;
Connect with us

Opinion

‘President’ Kamala Harris is Coming for Your Guns, Constitutional or Not — Opinion

Sound accurate to you?

Published

on

Let’s be honest, a vote for Joe Biden is a vote for Kamala Harris to be President. Ironically, she was literally the least popular democrat among democrats in the primary, dropping out before the Iowa Caucus, but she is the correct gender and genetic makeup. In certain circles of the upper echelons of the Democrat Party the rapid cognitive decline of Joe Biden is being whispered about. Perhaps, it is the pressure of the national stage, which he has largely avoided, but his decline is worsening. When he does venture out in public and opens his mouth it is painfully obvious…something is not right with old Joe. He’s slipping and fast.

Many strategists and even Joe himself have said that he would only be a one term president due to his advanced age. For the purposes of this article, I will submit that I don’t think Joe Biden will make it through even a first term. I will take it so far that I doubt he would last three months, and he’ll step down to due medical reasons.

Make no mistake. If Joe Biden wins the presidency…we will have a President Kamala Harris within months not years. Count on it.

A President Harris is a terrifying thing if you are a freedom loving American. She has many shortfalls and a history in both word and deed displaying her disdain for the freedoms and rights of the average American. As a prosecutor and attorney general she was found easily corruptible and wanting. She was and is a power-hungry woman willing to say and do who or whatever it takes to move up the ladder. She climbed over a powerful old man once to ascend, (See Willie Brown) and Joe won’t even stand a chance.

take our poll - story continues below

Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?

  • Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

What will be one of President Harris’ first orders of business? How does she feel about your second amendment rights? Kamala Harris has told us exactly what she plans to do with your guns. She has unequivocally stated she is coming for your guns and that is not just political hyperbole.

Mark Oliva of National Shooting Sports Foundation said in an interview with the Washington Free Beacon, “During her short-lived presidential campaign, she demanded gun-control legislation within 100 days and threatened executive action if Congress didn’t deliver. Senator Harris was clear when she said gun control would be an administration priority. Her platform included entertaining forced confiscation of lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles, redefining ‘sporting purpose’ for lawful firearm possession, criminalizing private firearm transfers and repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In fact, she supports politicizing the Department of Justice and using the weight of the federal government to harass a constitutionally protected industry in a series of frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt manufacturers.

She also stated during a public policy forum that she was for a mandatory buyback program.

“We have to have a buyback program, and I support a mandatory gun buyback program,” she said. “It’s got to be smart, we got to do it the right way. But there are 5 million [assault weapons] at least, some estimate as many as 10 million, and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets but doing it the right way.”

Since she made that statement about a year ago American’s have purchased record numbers of weapons in response to the uncertain times created by the pandemic and the rioting in the streets while liberal politicians are demanding to defund the police. The average citizen clearly realizes in the future their defense may increasingly fall upon themselves. In June 2020 alone the FBI stated there were more than 3.9 million background checks completed. In just the first half of 2020, millions upon millions of new firearms have been privately purchased, and in most cases to first time gun buyers. Most commonly these new weapons are semiautomatic handguns and AR style rifles and no they aren’t for hunting. They are for self-protection in an increasingly dangerous world.

Kamala Harris says she supports a Mandatory Buyback Program. What exactly is that? As the word mandatory implies…it is not an option. It will be required and enforced. It’s a fancy political way to say we’re going to confiscate your weapons against your will.

It will most likely be focused on AR style rifles as they have proven to be the liberal politician’s nemesis mostly because they are so scary looking! FYI…AR rifles are simply semi-automatic rifles nothing more. But when President Harris outlaws them and demands that all “Assault Weapons” be turned in, she won’t be asking. She will be demanding.

Enforcement of her mandatory buyback program would likely be sporting. This is what she means when she says, “we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets but doing it the right way.” The truth is there is no smart way about it, and if you do it the wrong way you might just spark a civil war with the most heavily armed people in America.

