During debate, Harris reminds Trump and Americans that she is a gun owner
Source: ABC News
September 11, 2024, 1:14 AM
After former President Donald Trump said during Tuesday's debate that Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democrats will take people's guns away, the vice president pushed back with a little-known fact about herself: She is a gun owner.
Harris briefly pivoted from a question on healthcare to respond to the attacks that Trump laid out during an earlier question.
"This business about taking everyone's guns away, [Gov.] .Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. We're not taking anybody's guns away, so stop with the continuous lying about this stuff," she said.
Although Harris has not spoken about her gun-ownership status during the current campaign, she did bring it up five years ago while running for president -- telling reporters in Iowa that she became a gun owner for personal safety issues when she was a prosecutor.
Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/debate-harris-reminds-trump-americans-gun-owner/story?id=113577980
One after another after another, RW-talking points were demolished during the debate.
groundloop
(12,174 posts)Guns are a huge problem in this country, and the notion that people "need" a gun is just wrong (but it certainly makes gun manufacturers a ton of money). Nowhere else in the world would it be necessary to admit owning a weapon to be considered an acceptable candidate for President.
BumRushDaShow
(141,413 posts)and that was fine with me.
Unless and until we REPEAL (or modify) the 2nd Amendment, we will be stuck with this problem.
Lucky Luciano
(11,403 posts)There is reasonable gun ownership, but it is far different from how things are today for sure.
KS Toronado
(19,473 posts)he's also suggested all Democrats need to die, anyone who feels a need to protect themselves in this
hostile environment can do whatever they feel is necessary.
sarisataka
(20,898 posts)I won't repeat the many slurs and psychological assumptions that are often applied to those who simply own a gun.
BumRushDaShow
(141,413 posts)and is something applies more to Walz. But it helps to take away the ridiculous talking point that distracts from actual gun violence and gun control issues by their proclaiming that "Democrats want to take away your guns"... which is akin to the other nonsense that GOPers would spout - "Democrats are going to put everyone in 'FEMA Camps'".
LeftInTX
(29,872 posts)You gotta understand firearms if you are gonna talk about them. Also, I would think a prosecutor would need to understand them.
sarisataka
(20,898 posts)when the local group asked if I own a gun and I answered yes, I was informed in no uncertain terms my help was neither desired nor required.
Personally I agree with this to a point (I don't get hung up if a magazine is called a clip but draw the line at the 'shoulder thing that goes up') but it definitely runs against the current. There are many who celebrate their ignorance of firearms and any who have knowledge of them are automatically gun-humping ammosexuals
LeftInTX
(29,872 posts)She would tell that to the Repukes up in Austin when she lobbied for sensible gun laws.
MDA has always been supportive of sensible gun laws and has never been anti 2A.
(OTOH a prosecutor has gotta understand them too.)
sarisataka
(20,898 posts)as prior to the question we had been discussing red flag laws and how I had been advocating them long before they reached the national discussion. I mentioned getting gun owners on board with such laws and safe storage, which led to the question if I was also a gun owner. Things took an immediate 180.
forgotmylogin
(7,673 posts)Many Democrats own guns but don't feel the need to wave them in public or open-carry and make it part of their identity.
Repubes like to oversimplify for argument; Democrats don't want to take away guns, they want to limit guns to defensive weapons and sport-firearms that people can reasonably use for defense and hunting or target-shooting. There's no reason for any civilian to have firepower and extended ammunition magazines to mow down hundreds of people with a bullet calibre that explodes heads.
Then the Repubes want to argue semantics about what is an "assault weapon" or an "automatic weapon" because if it's clearly defined, that makes it easy to limit what guns normal people have access to.
It's reasonable to allow non-automatic pistols with limited ammunition capacity, shotguns, and hunting rifles that don't auto-fire like machine guns. Per the 2nd amendment, people should have access to defensive and sport weapons, not the ability kill a roomful of people in seconds. Those are weapons of war and don't belong in the hands of civilians unless there's ever a situation where we're invaded - like how the Ukraine armed its citizens after all-out war broke out.
mucholderthandirt
(1,136 posts)TBF
(34,126 posts)I have heard that before. I'm glad she shared that again.
BumRushDaShow
(141,413 posts)like many of the MAGats do (where their thing goes beyond being a "hobby collector", and becomes an actual obsession), and she doesn't need to wear it on her sleeve as some sort of status symbol.
TBF
(34,126 posts)and their crazed collections of assault weapons.
tonekat
(1,957 posts)LeftInTX
(29,872 posts)They are not anti 2A. They also take all the concealed carry classes etc. This is so they understand firearms, the laws surrounding firearms etc.
As a prosecutor, you gotta understand firearms.
The only time I handled and fired a gun was a neighbor's 22, when he was duck hunting. I was 14 and so was he. He let me fire it out of curiosity.
However, imagine if I tried to act like I knew alot about firearms?
Torchlight
(4,251 posts)the stark difference in simply owning a firearm and being owned by the firearm. It's neither her identity nor a prop; and that, I think, is the red meat of contrast.