1920s and 30s Germany. Give it up.

        1. I know it’s tempting, but the “Rev” is only here to troll and elicit reaction. I suspect her literally gets off on it.

          But I have to say that “Fuck you, you illiterate piece of garbage” described him/it well.

        2. That’s a terrible thing to say. I know three “illiterate fascist pieces of garbage” who are outraged that you compared them to Kirkland.

          1. Say. What you want, at least it was an ethos, and they used more than 2-3 hackneyed catchphrases

            1. *confiscates guns*

      2. Her stupid formulation seems to me to be pretty clear that hate is the problem. Not being able to confiscate hatred doesn’t justify taking the tools people need to defend themselves against the same. Plus its kind of a foundational principle of this country that we don’t take away peoples freedom because some people abuse it, is it not?

      3. LOL that bunch you’re running for president couldn’t solve a children’s jigsaw puzzle.

        1. What makes you think they want to solve the problems? Methinks they want to keep making the problems much bigger!!!..A great American said this over a hundred years ago & it rings truer than ever!

          “There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

          “I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.”
          -Booker T. Washington, “My Larger Education”, 1911

          1. Kinda describes the whole Democrat party since LBJ.

      4. We are solving the problem. Since I first became interested in politics the base assumption has gone from “We’re going to see handguns outlawed in ten years” to the Gun Control fascists pulling desperate stuff like this out of their fundament. While the causal relationship is questionable at best, over all, crime is down. The vast majority of mass shooting incidents happen in “Gun Free” Zones. Efforts to curtail that kind of bootless virtue signaling by requiring organizations posting ‘No Guns” signs must take legal responsibility for the people who disarm themselves are going forward.

        Of course, those aren’t the kind of solutions the Progressive Left has in mind, but they have the attractive feature that they might do some good. Banning guns doesn’t.

        1. What about simply having the police or FBI sweep high-crime neighborhoods for contraband?

      5. All the gun-toting Republitard hillbillies have is whining. It defines their pathetic lives.

        1. They are not the ones doping drive-by shootings in inner cities.

      6. Out of all 20+ Democrats running, Harris is undoubtedly the worst, and one of the worst candidates ever. It doesn’t take much of a critical look to see someone who will do or say anything to gain power. Now most politicians are that way to some extent, but she is on her own level.

        1. She is definitely HRC mark 2.
          A disgusting and hatful human being.

      7. Artie wrote:

        Solve the problem or watch others solve it.

        “..or watch others solve it.”? ‘ey, Artie, that’s not just hate speech – that’s a violent criminal threat – “solve” it.

        Maybe get ready for the SWAT team, ya think?

    3. thats it in a nut shell, all dissent speech is violent speech and must be silenced

    4. I’ll note that she doesn’t say jack shit about the violent crime in our vibrant urban neighborhoods. But that’s who will feel the brunt of any gun-grabbing policy she implements, just like the War on Drugs.

      Most of the folks she’s nominally targeting with these policies will just bury or hide their firearms rather than comply.

      1. B A T F

        Bury All Thy Firearms.

      2. Violent urban neighborhoods have nothing to fear from a President Harris. Progressives don’t give a damn about enforcing laws except against their political opposition.

        1. Oh no the laws will be enforced very aggressively, and lots of young black men will end up in prison. We’ll then be told by the left that the scourge of even more young black men going to prison needs to be addressed.

          1. But it will be entertaining when the Lefties start referring to the ATF as “Nazis”.

            1. Please, the Left had a conniption fit when the NRA just called them ‘jack-booted thugs’.

          2. Unlicensed hair braided hardest hit

        2. Then Attorney General Harris aggressively enforced the law against…violent urban neighborhoodS.

    5. Rest assured, the urban Blacks who kill each other by the thousands get to KEEP their guns.

      1. Only the ones who are in gangs, not the ones who arm themselves to protect their families from gangs.

    6. The democrat power structure belongs in GITMO.

    7. Conservatives aren’t the opposition, they are the enemy of mankind and the existential threat to humanity.

      Those whiny ass pussy Progressives are the opposition.

    8. Need to put her in GITMO.

  2. “dangerousness?” That one made me laugh. Unfortunately, Harris is not a comedian.

    1. Sounds like the policy position of a nine year old.

      1. Just appealing to the base.


    Illinois Senator apologizes for Trump assassination photos at fundraiser. Remember kids, it is Trump who destroyed political discourse in this country.

    1. Jesus, these Lefties are off their rockers.

      How is the Secret Service NOT supposed to investigate this? Sure its stupid political theater but Secret Service should investigate and these lefties just wasted taxpayer money…again. (not that they care)

      1. Meh.

        Far as I heard, they never investigated any of the effigy-lynchings of Obama.

        1. You mean that one picture that’s constantly cited?

        2. There were some, but they were the fringe wackos. We haven’t had officials calling for violence like this since the 60s and the height of the civil rights era.

