Executive Power

Kamala Harris Does Not Understand Why the Constitution Should Get in the Way of Her Gun Control Agenda

The presidential contender conspicuously fails to explain the legal basis for her plan to impose new restrictions by executive fiat.


During last night's Democratic presidential debate, former Vice President Joe Biden admonished Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) for promising to impose new gun controls by executive fiat if Congress fails to pass the laws she thinks it should. That gave Harris a perfect opportunity to explain how her 100-day plan for gun control can be reconciled with constitutional restrictions on presidential power. The former prosecutor not only conspicuously failed to do so but literally laughed at the question.

The senator's campaign website promises that "if Congress fails to send comprehensive gun safety legislation to Harris' desk within her first 100 days as president—including universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and the repeal of the NRA's corporate gun manufacturer and dealer immunity bill—she will take executive action to keep our kids and communities safe." Biden interprets that pledge as a promise to ban "assault weapons" without new legislation, something the president clearly does not have the authority to do.

Harris' plan for unilateral action on "assault weapons" is actually more modest than Biden implies. She says she would "ban AR-15-style assault weapons from being imported into the United States," noting that the Gun Control Act "empowers the executive branch to prohibit the importation of guns not 'suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.'" As Harris points out, "both Democratic and Republican presidents," including George H.W. Bush in 1989, have used that provision to block importation of "assault weapons." But two other parts of Harris' gun control plan do not seem to have any statutory basis.

Harris says she would "close the 'boyfriend loophole' to prevent dating partners convicted of domestic violence from purchasing guns." Under current law, people convicted of misdemeanors involving "domestic violence" are barred from possessing firearms. But crimes against dating partners count as "domestic violence" only if the perpetrator has lived with the victim or produced a child with him or her. Harris seems to think she can eliminate those requirements without new congressional action, but it's hard to see how. Congress has defined "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence," and only Congress can change the definition.

Harris also thinks the president can "mandate near-universal background checks by requiring anyone who sells five or more guns per year to run a background check on all gun sales." Since only federally licensed dealers are legally required to run background checks, such a rule would require dramatically expanding that category.

The problem is that federal law defines a gun dealer as someone who is "engaged in the business of selling firearms," which in turn is defined as "devot[ing] time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms." The statutory definition explicitly excludes "a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms." Under Harris' plan, a hobbyist or collector who sold more than four guns in a single year would be required to obtain a federal license and conduct background checks, which is plainly inconsistent with current law.

Instead of explaining the legal basis for the "executive action" she has in mind, Harris made a weak joke: "Hey, Joe, instead of saying, 'No, we can't,' let's say, 'Yes, we can.'" Then she launched into a description of the casualties from mass shootings, adding, "The idea that we would wait for this Congress, which has just done nothing, to act, is just—it is overlooking the fact that every day in America, our babies are going to school to have drills, elementary, middle and high school students, where they are learning about how they have to hide in a closet or crouch in a corner if there is a mass shooter roaming the hallways of their school."

That is not an argument in favor of any particular gun control policy, let alone an argument for the president's authority to impose it unilaterally. "Let's be constitutional," Biden said. "We've got a Constitution." To which Harris replied, in effect, "Constitution, schmonstitution. Why should that get in the way of my agenda?" Even voters who tend to agree with Harris about gun control should be troubled by her blithe dismissal of the legal limits on the powers she would exercise as president.

NEXT: Andrew Yang Is the Anti–Elizabeth Warren

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Even voters who tend to agree with Harris about gun control should be troubled by her blithe dismissal of the legal limits on the powers she would exercise as president.”

    They should be but they won’t.

  2. Even voters who tend to agree with Harris about gun control should be troubled by her blithe dismissal of the legal limits on the powers she would exercise as president.

    Wrong. Voters that tend to agree with Harris about gun control don’t care about legal limits on power as long as the person in control is one of theirs.

    1. As illustration, gun control advocates are already self-selected to be anti-constitutional. This should be obvious given that gun control is not a power that is given to government via the constitution. This should be patently obvious.