The phrase made famous by Charlton Heston; you can have my weapon when you pry it from my cold dead hands would likely be on many American’s lips…millions more than even six months ago. Enforcement of a mandatory gun buyback would likely be accomplished by other means than the direct conflict created by sending officers house to house. She would use crafty tactics such as listing people through gun registration, or using the power of the IRS or voting rights perhaps? I’m sure there will be many smart means at her disposal all with the same end goal, disarm legal gun owners and confiscate your weapons in spite of your constitutional right to own them.

I guarantee that a vote for Joe Biden will mean Kamala Harris will be making a criminal of all legal gun owners who refuse to surrender their weapons to the government. I’m simply taking her at her word. She’s promised if congress won’t do it, then she’ll do it by executive fiat in her first 100 days.

A President Kamala Harris is coming for your guns, there’s just no other way to say it. Vote accordingly.

Opinion

Pentagon Reverses Statement on Drone Strike, Admits to Killing Civilians

Has the Biden administration done ANYTHING right in Afghanistan?!

Published

on

In the chaotic last few days of the American occupation of Afghanistan, there were a lot moving parts and quite a bit of calamity.

The Biden administration’s abrupt choice to expedite the withdrawal of US assets caused the Afghan Security Forces to essentially vaporize, and the Taliban conquered the entire country in a meager 11 days.  In the process, hundreds died, including 13 members of the US military after a series of terror attacks amid the throngs of people trying to flee via the airport in Kabul.

On top of that, the Pentagon was carrying out drone strikes meant to suppress the capabilities of new terror group ISIS-K, but, instead, killed innocent children.

Now, after initially denying that the strike was a failure, the Pentagon has decided to come clean.

take our poll - story continues below

Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?

  • Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Head of the United States Central Command Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr. announced Friday that it is unlikely any ISIS-K members were killed in a Kabul drone strike on August 29, which led to multiple civilian casualties.

“We now assess that it is unlikely that the vehicle and those who died were associated with ISIS-K or a direct threat to US forces,” McKenzie said of the airstrike at a briefing, following an investigation by the Military.

“This strike was taken in the earnest belief that it would prevent an imminent threat to our forces and the evacuees at the airport, but it was a mistake and I offer my sincere apology,” Mckenzie said, adding that he is “fully responsible for this strike and this tragic outcome.”

DOD officials also prepared a statement to the family of the deceased.

“On behalf of the men and women of the Department of Defense, I offer my deepest condolences to surviving family members of those who were killed, including Mr. Ahmadi, and to the staff of Nutrition and Education International, Mr. Ahmadi’s employer,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III said in a lengthy statement on the investigation’s findings. “We now know that there was no connection between Mr. Ahmadi and ISIS-Khorasan, that his activities on that day were completely harmless and not at all related to the imminent threat we believed we faced, and that Mr. Ahmadi was just as innocent a victim as were the others tragically killed.

“We apologize, and we will endeavor to learn from this horrible mistake,” Austin added, saying that officials “will scrutinize not only what we decided to do — and not do — on the 29th of August, but also how we investigated those outcomes.”

The incident is but one of a long list of failures by the Biden administration in recent weeks, and certainly isn’t going to throw cold water on the growing calls for impeachment.