    2. I am sure the Democrat Party will come down hard on him for violating the standards of campaign advertising they advocated for following the Giffords shooting.

    3. A political fundraiser for @SenatorSandoval simulates an assassination attempt against a mock @realDonaldTrump decked out in Mexican garb.

      Emphasis added. Clearly, that’s what the apology was for.

    4. “Remember kids, it is Trump who destroyed political discourse in this country.

      IMHO, the establishment politicians of both parties and the liberals MSM destroyed political discourse, by blatant lying, especially when it benefits the political class.

      GW Bush promised a humble foreign policy and fiscal conservatism. Obama promised “You could keep your plan” and that Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta, and Trump colluded with Russians. And that he didn’t spy on Trump’s campaign.

      Trump is guilty, of marketing hype. E.G., he promised he’d build a wall on the Mexican border. He’s been working at it, but he hasn’t fulfilled his promise. Trump is also guilty (in a kind of ironic way) of speaking truth to power, when he speaks of the deep state actors and MSM propagandists masquerading as journalists.

      The establishment politicians of both parties and the MSM, are still mostly lying to us. It’s funny though, Bernie jumped on the anti-MSM bandwagon, and split the MSM and Democrats, while the MSM continues their hysterical responses in response to criticism of their lack of journalism. If they actually engaged in journalism, they would just point out the politicians attacking them have nothing on which to base their allegation, other than they got caught in corrupt practices or are behind in their race to get elected.

      1. I thought “politics of personal destruction” was a 1990s thing.
        There was a movie about it, “Primary Colors”, as I recall.

      2. MSM have been engaged in advocacy journalism since the 1960s, especially on issues like gun control. It is part of their culture. They are so steeped in it they think it was, is, shall be the norm forever.

      3. Democrats made this happen. Time for them to burn for it. No mercy.

    5. All Kathy Griffin did was holding a bloody Trump mask -no guns- and she was bullied for two years. She valiantly fought back with a 2 hour stand-up comedy special, soon to be streamed. You go girl!

      1. Yeah……. you might want to go back to Vox with that bullshit friend. Kathy Griffin is a vile seditious cunt that got what was coming to her and couldn’t take the heat. It’s too bad that loser is still withering around.

    6. But But But “the First Amendment.”

      1. You and your faggot friends shredded that, didn’t you? Time for some payback now. Progtards should learn to live in mortal fear after what they have done.

    7. Trump should refuse the apology and direct the Secret Service to Pedro walk the shitbag into federal custody in front of his family. Then proceed with a kitchen sink prosecution. Which will elicit either a conviction at trial, or a plea bargain with a long sentence to avoid bankrupting the turd with legal fees.

      This is the democrat playbook. Let them all die by their own sword. I figure several hundred elite democrat lives could be destroyed before Election Day. Assuming Trump’s re election, many thousand more. Until there are no more elite democrats.

  4. Crimethink is getting to be a real thing.

    1. “i’m gonna kick your ass!” – Perfectly Acceptable.

      “I’m gonna kick your black ass!” – Suspension of 2nd amendment rights and we’re just gonna throw you in jail for good measure

      1. Unless you are Black. In which case “Hitler should have killed ALL you Jews” would also be acceptable.


        1. And if you aren’t black but are a democrat, replace “Jews” with “the rich” and you’re fine. Bernie has also done well with the pseudonym “the billionaire class.”

          1. Or replace “jews” with “Israel” and you’ll not only be fine, you’ll be portrayed as a victim

          2. I think the Dem phrase of the year is “billionaires shouldn’t exist” — how is that not a threat?

  5. “If everyone who circulates messages like the ones Bower posted would be a candidate for a gun confiscation order, the law would be casting a very wide net, . . . . ”
    Say the democratic party platform for openers?
    Anti-baby human

  6. Wow, this cunt has gone full retard.

  7. Kamala Rouge.

    Woke Genocide. (Good Band name)

  8. The print chron had it as a “hybrid” campaign:

    “DES MOINES, Iowa — Roughly halfway between campaign kickoff and the first votes being cast, Sen. Kamala Harris is settling into a presidential campaign strategy that seeks to bridge what progressive and moderate voters are looking for.”

    Doesn’t matter how you spin it; she’s going to try to speak out of both sides of her mouth at the same time.

    1. Moderate? Hickenlooper was a moderate. Harris is a commie, like the rest.

    2. Kamala Harris: seeking to bridge the gap between progressive and moderate fascists.

  9. “one thing is clear: Guns are the weapon of choice for domestic terrorists and perpetrators of hate crimes….Whether it’s violent racist threats or anti-immigrant manifestos, signs of impending violence are often evident before tragedy strikes.”

    Threats are not violent by definition. Threats are speech, protected speech unless can be classified as an assault. Violence is an action, a physical activity, speech cannot, by definition, be violence. As long as the mainstream media is complicit with Proggies in blurring the lines of speech, assault and battery, (small R) reason will lose and idiocy wins.