      Constitutions are themselves limits upon government power, so by voting for someone that doesn’t believe in those limits it shows you exactly how much her voters care about limits on government power.

      If she were arguing for a constitutional amendment, THEN we could say they care. I never hear them say that, though, which tells you everything.

      1. Arguing for a constitutional amendment would be an admission that they can’t do it without a constitutional amendment, which would put them in a bad place public relations wise, after the amendment failed. They’d rather just advance specious arguments as to why what they want to do is already constitutional.

        While working to tear down public respect for the Constitution, so that sooner or later they can stop pretending that they’re trying to follow it.

        1. Brett….I feel that if Heels Up Harris was truly serious, she would propose repealing 2A, straight-up. Why pussyfoot around? We have repealed amendments before. Then we would see just how much support there actually is.

          Draft the amendment, and start the constitutional process….call their collective bluff and be done with it.

          1. Look, Harris knows quite well there isn’t public support for repealing the 2nd amendment. She also knows that you can render the 2nd amendment ‘legally’ irrelevant by putting the right justices on the Supreme court. And you can do it pretty quickly if you pack the Court.

            Their goal here isn’t to accomplish their ends while complying with the rule of law. Their goal is to abolish the rule of law, because they’ve correctly identified it as an obstacle to achieving their ends.

            The 1st amendment allows their foes to speak and organize against them. The 2nd amendment forces them to consider what might spark revolt. The 4th through 7th amendments make confiscation expensive and prosecutions uncertain. They all have to go.

            And they’re not going to accomplish that by repealing them. They might accomplish it by rendering them irrelevant.

    2. We should have enough to know this woman must be stopped.

  3. Reason mag in general and Jacob Sullum in particular fully supported and vociferously defended the equally unconstitutional executive amnesty concocted president “pen and a phone” Obama. Probably should have considered what a total cunt you’d like after gargling the balls of the unitary executive when it suited your policy agenda. The process matters you hypocritical bitch.

    1. Note the crickets any time someone around here brings this up…

      Oh well.

    2. What YOU are leaving out is that the Constitution does not mention any immigration authority for the federal government. Note: importing slaves is not immigration control. Tariffs are not immigration control.

      Illegal actions opposing illegal actions … if you want to argue that two wrongs do not make a right, go ahead. But don’t make half the argument and pretend surprise when you aren’t taken seriously.

      1. Except the whole uniform rule of naturalization, necessary and proper clause, and almost 250 years of precedent. But other than that, you’re totes right.

        1. AND the clause prohibiting Congress from enacting any law regulating the importation or migration of people prior to 1808. Which would make no sense at all if they didn’t otherwise have the power to do that.

      2. Uh huh. Section 8 gives congress the power “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States”.

        1. Except that the Congress has refused to do that. The laws they wrote delegated that power to the executive, and they were happy to let the executive ignore or openly break the law. They and you can just suck a bag of dicks now that the President we elected is enforcing the law the way they wrote it.

          1. You realize that your last sentence contradicts your first sentence?

            Congress didn’t actually delegate that much discretion to the Executive; They just wrote laws with the tacit understanding that they wouldn’t really be enforced, and are now ticked that Trump is enforcing them.

            1. You can’t write laws with the “tacit understanding” they will not be enforced. That is just more Progressive nonsense. I think they simply switched to open borders.

              1. Sure you can pass laws with a tacit understanding they won’t be enforced. One sign that you did so is that you don’t fund the enforcement.

                You pass the law as a PR gesture, you make sure of the non-enforcement because your desired policy is contrary to the law.

  4. In all fairness to Harris, she probably didn’t understand why the Constitution got in the way of prosecuting people.

    1. Almost got it! As a former prosecutor, she knows the Constitution didn’t stop her from prosecuting whomever and however she pleased. The law is infinitely malleable and can mean whatever a good lawyer and a bad judge choose to say it means.

      I keep saying, Trump is not a cause of our loss of faith in the system, he’s the result. So are the rest of them – it’s a pure power grab at this point and nobody’s really pretending any more that there’s rules.