In the chaotic last few days of the American occupation of Afghanistan, there were a lot moving parts and quite a bit of calamity. The Biden administration’s abrupt choice to expedite the withdrawal of US assets caused the Afghan Security Forces to essentially vaporize, and the Taliban conquered the entire country in a meager 11 days.  In the process, hundreds died, including 13 members of the US military after a series of terror attacks amid the throngs of people trying to flee via the airport in Kabul. On top of that, the Pentagon was carrying out drone strikes meant to suppress the capabilities of new terror group ISIS-K, but, instead, killed innocent children. Now, after initially denying that the strike was a failure, the Pentagon has decided to come clean. Head of the United States Central Command Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr. announced Friday that it is unlikely any ISIS-K members were killed in a Kabul drone strike on August 29, which led to multiple civilian casualties. “We now assess that it is unlikely that the vehicle and those who died were associated with ISIS-K or a direct threat to US forces,” McKenzie said of the airstrike at a briefing, following an investigation by the Military. “This strike was taken in the earnest belief that it would prevent an imminent threat to our forces and the evacuees at the airport, but it was a mistake and I offer my sincere apology,” Mckenzie said, adding that he is “fully responsible for this strike and this tragic outcome.” DOD officials also prepared a statement to the family of the deceased. “On behalf of the men and women of the Department of Defense, I offer my deepest condolences to surviving family members of those who were killed, including Mr. Ahmadi, and to the…

Continue Reading

Opinion

Even More Trouble Arrives for AOC After Met Gala Dress Stunt Flops

This one is going to sting a little.

Published

on

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is quite familiar with the way in which the media cycle works, and her place in it.  While her politics aren’t always in tune with the center of our country, her use of social media to cultivate a narrative is nigh unmatched, and it’s something that has to be taken into consideration whenever she catches a headline.

This is all a part of the show, in other words.

This week’s AOC stunt came to us from the posh, $30,000 per ticket Met Gala, at which the precocious progressive from New York was seen sporting a white dress with gaudy red writing on it.  The message?  “Tax The Rich”.

Yes, at an event that costs $30,000 to get in the door.

take our poll - story continues below

Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?

  • Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

But AOC didn’t pay to be there.  She was a “guest of the museum”, which is a clever trick to get her around all those “impermissible gift” laws that we have in this country.

That’s why the Democrat was almost immediately slapped with an ethics complaint after the stunt.  This week, she picked up yet another.

The complaint from the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) to the Office of Congressional Ethics alleged that Ocasio-Cortez improperly accepted tickets from a table sponsor for herself and her boyfriend.

House rules allow members to take free tickets to charity events directly from event organizers, and The Post reported Tuesday that AOC and boyfriend Riley Roberts were directly invited by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

However, the NLPC argued that “it is the table sponsor who is gifting or underwriting a coveted seat to AOC at the Gala.

“And if … the table where AOC sat was one paid for by one of [the] corporations attending the event, such as Instagram or Facebook, AOC has received a prohibited gift from the corporation that also lobbies Congress.”

The dress and the scene caused a bit of an uproar when it first hit social media, as it didn’t take long for users to point out the obvious irony of it all.

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is quite familiar with the way in which the media cycle works, and her place in it.  While her politics aren’t always in tune with the center of our country, her use of social media to cultivate a narrative is nigh unmatched, and it’s something that has to be taken into consideration whenever she catches a headline. This is all a part of the show, in other words. This week’s AOC stunt came to us from the posh, $30,000 per ticket Met Gala, at which the precocious progressive from New York was seen sporting a white dress with gaudy red writing on it.  The message?  “Tax The Rich”. Yes, at an event that costs $30,000 to get in the door. But AOC didn’t pay to be there.  She was a “guest of the museum”, which is a clever trick to get her around all those “impermissible gift” laws that we have in this country. That’s why the Democrat was almost immediately slapped with an ethics complaint after the stunt.  This week, she picked up yet another. The complaint from the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) to the Office of Congressional Ethics alleged that Ocasio-Cortez improperly accepted tickets from a table sponsor for herself and her boyfriend. House rules allow members to take free tickets to charity events directly from event organizers, and The Post reported Tuesday that AOC and boyfriend Riley Roberts were directly invited by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. However, the NLPC argued that “it is the table sponsor who is gifting or underwriting a coveted seat to AOC at the Gala. “And if … the table where AOC sat was one paid for by one of [the] corporations attending the event, such as Instagram or Facebook, AOC has received a prohibited gift from the…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week