    1. That seems like a good distinction to make. Should be “threats of violence” not “violent threats”.

        1. Threats by Rainbow Coalitions?

    2. The idea between the two is that people didn’t threaten people like they do now. Threats used to be followed up by violent action.

      When you used to threaten someone, people usually had a Duel.

      Lets bring back Duels. Nothing like a contract to the death!

        1. Interesting. Thanks!

        2. There’s only one thing that inspires rules like that: A complete failure of laws to stop the behavior in question.

  10. Guns are the weapon of choice for domestic terrorists and perpetrators of hate crimes

    No shit. Guns are the weapon of choice for pretty much anything where you need a weapon.

    1. Until I get my Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator working, you are correct, Sir.

      1. “Where’s the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!”

        That kind of cartoon blackface would not be acceptable today.

        1. I thought it was shadow-face.

          1. Shadow-face…Black face, what’s the difference when you have White people to persecute?

      2. Just wait until we get our plasma rifles in the 40-watt range.

        1. Just what you see, pal.

      3. I’ll settle for an interocitor.

    2. Guns are the accessible weapon of choice.

      Don’t bring a gun to a JDAM fight.

      1. Zombies…Groovey.

    3. “They say that the best weapon is the one you never have to fire. I respectfully disagree. I prefer the weapon you only have to fire once. That’s how Dad did it, that’s how America does it, and it’s worked out pretty well so far.”

    4. You don’t need a gun for mass murder. You can steer a car into a crowd. You can make bombs from fertilizer and diesel fuel. You can mix cleaning supplies to make poison gas. You can run amok in a crowded subway car with a knife.

      If a person is actually, provably, murderous, taking his gun away and letting him go is insane. If he isn’t, taking his gun away is violating the Constitution.

  11. Although Harris says the law she favors would be aimed at individuals “who may imminently perpetrate a hate crime,” it’s not clear what that means.

    It means “anyone who won’t enthusiastically vote for the Democrat Party” and “anyone who disagrees with Democrat policy”. Because we know that only hate drives people to do such things.

    1. +10

    2. Because we know that only hate drives people to do such things.

      There’s also the stupid and the crazy and the evil. That’s what the re-education camps, the psychiatric prisons and the gas chambers are for.

  12. You know why Kamala Harris has always been my top choice among 2020 Democrats? It’s because of innovative solutions like this.


  13. Yep. This’d really increase the number of full-on, no-knock, military-style SWAT raids on the homes of people suspected to be armed.

    What could possibly go wrong?

  14. I wonder if she agrees with Dizzy Aunt Lizzy that our system of justice is “racist front-to-back”? If so she ought to rethink her gun control plans. Those “racists” are the ones who are going to enforce them.

    1. It is as if Democrats think that, even though our system of justice is racist, that it will somehow not be racist when enforcing gun control laws.

  15. This will not end well.


    1. No shit. I’m kinda expecting the 2020 election to be the breaking point. If the Dems win, a lot of republicans/libertarians aren’t going to trust the voting results of Cali and similar liberal bastions after the midterm elections, and if the Cons win, the liberals aren’t going to accept that they lost, because they’ve been told for the last 4 years that everyone agrees with them and they have the moral high ground, so its impossible for Trump to win without cheating.

      1. Sadly, I believe you’re quite right. I wonder what it’s going to look like?

        1. Probably the worst bits of civil and guerilla war. I’m thinking FARC in Columbia and Yugoslavia

      2. Well, at least there will be cooling off period while the lawsuits wind through the courts. First one will be the stupid contract to overrule the results of a state election with the results of a multi-state popular vote.

      3. How do people that have no morality whatsoever hold a moral high ground?

  16. “If everyone who circulates messages like the ones Bower posted would be a candidate for a gun confiscation order, the law would be casting a very wide net, undermining First Amendment as well as Second Amendment rights.”

    It’s a cliché, but…feature not bug.

  17. So, if I combine this with their contention that all non-Democrat people are racist, then…

    Oh, look: Democrats are scary authoritarian douchebags.

    1. “Anti-immigration” meaning anyone not agreeing with open borders

    2. Ah, remember when you said no one was coming for our guns?

      Now confiscation is the main talking point.

      This is how you disarm a country. Get them to agree to some level of confiscation, then keep adding to the reasons when it is allowable.

  18. shorter list wouldn’t “justify federal gun confiscation orders.”

  19. “if they exhibit clear evidence of dangerousness,” including “… anti-immigrant manifestos.”

    “Anyone who has glanced at the El Paso shooter’s screed — No guns for YOU!!”

  20. One of the commenters in a WAPO article about Colorado prairie dogs with possible plague-carrying fleas suggested they be rounded up and released at Trump rallies. Would Ms. Harris have this person arrested for planning biological terrorism?

    1. No, she would have the people at the Trump rallies rounded up for antagonizing that benighted democrat.

  21. The technology and government personnel necessary to deny people their Second Amendment rights based on what they’ve said online is already in place. Meanwhile, from the “penaltax” ruling to Kelo and Gonzales vs. Raich, we can’t trust the Supreme Court to do the right thing.

