Quote of the day—Senator Kamala Harris

I think somebody should have required all those members of Congress to go in a room — in a locked room, no press, nobody else — and look at the autopsy photographs of those babies. And then you vote your conscience.

Senator Kamala Harris
(D., Calif.)
January 29, 2019
Harris: Lawmakers Should View ‘Autopsy Photographs’ of Dead Kids before Gun-Control Votes
[And what if those who want to expand gun restrictions and gun free zones were forced to do the same? But they were told this is what happens when you do not allow people to defend themselves and innocent life? These are the consequences of gun control.

They think we are heartless. We think they are evil.

Same screen. Different movies.—Joe]


14 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Senator Kamala Harris

    • At first I thought she may have been talking abortion, but then aborted babies aren’t generally autopsied I wouldn’t think.

      Anyway, the leftist agitators are often talking about dead kids, “if it could save the life of just one child…(fill in your favorite socialist/Marxist/communist pipe dream)” and so on. I therefore came up with my own version;
      If it could save the life of just one child, shouldn’t we all own AR-15s and AKs?

      We could use that line for anything, and in the advocacy of liberty it would be thousands of times more honest than anything the leftists could ever use it for;

      If it could save the life of just one child, shouldn’t we cut taxes by half each year for the next ten years and then impose a death penalty for any politician who so much as suggests the raising of taxes?

      If it could save the life of just one child, shouldn’t we eliminate half of the federal departments and bureaus every year until there aren’t any left but the presidency, legislature and judiciary?

      If it could save the life of just one child, shouldn’t we reduce the tax code to one page?

      If it could save the life of just one child, shouldn’t we have a public audit of the Federal Reserve and then eliminate it?

      If it could save the life of just one child, shouldn’t we outlaw any and all forms of coercive redistribution?

      If it could save the life of just one child, shouldn’t we arrest and banish from our blessed country any public employee who speaks against the second amendment or any other enumerated right of the People, or is dismissive or derogatory toward the Principles of Liberty? (It’s a big enough world that those who dislike liberty can surely fuck off and find somewhere else to live)

      Add your own, and have fun!

  1. Complete this sentence;

    If dead kids are the currency with which we purchase legislation, and we want more legislation,…

  2. If the first staff members (principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Sherlach) who responded to the sound of obvious gunfire breaking the window next to the locked glass doors had been armed and had even minimal tactical training and confronted the killer with a firearm or firearms rather than waving their arms, maybe they, and the other victims, would be alive and there wouldn’t be any autopsy photos. QED.

  3. Inititially, I thought it was a piece related to abortion, then I saw the subject and realized that was not the case…

    Concscience, eh?

    What about my Rights?, which don’t come from that crowd of buffoons…

    • Your rights? They had a vote. They controlled the voter registration, the wording on the proposition, and they counted the votes.

  4. It should be noted that one of the things that radical islam does to get suicide bombers is to take mentally/emotionally ill people and manipulate them into doing horrible things. One wonders if something similar is happening now.

  5. Force all of these same people to observe the Autopsy of someone MURDERED by a criminal/illegal with a gun. Force them to watch
    a dozen late term infant murders…..what THEY call ‘abortion’. In short
    lets force them to LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD instead of the ivory
    towered gated community with armed security La La land most of them

  6. So I’m thinking here. Politicians know, or should know, that criminals do not obey laws. This is by definition what criminals do. And yet, politicians continue to push laws, such as gun restrictions, confiscations, outright bans, etc., that deny rights to non-criminals. This in turn makes it more likely that they will be come the helpless victims of the criminals who do not obey the laws written and promulgated by the politicians.

    Which makes me then wonder:Which constituency, exactly, do these politicians serve? Certainly not the peaceable citizens, it would seem.

    • Professional courtesy. As Solzhenitsyn noted in “the Gulag Archipelago”, the actual criminals were treated better than the political prisoners. Thieves and murderers do not threaten the philosophical foundation of Leftist beliefs.

Comments are closed.