Kamala Harris Wanted To Ban The Gun She Now Claims To Own

When it comes to gun ownership and the Second Amendment, Kamala Harris has successfully shot herself in the foot.

Vice President Kamala Harris has in recent weeks claimed to be a proud gun owner who is not afraid to exercise her Second Amendment right to self-defense. The Democrat’s radical gun control track record, especially during her tenure in California politics, however, shows she tried to ban the type of firearm she claims to own.

“What kind of gun do you own, and when and why’d you get it?” “60 Minutes” Correspondent Bill Whitaker asked Harris during the pair’s Oct. 7 sitdown.

“I have a Glock,” Harris claimed.

Contrary to what the Harris campaign’s social media posts suggest, “Glock,” is not a type of firearm, but the name of a popular handgun manufacturing company. Not only should the “g” in Glock be capitalized to reflect it is a proper noun, but Harris should have elaborated further on what specific type of Glock she claims to own by naming the model and caliber.

She did not, and Whitaker put himself in the camp of corporate media mouthpieces who have no business reporting about guns because they know nothing about them by failing to press her further on her vague answer.

Instead, after the VP asserted that she had the firearm “for quite some time” because “my background is in law enforcement,” Whitaker wondered if Harris had ever “fired” her weapon.

“Yes, of course,” Harris said through laughs. “At a shooting range. Yes, of course I have.”

Harris’ CBS sitdown may not have given Americans much more clarity on the firearm she purports to possess, but it did reveal her stunning hypocrisy on gun ownership.

Continue reading “”

I said that Joe would quit campaigning for reelection over Jill’s dead body.
I think she, as much or more than Joe, is behind this back stabbing

Are we witnessing President Biden’s revenge tour?
A Kamala loss would mark the ultimate “I told you so” moment.

Hell hath no fury like a corrupt politician scorned.

You can’t help but notice that “Dark Brandon” isn’t exactly falling in line these days.

President Joe Biden finds himself a victim of the Democrat establishment mutineers, stripped of an opportunity at two-term greatness, and with quite a few interesting incentives coming into the November election.

More and more polling points to the possibility that Kamala Harris may lose by a significant margin in November. Donald Trump’s momentum keeps building, with nothing but tailwinds at his back. The Biden family is keenly aware of all of this, and they seem to be positioning the president for the ultimate “I told you so” moment for his legacy. Should Kamala Harris fall in defeat, President Biden becomes a man both wronged by a political establishment and righteous for being the one man who could defeat the GOP nominee.

We need not rehash the bizarre events of July 21, but it’s worth recalling that Biden was seemingly forced out of the running for his second term, and Democratic Party power brokers (Obama, Soros, Pelosi, Schumer, etc) hastily selected VP Kamala Harris as the nominee. Furthermore, they filled the lame-duck months on Biden’s schedule with instructions to stay quiet and soak up the sun in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.

Since that fateful week in Delaware, Biden’s tone has changed dramatically.

In his rare public appearances, the president is attempting to transition into political retirement as an elder statesman, and he’s almost always doing so far removed from the instructions of his teleprompter. His newfound rhetoric is far removed from his infamous verbal dumpster diving of the Biden-Trump debate (and the vast majority of his presidency). He’s now linking arms with supporters of the one-time “threat to democracy,” reframing his legacy as Scranton Joe, the bipartisan blue-collar president. He never once engaged in such deliberate bipartisan appeals, on or off script, for his entire presidency.

Continue reading “”

Study of 1.7 Million Children: Heart Damage Only Found in Covid-Vaxxed Kids

A major study involving 1.7 million children has found that heart damage only appeared in children who had received Covid mRNA vaccines.

Not a single unvaccinated child in the group suffered from heart-related problems.

In addition, the researchers note zero children from the entire group, vaccinated or unvaccinated, died from COVID-19.

Furthermore, the study found that Covid shots offered the children very little protection from the virus, with many becoming infected after just 14 to 15 weeks of receiving an injection.

The 1.7 million children observed in the study were between the ages of 5 to 15 and were registered with the UK’s National Healthcare System (NHS).

A preprint of the study’s paper was published in the MedRxiv medical journal.

The researchers were investigating the safety and effectiveness of Pfizer’s vaccine in fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated children and teenagers.

However, they discovered that cases of myocarditis and pericarditis only emerged in the vaccinated group.

Zero cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were found in the unvaccinated group. Myocarditis and pericarditis are both forms of inflammation in the heart. Pericarditis is a condition where the sac around the heart becomes inflamed, while myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle.

Both disorders restrict the heart’s ability to pump blood around the body and can cause clots, strokes, heart attacks, cardiac arrest, and ultimately sudden death.

Opening Arguments Begin in ‘Ghost Gun’ Challenge

While so-called ghost guns get a lot of hype in the media, the reality is that they account for only a tiny fraction of those firearms used in illegal acts. However, because they’ve grown in supposed popularity–probably because of media hysterics cluing bad guys in that these are a thing–they’re the worst thing ever.

When the Biden administration took steps to try to regulate these firearms, the usual suspects in the media and anti-gun activism celebrated it.

However, such a decree was never going to go unchallenged. Today, opening arguments begin in that case. (Arguments begin at 11:00 AM Eastern; you can watch them here.)