    Um . . . is there anyone in the Democratic field who disagrees with Harris? Is there anyone in the Democrat field who thinks that homophobes, racists, and xenophobes should be free to purchase a gun? Is there anyone in the Democrat field who even thinks that homophobes, racists, and xenophobes should be free to exercise their right to free speech online?

    Do every single one of them define opposition to gay marriage, opposition to affirmative action, and support for Trump’s wall as homophobia, racism, and xenophobia, respectively? Of those that do, how many of them are willing to deny people their Second Amendment rights or First Amendment rights on the basis of those issues? I suspect exactly none of them will cop to believing that racists have a right to free speech.

    I see two obvious conclusions:

    1) The Democrats must lose the presidential election in 2020–and it needs to be because of their open hostility to both the First and Second Amendments. If they lose because of their open hostility to capitalism, that will just be icing on the cake at this point.

    2) If you’re one of the horribly misguided souls who wants to put the government in charge of monitoring social media, whether you realize it or not, you’re carrying wood for the progressives–and they’re building a gallows with which to hang our constitutional rights.

    They want to use the government to crush free speech and gun rights, and if we give them the means to regulate social media, they will not use it to make sure that homophobes, racists, and xenophobes (by their definition) get a fair shake from Facebook and Google. To believe otherwise is insane.

    1. >>Gonzales vs. Raich

      but she might have sold to someone in Nevada.

    2. Only bad people will be denied their 2A rights, and if you don’t enthusiastically support far-left ideology then you’re a bad person. Why would you defend allowing bad people to have guns? Well, duh, you’re obviously a bad person. No guns for you!

    3. Hear hear!

      I’d add that if you’re one of the horribly misguided souls that cheers the expansion of executive power under Trump, you’re also carrying wood for the progressives. I can guarantee that they will not only undo all of the things Trump does, but continue expanding infringing our rights through executive overreach.

    4. Hear hear!

      I’d add that if you’re one of the horribly misguided souls that cheers open borders, you’re also carrying wood for the progressives. I can guarantee that they will not only try to undo all of the things Trump does, but continue expanding infringing our rights through Democrat overreach.

      1. So in wood carrying, you’re ahead 2-1?

  22. The Democrats at this point are so unhinged that they’re all clamoring to outdo each other with more and more extreme solutions regarding the issues, screeching over each other vying to get the attention of voters. Horrifyingly at some point they may succeed.

    1. For the sake of the country, I’d rather think they aren’t doing this for the attention of the voters at all.

      They’re doing it for the attention of donors and super delegates–both of which are far to the left of the average Democrat voter and far more important to the success of a campaign at this point in the election cycle.

      The super delegates are especially important because those are donors and volunteers on the ground–and they aren’t elected as delegates by the voters. If you win the super delegates (last I checked anyway), they made up some 15% of the vote. If Kamala Harris wins her home state and the lion’s share of the super delegates, she’ll be a formidable opponent to anyone else in the primaries.

      The super delegates are so far to the left, it may not be possible for any candidate to get to the left of all of them.

      1. Good points. Yes for sure, jockeying for the influence of donors definitely helps explain the buffoonery of these leftist campaigns.

      2. Ken….I actually think we should encourage ‘Heels Up Harris’ and her like-minded individuals to just keep talking and making these proposals. Seriously, the best course of action is to let them rave on, and then a majority of the electorate will come to the conclusion that these people are just batshit crazy when it comes to 2A, and only a little less crazy on the level of taxation they are promising to inflict on the middle class. They will lose the election.

        In the meantime, what we should encourage in the on-going ideological civil war in the Democratic party (Progtards versus everyone else). The best case scenario to me is a contested nomination between four or five Democrat candidates. It guarantees strife and division no matter what. It will severely constrain their money spigot, and even the MSM can’t help them out of that hole. Also, we should vigorously oppose the MSM ‘suppressing’ about a dozen Democrat candidates. 🙂

        1. And a battle between four or five will be a race to the bottom as to who can go farthest left. And that will make it that much more difficult for the eventual nominee to walk it all back.

          1. That is correct Mr. Tibbs. It will be impossible to walk it back, by any Democrat nominee. I don’t think Team R or libertarians have to do anything. Just stand there, and watch the Democrats tear their Party asunder and destroy themselves.

            Every Democrat on that stage raised their hand for ‘Medicare for all’ and the destruction of private medical insurance. That alone is enough. This latest from ‘Horizontal Harris’ is just a cherry on top.

          2. The problem with that, “let them go too crazy to win” strategy, is that if it doesn’t work, you end up in a civil war.

            Mind, we’re already in a civil war, just not in full scale shooting part of it, so maybe that isn’t a consideration.

            1. +100

            2. We are not in a civil war. And we had better hope we don’t get there. Civil wars and revolutions rarely end up well.

              1. You’re far too late. The progtards have already declared war. We’re just early enough where it isn’t a total melee in the streets yet.