      1. Too many people forget that. Trump is a symptom, not a cause. The only thing worse than Trump is all the Dem candidates, but people forget he got elected for being more transparent than Obama, “the most transparent President in history”.

        1. Trump also got lots of votes because he was the second-worst candidate in a two-person race.

          1. And spite, can’t forget good ole fashioned spite.

          2. Harris is done in the presidential race. Her polling is in the toilet thank god. She is definitely Clinton mark 2.
            If she had made it as the nominee, Trump would have destroyed her on the debate stage. He would have continued where Tulsi had left off and Harris’ response would heave been Russia, Russia, Russia which has been debunked many times now by many different investigations, including Mueller.
            Harris’ behaviour as a prosecutor is public record and she could not even respond to Tulsi’s demolition.
            Harris is scum and her attempt to discredit Kavanagh was disgusting, as was her pathetic attempt to smear Tulsi.

        2. And they will not like what comes after Trump.

          1. The Democrats’ plan for what comes after Trump is a one-party state where the Democratic party is permanently entrenched in power by a series of unconstitutional laws blessed by a packed Supreme court. You’re not going to scare them with “what comes after Trump”, they’re not planning on allowing anything but themselves to come after Trump.

            1. Then they should have gotten those guns confiscated FIRST.

              1. They still think they can “boil the frog”, ramping things up just slowly enough to never cause a revolt.

                Suppose one of these lunatics gets elected next year, along with a Democratic Senate. Could happen, isn’t even a long shot. Who wants to be the first to open fire when they pack the Court? How are you going to discuss opposing them when deplatforming goes mainstream?

                I think they’re not totally irrational in believing they can win, though I hope they don’t.

      2. Speaking of Trump, can you imagine the shitstorm in the media/academia/Hollywood if he was caught laughing about the Constitution? And unlike Harris, Trump doesn’t even have a law degree.

    2. Isn’t there something else wrong with this picture? For a couple of centuries the soft machine speechifying and primaries were held in summer of the election year. That’s 12 months in the future. Can you detect the smell of an intrenched looter kleptocracy burning through bales of $100 bills handed to them via the Nixon anti-libertarian law? The IRS is deciding–or at least buying–these elections. Who mentions that?

  5. How did this stupid cant ever get a law degree or pass the bar?

    Apparently the legal profession has even lower standards than I feared.

    1. They let John Roberts be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, didn’t they? Let’s face it, in the days leading up to the Obamacare ruling you had plenty of knowledgeable legal pundits earnestly explaining why Obamacare was totally Constitutional and just as many earnestly explaining why it wasn’t, which indicates nobody really knows what is and what isn’t Constitutional. And then Roberts came out with the “penaltax” ruling and not a single one of those knowledgeable legal pundits saw that one coming. And did they all say, “Oh, man, that’s why he’s Chief Justice and I’m not – it’s so obvious now that he’s explained it”? No, everybody knows Roberts just pulled that “penaltax” ruling straight out of his ass and if he’d fished around in his butt a little bit he could have pulled any reasoning he pleased out of there. The laws and the lawyers, like Kamala Harris, are dirty whores that’ll do the most disgustingly obscene, immoral, shockingly filthy acts you can imagine for a fistful of dollars.

      1. Feel free to describe more of these filthy acts. Extra obscenity if you please.

        In an unrelated note, can someone please tell me if Tulsi has a law degree? If she doesn’t, how can we crowd fund one for her? Or possibly make her a judge. For science.

        1. Nope, BS in business administration (another diploma inflation, didn’t this used to be at best an associate’s degree?).

          1. ‘Tis a sad day for science, my friend.

    2. All these people surprised that lawyers are the sort of people who make your average TSA employee look like Albert Einstein are a real hoot. If teaching is the profession of those who cannot do, then lawyering is the profession of those who cannot even demonstrate mastery of a single subject. They are completely useless people.

