Posted on 06/02/2022 4:37:20 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Biden’s VP blames “assault weapons” for the actions of criminals and terrorists.
"You know what an assault weapon is?” Kamala Harris asked reporters on May 29. “You know how an assault weapon was designed? It was designed for a specific purpose—to kill a lot of human beings quickly. An assault weapon is a weapon of war with no place, no place in a civil society.” The nation, Harris said, was experiencing an “epidemic of hate,” and so on.
Biden’s vice president calls for a ban on “assault” weapons, which she failed to define. Harris doubtless had the AR-15 in mind but she does have experience with the AK-47 and other firearms.
Kamala Harris’ career began with lucrative sinecures courtesy of steady boyfriend Willie Brown, a powerful California Democrat 30 years her senior. The former Assembly speaker and San Francisco mayor backed Harris for district attorney and in 2003 Harris unseated Terence Hallinan.
On April 10, 2004, San Francisco police officers Isaac Espinoza and Barry Parker approached gang member David Hill, suspected of concealing a weapon. Hill pulled an AK-47, in gang parlance a “kayda,” from under his clothes and “sprayed at least 12 shots,” killing Espinoza and wounding Parker.
Prosecutor Harry Dorfman told the jury that Hill, “with his illegal, fully-loaded assault rifle, with his gang thinking and his gang mentality, chose to kill the police rather than stop for the police.” As that revealed, certain weapons may be illegal, but criminals will get them and use them to kill people, including police.
Under a California law passed in 1973, criminals who murder police officers are eligible for the death penalty. At a memorial service for Espinoza, Senator Dianne Feinstein said, “This is not only the definition of tragedy, it’s the special circumstance called for by the death penalty law.”
The San Francisco Police Officers Association wanted Harris to seek the death penalty for Hill, but the district attorney Harris declined and instead pursued a life sentence. Harris never spoke to Espinoza’s widow Renata about that decision, and according to Renata, Harris “never came over and said ‘I’m sorry for your loss.’ Never. Nothing.”
In 2010, Harris was so lightly regarded that the reliably progressive Sacramento Bee endorsed Republican Steve Cooley. He was cruising to victory on election night but three weeks later ballot harvesting put Harris over the line by less than a percentage point. If anybody attributed the victory to ballot fraud it would be hard to blame them.
As attorney general, Harris targeted for-profit colleges, supported gun control, and looked the other way at government corruption. In 2014, California’s attorney general kept quiet when Mexican national Luis Bracamontes gunned down police officers Danny Oliver and Michael Davis in Sacramento.
In 2015, repeatedly deported Mexican felon Jose Inez Garcia Zarate shot and killed Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier. Attorney General Harris defended the city’s sanctuary policy and failed even to decry “gun violence” in the case.
That same year in San Bernardino, Islamic State supporters Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 unarmed innocents and wounded 22 at an office holiday party. The “AR-15-style” weapons in the attack had been illegally procured by collaborator Enrique Marquez, who also purchased bomb-making materials for Farook and Malik.
A year later Harris issued a statement on the “devastating and tragic terrorist attack,” but failed to name a single victim or the Islamic terrorists who shot them dead. No word about any “epidemic of hatred,” and no attempt to blame “assault weapons” for the murders committed by terrorists. The Willie Brown protégé with the Easter Island stone face has always shown more kindness to violent criminals and terrorists than their innocent victims.
Now a heartbeat away from the presidency, Kamala Harris fails to understand that the Constitution was designed to protect the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Harris has not made a case that restricting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens would enhance public safety and prevent mass shootings like those in Buffalo and Uvalde, where police forgot about their duty to protect innocent lives.
Meanwhile, fully automatic weapons, submachine guns and such, are already banned. As Stephen P. Halbrook explains, the semi-automatic AR-15 enjoys “common use” protections under the Second Amendment. Such firearms are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” and “chosen by American society,” not the government.
Halbrook is the author of Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State,” and Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France: Tyranny and Resistance. These carefully researched books show what happens, as the late P.J. O’Rourke put it, when those with all the power have all the guns.
Leftists and criminals seem to understand each other.
She is finally right about something. There is a a lot of hate out there. The thing they can’t see is where it is generated from. THE LEFT BRINGS THE HATE.