                If you don’t believe that, what do you really think will happen if Trump gets re elected? Do you think the progtards will just stop? Or escalate things?

            3. Brett…The attempted assassination of 20-30 Congressmen and Senators on a ballfield in 2017 puts lie to your statement, “Mind, we’re already in a civil war, just not in full scale shooting part of it, so maybe that isn’t a consideration.”

              The second civil war started already. My only question is whether we can resolve it at the ballot box. Based on what I see, I am not so certain we can.

          3. “And a battle between four or five will be a race to the bottom as to who can go farthest left. And that will make it that much more difficult for the eventual nominee to walk it all back.”

            Here’s how this typically plays out:

            1) Most of the candidates drop out after Super Tuesday.

            The writing will be on the wall for whomever doesn’t win California and Texas. It takes a lot of money to win in those huge states against all the other candidates, and once it becomes clear who won, the donors will only fund the top two or three candidates.

            2) Horse trading

            The top two or three candidates will all start offering each other deals to drop out because the sooner all the competition drops out, the sooner the leading candidate can start dedicating their message to middle America and stop courting the far left.

            That’s how Hillary Clinton became the Secretary of State. Obama offered to make her Secretary of State if she’d drop out, and once she did, he started pushing messages like “Marriage is between a man and a woman”. Before that, the Hillary Clinton campaign was the original source of the Birther conspiracy–just like her campaign funded the opposition research that went into the Pissgate Memo.

            It happens like that on the Republican side, too. Who was the source of the criticism of Ronald Reagan’s economic plan as “voodoo economics”? It was none other than the George H. W. Bush campaign during the primaries. Once Reagan consolidated enough delegates so that he looked like he was going to win, talks started on bringing Bush on as his ticket as Vice, and then they could stop pushing their message on the right and start playing for the centrist voters.

            2016 was unusual in that the establishment had been eviscerated by the Tea Party, and they were still locked in battles with each other–letting Trump walk through the carnage relatively unencumbered with a centrist message to culturally conservative Democrats. And when you look at the primaries from 2016, Trump killed the competition by practically sweeping open primary states with the help of registered Democrats who no longer considered themselves Democrats because of Obama’s culture war–and could only vote for Trump in states that had open primaries.

            That was unusual. Probably won’t happen again in our lifetimes.

            The normal course if for the candidates to play to the extremes right up through the big contests until a few clear winners start to emerge, and then those few start horsetrading with each other. It is unusual to see the Democrats go so radically to the left, but the overall process of going to extremes early and then playing to the center late is fairly standard.

      3. I’ve been saying for years that the GOP has the same problem with the Bible-thumpers social conservatives, those are the frontline troops, the True Believers that show up early and stay late and cheerfully volunteer to do the grunt work of knocking on doors and handing out literature and organizing rallies and so on. Campaigns don’t run on cash alone, they need warm bodies and the evangelicals are the first in line.

        Perhaps paradoxically, the more volunteers you can attract and the more enthusiastic those volunteers are, the more that should scare the crap out of reasonable people. If you’ve got nothing better to do of an evening or a weekend than work on trying to get a politician elected to high office, there’s something wrong with you and you need to get a life. At least get a life that doesn’t put politics at the center of it, you freaks.

        1. It’s different with Super Delegates making up 15% of the delegates.

          If two candidates are tied with 40% of the delegates each, the more radical candidate wins in the Democratic Party because the Super Delegates aren’t elected and radical as fuck. Because Biden is a centrist, he’s already down 15%. He needs to win 15% of vote–to break even–just to make up for the Super Delegates who are all going for someone more radical. Those Super Delegates will consolidate behind him if no one else more radical can win. But if he were tied 40% to 40% of the elected delegates with Kamala Harris, he’s lose 40% to Harris’ 55%.

          That doesn’t exist on the Republican side.

          It’s true there are certain issues that you traditionally can’t be on the wrong side of if you want to win the Republican nomination, with gun rights and abortion being traditional examples. On the other hand, how often does the cultural conservative candidate win the Republican nomination?

          Ever heard of Gary Bauer? Don’t worry. No one else has either. He’s been a senior vice president of Focus on the Family and the president of the Family Research Council–both cultural conservative, Christian organizations. He’s now the president of American Values. The reason I bring him up was because he was the Religious Right’s guy in the race back when Bush Jr. was running for president the first time. That’s what being the religious right’s guy gets you in the Republican Party–completely forgotten.

          In the Democratic Party, being the most radical may get you the nomination. That Super Delegate system of theirs will screw them eventually. Just desserts if you ask me–to see the elitist progressives get screwed out of winning by their own elitists, and that’s what the Super Delegates are–elitists who are unaccountable to their own party’s voters. That’s one of the things I thought was so hilarious about the Democrats complaining about the electoral college system when Trump was elected. To whatever extent the electoral college system is rigged to favor more rural states, the Democratic Party is rigged even worse by way of the Super Delegates. A party with Super Delegates has no grounds to criticize a system that’s rigged by the elite.