  6. Heels Up Harris is done; you can stick a forceps in her – it’s over. All she did was demonstrate her utter inability to connect with anyone outside the Coasts. Leave aside the lunatic policies, just think about the human dimension here. Does anyone think Joe & Jane Sixpack is ever going to vote for Heels Up? Nope. Not happening. Tulsi did the country a favor by gutting her in the last debate, but sadly that public gutting happened too soon.

    Too bad, really. I would much prefer nine months of Heels Up, Fauxahontas, Crazy Bernie and Creepy Joe just savaging each other to a draw. And let the Democrats broker that convention. The entertainment value alone is priceless.

    1. Heels up…what an image!

      The only problem for me is I appreciate an intelligent woman who has interesting things to say before and after those “heels up” interludes. Harris is most definitely not that kind of person. You’d probably get more intelligence from a blowup doll.

      1. Probably?

    2. “Heels Up Harris” I had not heard that nickname before. Was that Willie Brown’s pet name for her while she was his chew toy?

  7. I wonder if she realizes that the vast majority of AR-15s are produced right here in the US of A. It’s not really a very popular platform outside of our country.

    Her plan would affect my ability to buy commie rifles, which is unfortunate and something I object strongly to. The only positive thing I’ve ever said about Communists is that they have produced some excellent firearms in their time, probably because all those deathsquads are pretty ineffective without them.

    1. They’re tough and idiot proof but not very accurate. Properly maintained the M16 series of rifles starting with the M16A1 is superior to the AK series. The AKs were designed to be used by conscripts with low education and minimal training. The Soviet doctorine was to mass troops, close to within 100 meters and move forward while firing on fully automatic. The AKs first position on it’s selector switch, after safe, is fully automatic. The M16 series the first setting after safe is semi-automatic. American servicemen are taught to engage targets at a distance with semi-automatic fire, switching to automatic or burst (depending on the model) at close combat or when engaging an area target at greater then 550 m (or 500 for the M4 series) or vehicles. An American infantryman in the Army spends 16 weeks in training, USMC spends an additional 4 weeks (these may have changed slightly). The Russians and Chinese spend about half this time. All Army soldiers and Marines, regardless if MOS begin firing their weapons by the second week at the latest and will continue through the end of basic (longer for combat arms and certain combat support MOS). They are expected to routinely engage targets at 300 m, or more, in order to graduate. This is with iron sights. When I was in I was able to hit a half man sized silhouette target 3 out of 4 times at 300 m and 3 to 4 out of 4 times at 250 m and I only shot sharpshooter.

      1. Although I’m out of practice, I did take my deer last year at 275 m with a .270 wsm Winchester Model 70 supershadow with a Tasco World Class 3×9 scope. Granted I was using a round hay bale as a rest. I put it through both lungs and clipped the aorta.

        1. My Dad on the other hand, former infantryman, took a doe on the run at about the same distance off hand with similar shot placement.

      2. Eh, all of my AKs are “minute of bad guy” accurate at 300 yards, and they go bang every single time regardless of how dirty/neglected they are.

        The 6.5 Grendel VEPR should be good much further out than that but finding places to test that is tricky.

    2. Don’t sweat it. They’re making commie rifles in Florida now. It’s all good. Besides it won’t be too much longer before mini-cnc machines and 3d printers can spit out 99% of the parts over a weekend.

    3. Palmetto AKs seem to be the first American production Kalashnikov pattern rifles (and “pistols” lol. The NFA is a fucking joke.) which actually rival the combloc guns in durability, and they put more accurate barrels on them to boot. The real issue is that the Deep State and the diversity hire president killed import of milsurp 5.45mm and almost got away with killing surp 7.62×39.

      The NRA said nothing because they care much more about protecting lazy ass companies like Remington cranking out rusty (literally) hunting rifles whose design hasn’t substantially changed in a century. They truly represent the industry not the shooter.

      1. Ergo, your $35 donated to the LP leverages more law-changing bang than a similar amount wasted on “non-partisan” single-issue lobbyists who NEED hobgoblins threatening 2A as an excuse and scare tactic for panhandling money. Ask a politician who could have won but for 4 million Libertarian spoiler votes. Ask Hillary…

    4. I owned an SKS for a few years–it was great as a “truck gun,” reliable operation, fun to shoot, and could put bullets on mass, but useless for anything requiring precision.