That’s a Kentucky long rifle. In the right hands, it had a killing distance of 100-150 yards. In it’s time, it was the premiere hunting rifle. In war, it was gold.
Harris and all the other “weapon of war” scum would have labeled it an “assault rifle” in 1776.
In World War Two, “weapons of war” could be anything from nuclear weapons to sharpened sticks. Banning an item because it could be useful in a war would leave us utterly defenseless.
It would leave us uncivilized. No spears, no sharpened sticks, no knives, no fire.
I listened to the senile POTUS the other day. His main argument were assault rifles should be banned because they were deadly.
Honestly though hasn’t that always been the reason for using firearms? Because they are deadly?
Kammy should be banned as she is an assault on my senses.
The Indo-Jamaican is not a natural born citizen.
I’m not a gun expert but I suspect a semi-automatic rifle or pistol could kill about as many people in a crowd as a fully automatic one. For one thing you can choose targets and aim between each trigger pull.
What do you call an automobile that’s running people down along a parade route?
An assault vehicle.??
Do we ban the ownership of cars?
No we issue fines and punishment.
You can’t regulate human behavior.
“Banning an item because it could be useful in a war would leave us utterly defenseless.”
That’s the point.
L
Cry as you might against the notion, it’s still going to be difficult to argue.
A robust semi-auto rifle with quickly exchanged 30+ round magazines really is made for one ultimate purpose. It is a weapon for the purpose of efficiently taking out larger numbers of people.
That is the truth. A difficult truth.
Yes and no: in untrained hands, an AK on full auto will only hit somebody with the first shot as the rest of the burst goes sailing above your target's heads - the recoil push is strong and steady. Many of us who have faced them survived because of this characteristic.
On the other hand, a killer firing semiautomatically will hit more people in the first two or three rounds until the people react and take cover/hit the ground/run away - but unless there intended targets are trapped, they won't get many.
An experienced shooter fires short, controllable bursts in combat which increases that weapon's lethality.
“That’s a Kentucky long rifle. In the right hands, it had a killing distance of 100-150 yards. In it’s time, it was the premiere hunting rifle. In war, it was gold.” [DownInFlames, post 3, referencing illustration in post 3 by Bonemaker]
Not even close.
George Washington went on record that he didn’t care much for rifles nor riflemen; he said the same thing about local militia. Neither could be relied on to stand and fight, as trained regulars would.
In fairness, the rifles of the 1770s were more difficult and slower to load than smoothbore muskets; they also cost more, took longer to make and to master, and (given manufacturing limitations of the day) could not be standardized.
Rifles were useful for long-range shots, and hunting. Less used in eastern North America, where in the 1770s hunting ranges were still quite short.
But the potential of rifles did not go unnoticed. The United States had been the first nation to field riflemen in organized units, during our War of Independence. It was also the first nation to adopt a standardized pattern rifle as an official issue arm (in 1803).
For many years after, American troops were armed with both rifles and muskets: 54 cal for rifles, 69 cal for muskets. This organizational arrangement persisted until 1855, when the War Dept adopted the first standardized rifle-musket -firing a 58 cal conical bullet with a hollow base that expanded to catch the rifling. Generically called the Minie ball.
By 1861, many muskets of the older 69 cal smoothbore pattern were still in storage. Some were rifled for issue in the American Civil War. But some smoothbores were issued too - still without peer for really close combat, where faster loading and volume fire ruled.
Remember the Assault rifle ban?
It banned rifles by name.
It declared flash suppressors and bayonet lugs bad.(How many people died from bayonets since 1900?)
Folding stocks were bad
Extended magazines bad.
So the manufacturers changed the name of the rifles to “Target Rifle”
Removed the flash suppressor and bayonet lug.
Made the folding stock solid.
Added a 10 round magazine.
And the rifles were still for sale all through the ban.
Meanwhile there were still millions of high cap magazines in public hands.
Bet there will be a run on gun stores as people buy up all the AR-15s they can get their hot little hands on.
It happens every time the Dems broadcast what firearm is now on their “To Be Banned” list.
No one really wanted an “A-s-s-ault Rifle” in the 1970s till the Dems cast their covetous eyes in that direction in the 1980s. Suddenly AR and AK type rifles became hot sellers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.