          1. The super delegates all supported Hillary. Unless things have changed, it seems they aren’t supporting the most leftist candidate, but instead the one who the establishment is most comfortable with.

            1. Are you trying to suggest that super delegates aren’t further to the left than the average Democrat?

              Are you trying to suggest that the super delegates can’t be further to the left than the average voter in 2020 because they were less radical in 2016?

              Are you trying to hold this up as an example of why the super delegates making up 15% of the vote can’t make a difference in who gets elected?

              The super delegates supported Hillary at the convention after she won the most elected delegates and won the popular vote in California, Florida, Massachusetts, New York, and Texas. If Biden, Harris, Sanders, and Warren split the delegates four ways, I’m not sure any of them will have the inertia necessary to get the super delegates to consolidate behind a centrist. Joe Biden sure as hell ain’t no Hillary Clinton.

              Yes, they can and have consolidated behind a more centrist candidate in the past. That doesn’t mean the super delegates aren’t more radical than the average Democrat, that this batch of super delegates isn’t more radical than past batches, that super delegates representing an unaccountable 15% of the vote can’t throw the nomination to a more radical candidate over a centrist, or that what happened in 2016 will happen again in 2020.

              1. For God’s sake calm down. I’m wondering what their agenda really is. Bernie’s people complained from very early on that the super delegate system was rigged because Hillary always had them on lockdown and made it nearly impossible for him to win. It wouldn’t surprise me if Hillary’s history of owning the party meant that 2016 election was unique and this time they’ll support a more leftist candidate. I just don’t know what’s changed in their membership since 2016 other than no one needing to fear the threat of Hillary’s wrath.

        2. Which is why the Ds let taxpayers and customers pay salaries to AFSCME and SEIU employees to no-show their day jobs and work on D campaigns

        3. “”the True Believers that show up early and stay late and cheerfully volunteer to do the grunt work of knocking on doors and handing out literature and organizing rallies and so on. Campaigns don’t run on cash alone, they need warm bodies and the evangelicals are the first in line. “”

          And those volunteers needs hours to do the grunt work. That why Bernie screwed himself with the $15 an hour thing. Less literature handed out, less doors knocked on, ect.

          1. Well, when we’re talking about “true believers”, a lot of that is about unions. I don’t think this is just about people who care so much about climate change that they’re willing to donate 40 hours a week to a campaign–making phone calls and knocking on doors. It think a lot of this is about what unions do.

      4. I’m not so sure. The super-delegates seemed to be the pro-big-business progressives last time, supporting Clinton over Sanders. I think they’re more centrist than the progressive base that votes in primaries and organizes online. Everyone seems to be going after the Sanders/socialist block, instead of trying to find a qualified moderate who could beat Trump.

  23. Harris’ plan to “disarm violent hate” is pretty vague, so it’s hard to say whether it would be consistent with the First Amendment.

    Based on her record as a prosecutor, she isn’t going to let the law get in her way.

    1. It’s not hard to say at all. It won’t be consistent with the First Amendment. Exercising your First Amendment rights in an unapproved (non-PC) manner will forfeit your Second Amendment rights.

  24. Looks like this is really shaping up to be another “most important election ever.”

    1. Nailed the crucial black women vote and will be able to focus on shaming the rest of the racist, sexist electorate for even thinking about voting for someone else.

  25. She’s a scary lady

  26. The Democrats and the left want desperately to disarm American citizens and allow only government agents to have firearms. Harris’s latest eructation on the subject is just one of many excuses for doing so. There is no point arguing with her points. Also, don’t try to comfort gun owners that common sense, logic or the Constitution will fend off confiscation. The left want your guns and will eventually get them, one way or another.

    1. eructation

      Nice one. Had to look that up.

      1. When I teach livestock nutrition to 4-H students they love learning that word and what it means.

  27. Whether it’s violent racist threats or anti-immigrant manifestos, signs of impending violence are often evident before tragedy strikes.

    More reliable signs of impending violence:
    ‘Cook County’
    ‘Bienvenidos a Mexico’
    ‘City of Baltimore’

  28. “…the law would be casting a very wide net, undermining First Amendment as well as Second Amendment rights.”

    Do I have to say it?


  29. Well she’s not going to be president so it’s kind of a moot point.

    1. Biden is the default nominee [someone will just have to wake him up and tell him when it’s over]

      VP will be between Warren and Harris; they are equally vile, and will likely actually run things behind the curtain

      1. Biden is also not a spring chicken ?(and his faculties do seem to be somewhat weakened). Additionally, there is the correlation between being elected to your first term as president in a year ending in zero and the chance of you surviving to the end of your term. It isn’t a perfect correlation and definitely not causative.

        1. Looks like the Y2k election blew THAT fake induction out of the water… more’s the pity.

      2. Biden has no chance at getting the nod.

        Even as hard as he’s trying now to pretend to be an SJW the fact is that Sanders pushed the Democrats far enough Left that he has no chance.