  8. There’s a potential path which would take years to untangle in the courts, and this one is definitely thanks to Trump: the bump stock ban, by reclassifying them as machine gun parts. That ban’s logic says that because they increase the speed of firing … and so it goes.

    The stretch for gun banners is pretty simple — anything which makes any gun fire faster is a machine gun part. This means after market triggers especially, but also more comfortable stocks, better sights, and even semi-auto weapons themselves, since they are demonstrably faster than bolt actions.

    I do not doubt for a minute that all Dem candidates would try that, since Trump set the example. I doubt Harris is smart enough to figure that out, but she hires people to do that.

  9. Well, to be fair, the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law abridging the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn’t say anything about a pen and phone weilded by POTUS.

    1. Shit, The root password was hiding in plain sight all along!

      1. You can’t expect the founding fathers to have forseen the phone!

    2. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
      Nope Congress isn’t mentioned either.

      1. I’ve always wondered why the Second says flat “shall not be infringed” and the others only restrict Congress. The framers didn’t do that kind of stuff for no reason. I’d like to have been a fly on the wall for that discussion.

    3. Well, except that the President is to see the laws enacted by that Congress faithfully executed; The idea is that, since basically everything the executive branch does is at least purportedly to the end of enforcing a law enacted by Congress, the executive department can’t do anything Congress couldn’t enact into law.

    4. Nor does Article II say anything about “a pen and a phone” (or a pen and a stamped envelope, for your “it’s an outdated document” folks).

  10. The last ten words of the article title are unnecessary.

  11. … ,and the repeal of the NRA’s corporate gun manufacturer and dealer immunity bill

    Since when does the NRA manufacturer or sell any kind of gun?

    1. I asked someone once if Budweiser should be sued for DUIs. They said no, of course not that is just silly. Then I asked: so by that logic why should gun manufacturers be sued for someone misusing their product?

      1. Because …….feelz! And virtue signaling!

  12. She is a dangerous – power hungry – socialist.

    Listen to her talk about what she will DEMAND when she is president.

  13. “Kamala Harris Does Not Understand Why the Constitution Should Get in the Way of Her Gun Control Agenda”

    To be fair Sullum, she probably doesn’t understand why the Constitution should get in the way of any part of her agenda.

    1. I have no doubt she’s thinking qualified immunity will get her farther than anyone ever thought possible.

    2. So? Beto cannot defend women’s rights by pointing to the “All persons born” that starts off 14th Amendment rights. To do so would recognize the Constitution he wants to swear to uphold and defend. Beto’s remaining option is to run as one of those “domestic enemies” the oath is a promise to thwart.

  14. The Dominatrix President. Lick that boot.

  15. People like her are the reason that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution.

    The Constitution was written to define and restrict the power of government.

    Something that Progressives do not understand.

  16. Having been a long-time resident of CA (60 years), and only recently left the “Golden State,” I had the dubious pleasure of watching Harris’s rise to political power quite closely. She is not a “progressive” in any sense of the word (not that that is a “good” word these days). In fact, given her overall stance, Reason’s statement about her being a “Cop who wants to be president,” seems pretty accurate. And not a good cop, either, but, in spirit, at least, the kind who dresses in a white robe and pointy hood when off-duty, which is when she gets to enforce the law the way she really enjoys most.

  17. Kamala Harris took her course in Constitutional Law under former President Obama who claims to have been a professor of this subject at a Chicago law school. Either Kamala failed the course or, she and anyone else who took this course should demand either any tuition debt they have for should be cancelled or they get their $$$$ back

    1. Kamala is as palatable as the Antifa communists who infiltrate or simply imitate communist anarchists while identifying as “libertarian”. So now the LP candidates can run for office that demands an oath to uphold the Constitution, and all we want to upend is the 16th Amendment, ratified with its twin the 18th force amendment, which was overturned absolutely as the Liberal Party of 1930 demanded. We are the sensible constitutionalists alluva sudden.

