Promise to Ban Guns By Executive Action

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Prepare appropriately.

Share

13 thoughts on “Promise to Ban Guns By Executive Action”

  2. Why wait?

    That’s the question that can follow up every policy change that Harris is proposing. She’s the Vice President and she has direct access to the office of the President. If an idea is good, and constitutional, and within the powers of the office of the POTUS, then there is nothing about the date of January 20, 2025 that changes the nature of that “good idea”. In fact, that “good idea” should be done immediately under Biden hand, and he should publicly say that it’s all her idea and he agrees with it, and there is no reason to wait.

    Obviously, there would be a court challenge, by why not get those court challenges started and in process so by the time she starts her “100 days”, she already has the objections stayed and she is free to do what she intends during those “100 days”.

    Explain it, Harris supporters. She has this great idea that could change so many lives, and she could get it started now with Biden’s help, but she’s holding back until… what? She alone can get the credit? Until after the election so it’s no longer a factor, but then why mention it as a campaign promise? Meanwhile, this great nation is deprived of the benefit of this “good idea” and we all get to “suffer” without it until… what?

    I think she’s saying whatever she can to keep her party base shored up, and she thinks will move the needle in her direction, and she (or her handlers) privately have a more realistic view of how ‘good’, constitutional, or appropriate to the powers of the office that those idea are, and that view is not good. Or, more generally, she’s relying on enough people to continue to be suckers.

    • I like the tone of your response! My further guess is she figures that everyone (liberals and conservatives alike) really know that such an EO won’t hold up for a second (this isn’t Canada, and she’s no Justin Trudeau) but if she waits until after the election, at least the utter failure of the policy won’t be revealed to her supporters. If she convinces Joe to issue an EO now, it will likely embitter some of her current supporters and potentially lose their votes.
      All this talk about saving democracy, so they figure to ram through an unconstitutional edict from on high, that the legislature has been attempting to do for what, three decades? Yeah, sounds pretty democratic to me.

  3. It’s a whole lot of vaporous blather, but unfortunately I can’t tell (a) when this was recorded and (b) what subject she’s talking about.
    The caption talks about gun confiscation but her words do not mention anything specific that I could tell. And while she said a whole lot of extreme left wing stuff in 2019, her staff has been pretending she’s now suddenly a “centrist”. (She hasn’t personally disavowed any of her extreme positions, though; that has only been done by assorted junior staffers, often unnamed ones.)
    If this recording is from the past month or two, that would be interesting.

    • My guess is 2019. She looks younger. But she was telling the truth then and lying now.

      • Remember when she was called out on lambasting Biden on some policy point during her brief candidacy back in 2019?
        Interviewer – so how do you explain your opposition to Biden’s policy on XYZ during your campaign, but now your agreement with it since you’re being considered as VP?
        Harris: [cackle, cackle] It was a debate! It was a debate!! [cackle cackle]

        IOW, I’m a politician, I will lie my ass off if I think it gives me an advantage.

  4. I always wonder why round numbers.

    Why not do it on day 73, 15 or better yet day 1?

    Round numbers always tell me they are lying.

  6. Considering how almost every judge in almost every court is extremely anti gun, to the point they also want the democrats to ban guns, ban gun ownership and would salivate ruling that not only can the democrats ban all guns but it is within the costituonal authority of the democrats to go door to door to door to confiscate all guns by force and that it is also within the constitutional authority of the democrats to literally kill all guns owners; the compete and total extermination of all gun owners without trial along with the compete and total mandated extermination of The entire population of the United States in a home with a gun. And that protesting should be banned and that anyone who protests that should be killed along with the mandated extermination of the ENTIRE population of the United States that opposes including all non gun owners I don’t have much faith that when Harris signs an executive order banning all guns with confiscation, even if it is door to door with the mandate to kill every gun owner in the country that any court would stop her. Maybe the fifth circuit but this would need a ruling from the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court would rather the Democrats do this, start a second Revolution and literally have to deploy nuclear weapons to stop it. I would go so far to say that the Supreme Court right now would rather have the Democrats deploy nuclear weapons and And kill tens if not hundreds of millions of people than rule against that. Because that sets a precedent. Sure literally one third if not half of the entire population has been exterminated and the country lays in ruin but at least they didn’t have to rule against an AWB.

    Also the base of the Democratic Party would welcome the extermination of all who oppose. People like my mother would cheer the deployment of nuclear weapons to kill gun owners and Republicans and Trump voters. There are tens of millions of Alison Airies out there right now.

  7. HAHAHAHAHAHA!
    That would only make her the shortest president in American history. Besides, she’s an ignorant whore. She does what she’s told to do.
    If she EO us into CWII? It’s because that’s what clown-world wants.
    Bitches be doing like they told.

  8. An Executive Order. . . That’s only good to fill in the gaps where a law enacted by Congress has some gap in the law itself how it is to be enforced .
    New things with no legislatively enacted law dealing with it are not legal, and especially where something is enacted that goes against the express language of the Constitution.
    In terms someone with experience working within a corporation might understand, She’s trying to overcome a contractual term or a practices and procedure with a mere desk instruction.

    • WW, you’re approaching this as if politicians (in all three or more branches) took the Constitution seriously. But they don’t, with just a bare handful of exceptions. Many of them actively hate the Constitution, and most of the rest just don’t care one bit about what it says.
      Obey the Constitution, as if it were the Supreme Law of the Land (which it is, in fact)? Not likely.

Comments are closed.