        I mean, he’s even having to *distance* himself from Obama because Obama wasn’t Progressive enough for today’s Democrats.

      3. You should read the Plant Leaf Product Prohibition Laws Biden, Ronnie and Holy War Bush worked on in 1987. I defy anyone to read those bill amendments without labels and tell me which looter party wrote what changes.

        1. You should consider drinking Drano.

  30. Note she is also running, outwardly, on being a “pen and phone” president. Remind me who the ‘fascists’ are again…

  31. Hey, Harris, why stop there? There are all kinds of crimes that could be potentially be prevented by recognizing the warning signs. For example, a low amount of money in the bank, plus job instability, plus one or more parents or family members who have had past troubles with the law could be warning signs for theft. Imprison those would-be thieves before they strike!

    You need to suspend the constitution and start up the Bureau or Pre-Crime just like sci fi author Philip K Dick thought up—but no psychic women required.


    1. Leventy Berea: show me the man…

  32. As a sidebar, also remember that any idiot racist who writes their dumb manifestos probabbly wont be using their real name (especially once the red flag crackdowns begin) which means another hurdle for the government to get a warrant to get the IP address of the poster (which assumes no VPN and the server being located within the US).

    So is the plan to fast track the warrant process (even if no crime has been comitted)? Lets shoot for the moon, see how many amendments we can violate all in one swoop.

    1. What makes you think there will be a warrant involved?

      1. it’s a national emergency, after all

  33. I wonder how Harris would feel about someone like Trump being empowered to define “violent hate” for the purposes of undermining an individual’s rights. Did she even think about who might come after her (if she were to win?) Or does she really believe that this time the left will finally establish its permanent majority?

    1. once they’ve outlawed thinking like the Right and disarmed the outlaws, yes, their rule will be permanent. just don’t get on the trains.

  34. A real threat is a legally punishable crime. If there is sufficient evidence that the threat is real, the perpetrator can be arrested ending the threat.

    If there is not sufficient evidence of a crime there is no justification for seizing someone’s property whether that be a gun, a car or box of tampons.

  35. Comments like this make me wonder what the Democratic Party desire as the end game because this crop of candidates (aside from Tulsi) are dead set on making sure Trump is re-elected.

  36. I wonder what Shikha Dalmia thinks of Harris’ idea.

  37. Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.), who is seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, says that if elected she will push legislation that would authorize federal courts to issue gun confiscation orders against people who express opinions that may indicate an intent to commit a hate crime.

    Why wait to push for legislation later when you can introduce it now?

  38. …reminding everybody why decent people oppose legislating “hate crimes”.

  39. Didn’t I read something in this very “magazine” yesterday about how real a threat white supremacy is? Just not real enough to justify taking everyone’s guns? Clearly %100 chance of a mass shooting would justify at least a temporary abridgement of 2ne amendment rights, so ewhere, between there and zero, does it become okay? I’m sincerely just asking for a friend

    1. I am 72 and as a kid everyone had access to guns. Kids would have guns in their cars and trucks to go hunting after school. There were fights after school as there always has been but no one ever went and got a gun to get even. Point I am trying to make is that what has change in this country where life has become so cheap. Could it be the the psychiatric drugs they put the children on or that our own government settles every dispute with a gun or a bomb if they don’t get their way. Guns still go bang when you pull the trigger just like they did 72 years ago. What needs to be address is why some people think the only way to settle an argument is by killing your opponent.

      1. There’s still parts in my state where kids show up at school on ATV with a gun strapped on the front rack. Granted, they’re small communities, usually less than 5,000 or so, but hunting is still a big thing here.

        I’m 45, and fortunately, my boondock state didn’t start pushing psychotropic drugs until much later than those more enlightened states, but here, I think it’s a combination of those drugs, the deterioration of public schools (especially after Common Core and Everyday Math was crammed down from the Feds to nearly all states), and lack of job skills and/or opportunities, especially in the minority and low-income areas. Add in the deterioration of our politicians continual childish temper tantrums and biased media. When young white men are being accused of being the epitome of all evil, I’m surprised there’s not more mass shooters.

  40. “Kamala Harris Promises To ‘Disarm Violent Hate’ by Seizing Guns From Bigots.”

    You’ve been warned progressives.
    You’re guns will be taken by Comrade Harris if she’s elected.

  41. TV ADS=========_
    Start now making easy coins on line at home. start making greater $500 each day by way of working on-line at home. i’ve obtained $18528 ultimate month from this clean home based totally task. This process is realy wonderful and offers me extraordinary component time profits each day. anybody can now makes extra earnings online easily by way of simply follow instructions in this below given site……



  42. Kamala is a useless POS. I wouldn’t worry too much though, since she’s simply saying anything and everything she thinks will get her elected; and, she’s not going to be the nominee with all the baggage she’s toting.