Among those party to the challenge is the Second Amendment Foundation, which sent a press release about today’s opening statements.

On Tuesday, Oct. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) challenge to ATF’s regulation expanding what constitutes a “firearm.”

Arguments will begin at 11 a.m. EST and will be broadcast live here.

SAF is joined in the case by Defense Distributed and Not an LLC (doing business as JSD Supply). SAF and its partners are represented by attorneys Charles R. Flores and Josh Blackman of Houston, and SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut.

In April 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) published its Final Rule amending the regulatory definition of the term “firearm” to encompass precursor parts that, with enough additional manufacturing operations, would become functional firearms frames and receivers, but in their current state were non-functional objects.

In seeking to regulate these “non-firearm objects” the ATF’s Final Rule directly contradicted Congress’ definition of “firearm” set forth in the Gun Control Act of 1968. The ATF’s re-definition of “firearm” in the Final Rule establishes a practical ban on the private manufacture of firearms – a constitutionally protected tradition.

In December 2022, SAF filed to intervene in an existing lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas known as VanDerStok v. Garland. The case challenges the lawfulness of ATF’s regulatory re-definition of a “firearm” under the Administrative Procedures Act. SAF scored a major victory in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated significant portions of the Rule. The Biden Department of Justice now seeks to resurrect the rule before the Supreme Court.

For more information about the case, visit saf.org. To listen to the arguments live, click here or follow SAF’s X page for live updates.

The key takeaway is that the argument will be that the ATF exceeded it’s regulatory authority by trying to redefine what is and isn’t a firearm. This is what the ATF did with bump stocks when they opted to redefine them as machine guns. The Supreme Court ruled they had no such authority, so it’s unlikely this will be any different.

That’s bad news for the anti-gun side because the reason Biden went the executive order route and had the ATF act unilaterally was because there wasn’t a snowball’s chance in Hades that Congress was going to pass any bill trying to accomplish what the ATF tried.

Yet that’s not a valid reason to try and go around Congress like this and redefine things differently than Congress did.

Had there never been a law that specifically defined a firearm, they might could have gotten away with it. One could argue that the lack of definition would put the onus for defining what is and isn’t a gun on the ATF. The problem is that they did define it. The ATF has to work within that definition, not make up their own because they really don’t like that people do things they don’t approve of.

The Vanderstock case is likely to be another smackdown of the ATF’s overreach, much like what we saw in Cargill.

DeSantis Declares No Orders for Closing Gun Stores Ahead of Milton

If Hurricane Helene was all we had to deal with, that would have been plenty for the year. Unfortunately, now Florida is bracing for Milton, which is expected to reach category four status and then slam into the state.

With all the death and devastation hitting a part of the country that pretty much never has to worry about hurricanes, a lot of stories have gotten lost in the shuffle. We covered the situation in Okeechobee, Florida where the police chief illegally decreed that gun stores must be closed. No one stopped what they were doing because of the decree, mind you, and it wasn’t enforced–the chief says it was a mistake that shouldn’t have happened–but it was still a thing.

Gov. Ron DeSantis is taking steps to make sure that doesn’t happen again.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has issued an emergency declaration ahead of  Hurricane Milton that prohibits Emergency Management Director Kevin Guthrie from exercising his authority to suspend or limit gun sales.

The preemption of Guthrie’s authority is unprecedented and even highlighted in the news release that went out with the executive order declaring an emergency:…

Florida law allows the emergency management director to prohibit citizens from carrying guns and selling guns and ammunition during an emergency, but Guthrie has not taken such action as far as available records show.

Except that it doesn’t.

It provides for emergency management directors to prohibit the carrying and selling of firearms when there have been acts of violence or defiance of lawful authority. That simply doesn’t exist here, so no, Guthrie doesn’t actually have the authority to do so. The fact that he hasn’t doesn’t mean he won’t, and after what happened to Okeechobee, well, DeSantis is taking steps to make sure it doesn’t happen this time.

“But this is unprecedented!” the writers declare.

Sure, it’s unprecedented, but that’s because no one figured they needed to spell it out specifically before. Prior to Okeechobee, no one in Florida thought that someone would try to prohibit the lawful carry of a firearm or the sale of one in the lead-up to a hurricane. Sure, I could see them doing it during a riot or some kind of uprising, but for a storm?

Yet someone did, and DeSantis clearly wants to make sure there’s not a repeat.

Yes, officials said it was a mistake, that they didn’t mean to sign any such order and it was never enforced, and so on. That doesn’t mean someone else won’t try to do it simply because they don’t like guns.

I don’t think Guthrie would do so–he was appointed to his job by DeSantis, so, probably, he’s not exactly a gun control enthusiast–but this also shields him from criticism if something goes sideways and someone gets shot during the storm or the immediate aftermath. It’s unlikely we’ll see widespread violence or anything, but we also know how the news media gets.

No, DeSantis did the right thing and media hysterics are nothing but an attempt to try and pretend this is something that it’s not.

People need to be able to buy guns right up until the stores close because the stores’ management decides its time to close. DeSantis making sure there’s no repeat of Helene and Okeechobee is just good sense.