  18. I’m not sure who’s worse, the doddering old fool Biden, the doddering old commies Sanders and Warren, the empty suit minus the suit O’Rourke, or the power mad Harris. But I think a former prosecutor who would do or say anything to gain power is the one you don’t want to take a chance on.

    1. You got Calamity Harris right. Authoritarian instincts coupled with unbridled ambition, and not the requisite brain power to balance either dubious tendencies. I remember when Condie Rice made a presentation during the Senate confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh Harris kept surprisingly quiet. Why? Well, Calamity may not be the brightest light on the porch, but she surely knew that Rice would easily humiliate her if she pulled her usual “answer yes or no” questioning routine. I suspect Harris, like several others single digit no hopers, will be thinned out of the herd soon enough. Imagine if she hung around long enough for the Dem California primary, and lost. It wouldn’t look for very promising for her Senate re-election campaign shortly thereafter. And this, after doing essentially nothing to date for the people of California since she came to the Senate.

  19. Trump’s”bump stock ban” just gave the president the basis to ban all semi-automatics. Here’s how:


    1. The money is better spent joining a state or county Libertarian party. Libertarian spoiler votes are way more powerful than the NRA–or any other mindless single-issue faction, when it comes to laws being passed or repealed.

  20. Obama forced Americans to purchase health insurance so I suppose Harris thinks she can impose new gun laws by executive order.

  21. Reason still endorsing ten 9/11s per year so that toothless morons can jack off to their stupid hobby?

    All is normal.

    1. Now do drunk driving.

      1. Unlike owning explody death machines, that remains illegal.

        1. Owning a car isn’t illegal, nor alcohol nor is drinking. Notice the only illegal act is when you put others in danger. This is exactly like owning a gun. Guns and ammunition are not illegal nor is shooting a gun. It is only illegal when you put others in danger. Fuck you’re pretty bad at analogies.

          1. He wants to outlaw people exercising a civil right in a way that doesn’t actually endanger people. Good analogies wouldn’t get him there.

          2. Okay, since we’re doing analogies for some reason, the correct one would be a car that is mostly unregulated with few safety features. Say there was a powerful lobby that only allowed people to own one of those death traps from the 1960s with no seatbelts or safety frame technology.

            Yes, the mere presence of cars means more death. But cars are useful in a way guns are not, despite your stupid retarded limp-dick action-movie fantasist nonsense. That said, I’m all for making person-driven cars obsolete too. To save lives. Because that’s like the principal goal of a society.

        2. Our rights aren’t up to Willie Brown’s mistress.

        3. Unlike owning explody death machines

          Curious how 5 times as many people die in automotive collisions as are murdered with firearms every year, ain’t it?

        4. I’ve never heard an internal combustion engine described quite like that.

    2. “”Reason still endorsing ten 9/11s per year””

      That’s OBL material.

    3. stupid hobby

      Self defense and a bulwark against tyranny is a stupid hobby, you guys.

      1. The government can kill you from space.

        1. So: We should tear up the BoR because the government can kill you from space. Okaaaay.

          I used to think you were trolling. I don’t anymore — I think you’re actually the most willfully ignorant rube here. Add to that your personality, which just screams “massive fart-sniffing creep”. You must be toxic to be around.

        2. Not legally they can’t…oh, or was your point that anyone can find a way to kill people in complete contravention of law?…like gun laws?

  22. “”The idea that we would wait for this Congress, which has just done nothing, to act, is just—it is overlooking the fact that every day in America, our babies are going to school to have drills, elementary, middle and high school students, where they are learning about how they have to hide in a closet or crouch in a corner if there is a mass shooter roaming the hallways of their school.”
    I venture to say that the hundreds of thousands of unborn babies she advocates to be murdered don’t fit into her warped political paradigm.

  23. With Elizabeth Warren and Ocasio-Cortez openly identifying with Game of Throne‘s Stormborn dragon lady (bend the knee to her, or be burnt by her dragon), why is anyone surprised at Kamala Harris’ power dreams?