  43. Guns are the weapon of choice for domestic terrorists and perpetrators of hate crimes

    The world will be so much better once guns are banned and these people are forced to resort to throwing acid and bombs.

    1. I believe what Kamela means is that running over tourists in Nice or London with a delivery van, or stabbing people in Germany or France is OK because those retaliators are Omar’s Trump-oppressed fellow victims with a real beef to work off. Then again, it’s sometimes hard to interpret people of Berzerkerly heritage because of regional linguistic particularities.

  44. Does Ms. Harris understand that the Federal government has no Constitutional right to make any law concerning the right to own and bear arms. Just because the people have allowed it in the past out of ignorance doesn’t change the fact the Constitution forbids it. Obviously States can make laws concerning guns so I think the Lady who has so successfully helped screw up California should leave the other 49 states alone. We have our own idiots politicians to contend with.

  45. Seems like you can take Harris out of the Gestapo, but can’t take the Gestapo out of Harris.

  46. No worries…its all talk as this crooked, leftist piece of shits not going anywhere.

  47. How novel. Imagine suppressing constitutional rights under color of legislation!

  48. Last I heard, bigotry isn’t against the law. My estimate of her brain cells was too high when I said they were about equal to the number of her teeth.

  49. And just how many people has this cop delivered into the hands of actual nazis or sent to be re-educated as nazis in prison over non violent crimes?

  50. Politicians’ promises.
    Dem Gov Pritzker of Illinois ran on a platform of raising taxes on only the “wealthy”.
    Once elected he raised the tax on gas $0.19 per gallon and $50.00 on a car stamp.
    I guess, only the billionaire class own cars in Illinois, and he really stuck it to ’em, didn’t he?

    Kamala Harris wants to disarm people by defining them as bigots. That will require an Orwellian Thought Police, bad enough thought there.
    Harris’ definition of “bigot” will be as fluid as Pritzker’s definition of wealthy. Once she has the power.

  51. Last of the Shitferbrains hardest hit.

    1. I live in your head bitch. I own you.

      And no, people like me don’t start mass shootings. They’re all raving idiot progtards like you.

  52. And she’ll start by combing all your social media posts to see who doesn’t get to exercise their First or Second Amendment rights anymore.

  53. Earning in the modern life is not as difficult as it is thought to be. God has made man for comfort then why we are so stressed. We are giving you the solution of your problems. Come and join us here on just go to home TECH tab at this site and start a fair income bussiness

    >>>>>>>> CLICK HERE

  54. Have NONE of you studied logic or ethics? Assume Kamela is right: Suppose angry American collectivists use guns for the initiation of force. So why not license gun dealers to only sell to non-collectivists who have forsworn aggression by signing “I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.” Joiners could pay token dues and be issued a member card, vopte accordingly, and the world would be all the utopia we need. Even a looter politician can understand the simplicity of it. Q.E.D.

  55. So we can assume she would apply that order to her former contender Eric Swalwell who threatened to use nukes on those who disagree with him. No?

  56. a very detailed and meticulous lesson, it really has a lot of values, I will learn a lot thanks run 3

  57. These crazy leftists are REALLY trying to start a civil war aren’t they?

    You know this will instantly morph into “Anybody who isn’t for open borders is a Nazi and must lose their guns.” Or “Anybody who supports gun rights must be a gun nut so can’t have guns.”

    And then if they try to implement it… Civil War 2.0.

    Also, will this ALSO apply to all the anti-white racists out there? Like will all the black supremacist people have their guns taken when they talk about how all white people should die? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

    Fuck this cunt. I’m glad the Dems are going full tilt crazy though… It’s really showing the middle of the road sane people what these fucks have always believed in private… And I don’t think it will work out for them come election day.

  58. Thankfully Harris has no chance of ever being President so her insane rants are meaningless. You cannot seize guns from anyone because of what they say. However her proposal demonstrates the inherent danger of the mentality of the left. They think anyone they deem as “hateful or racist” should be stripped of their rights and due process “for the greater good”. They pretend we do not have a Constitution or that it can be simply side stepped or ignored when they deem necessary.

  59. Hey! Kamala! Maybe we should seize 1st amendment rights from over zealous politicians like you. The world would be kinder and gentler.

  60. Way less than 2% of those killed each year with a gun are killed by an “assault” rifle, about 200. 15 million assault rifles in citizens hands 200 killed. Problem must not be the gun. Taking guns away from all criminals would be most effective, taking guns away from all Americans of African descent would be more effective than taking all assault weapons.
    Criminals and disproportionately African American males are the problem Crazy Angry White Guys make a big show a couple of times per year. Go after the Crazy Angry White Guys and Thugs and leave us law abiding civil society guys and our guns alone.

  61. Yo bitch who kills more people per year with guns evil white bigots or negro inner city thugs? I think you are proposing taking the wrong persons guns away.

  62. Negro Thugs in Chicago shoot more people a month than White Bigots shoot in the whole country in a year and this wench wants to go after the “bigots”……

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.