  24. Unconstitutional orders issued by the executive ought to be subject to the same review as unconstitutional laws passed by the legislature.

  25. “… crimes against dating partners count as “domestic violence” only if the perpetrator has lived with the victim or produced a child with him or her.”

    Shouldn’t crimes against a mere “dating partner” be treated same as a crime against any other member of the general public? You know, assault = assault and != domestic violence, battery = battery and != domestic violence, if there is no domestic relationship, just a “dating partner”?

    And why should a domestic relationship reduce assault or battery to a “lesser crime” anyway?

  26. Sullum could investigate what Biden pushed and signed in 1987 and 1988, before and during the Crash and Depression that “coincided” with the Reagan-Bush push to bring back Prohibition.

  27. “Harris’ plan for unilateral action on “assault weapons” is actually more modest than Biden implies. She says she would “ban AR-15-style assault weapons from being imported into the United States,” noting that the Gun Control Act “empowers the executive branch to prohibit the importation of guns not ‘suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.'”

    If you want an Assault Weapons, you’ll Have to buy “Made in America” from Sig Sauer, Smith &Wesson, Ruger, … not from FN, H&K and other OUS gun makers. Take *that* conservative Americans!

  28. Guys, how many multiples of freedom are gained by allowing gun nuts to purchase a bazooka versus separating kids from their parents at the Mexican border? 12?

  29. And these progressives have the gall to refer to Trump as a dictator.

    1. “And these progressives have the gall to refer to Trump as a dictator”

      The Progressive Left has always talked a vicious line of projection. And Trump REALLY gets on their nerves. He had the gall to not roll over for Granny Maojackets von Pantsuit. He doesn’t shrivel up and whimper when they attack him, like a good little RINO. The list goes on….

      If you think they’re nasty NOW, wait until he catches them committing vote fraud in 2020. He will. They can’t help themselves; they’ve gone so deranged they’re going to throw caution to the winds, and they are GOING to get caught. When Trump is in a position to ask them “I’ve just shown that, in at least (pick a number) States there is no difference between the Democrat Party and a criminal conspiracy to defraud the public. What have you got to say for yourselves?” They are going to be speaking in TONGUES!

  30. This discussion is great for a hypothetical debate but like Beto, Harris has no chance of ever being President. She is a complete fraud like HRC, Beto and Warren. Actually none of them have a chance but she has no chance at all

    1. I suspect you’re right. I’ve suspected it for a while. I think the DNC panjandrums are afraid that after their spectacular screwup in more-or-less handpicking Granny Maojackets von Pantsuit, they might be faced with an uprising from within the Party; that their PARTY positions might be in danger. And I think that, in response to this, they have decided to write off 2020, stand back, and let their in-party rivals break themselves on Trump.

      Now, I don’t insist on this scenario. There are plenty of other explanations, and at least a few (such as obdurate idiocy) are simpler. But it would account for a good deal, wouldn’t it?

  31. Harris also thinks the president can “mandate near-universal background checks by requiring anyone who sells five or more guns per year to run a background check on all gun sales.”

    This couldn’t possibly affect enough sales to have any impact whatsoever on crime. These people are not intelligent.

    1. These people are not concerned with reducing crime. They are concerned with reducing the ownership of guns. Their ideology is fundamentally authoritarian, and you can’t really have an Authoritarian State if the commoners are armed. I’m not saying that these particular fools are explicitly planning a Socialist Dictatorship. I am saying that they are IMPLICITLY planning one; it is built into their philistine Faith.

      1. Oh, they’re explicitly planning an Authoritarian State, and it’s easy to get them to say so. Ask any prog if they think the country should be run by “experts”. All but the most cunning will gladly say yes.

  32. I personally support every law that makes killing people by guns stop
    مشاوره قبل ازدواج

  33. Now, I don’t insist on this scenario. There are plenty of other explanations, and at least a few (such as obdurate idiocy) are simpler. But it would account for a good deal, wouldn’t it? BandarQ

  34. Hope everything goes good, I respect all the laws both in real life and in games. But, it was a good Democratic presidential debate.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.