Since launching her campaign in Joe Biden’s stead, Kamala Harris and her allies have been tight-lipped about what her campaign policies are. In fact, her own campaign freely admits that they are not discussing any policy right now and are only focusing on fundraising. One thing that is certain about her campaign, though, is that she’s trying out a new “moderate” face for her campaign compared to her failed 2020 Presidential campaign.
This has raised serious questions about just how different her policies are now compared to four years ago, because the ones from four years ago are so incredibly radical that the vast majority of Americans would shudder to think about their consequences. Take her belief in mandatory gun buybacks, for example.
Bloomberg reported back in 2019 that Kamala Harris was considering a mandatory buyback program for any and all “assault weapons” owned by private American citizens. Of course, the idea of an “assault weapon” is completely made up. Newsflash, all weapons are designed to be able to be used for assault. Not just those scary black .223/5.56 rifles.
She also repeatedly said in interviews that she didn’t even care about Americans who own them legally right now. She wants them all “off the streets” and confiscated by the federal agents sent door-to-door all across America. She said that the millions of weapons being legally owned by Americans poses a “problem,” but suggested “smart” public policy to make it possible to confiscate the millions of weapons owned by Americans and protected by the Second Amendment.
No, he didn't. Kamala did say though that she would do a forced government buyback of all assault rifles. RIP your guns if Kamala is elected. pic.twitter.com/YcEbaeUI8q
— RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) July 24, 2024
A top legal analyst for the Heritage Foundation, Amy Swearer, commented on the constitutionality of a federal mandatory gun confiscation/buyback program with reporters, noting that there’s no objective feature Democrats can point to that makes a weapon an “assault weapon.” This presents serious legal issues for anyone trying to make confiscation a reality that will pass the sniff tests from the courts.
“I think the constitutionally relevant question is whether or not banning civilian possession of a certain type of firearm is constitutional,” Amy Swearer shared with reporters on the matter. “Is that underlying statute banning possession or sales constitutional? And assuming we’re talking about so-called assault weapons, which are really just semi-automatic firearms with certain cosmetic features that don’t affect lethality or functionality in any capacity, the answer is absolutely not,” she added.
Swearer said that in her opinion it’s simply “not constitutional” to come up with any federal gun confiscation program because of the fundamental issue of the government trying to take what is legally owned by tens of millions of Americans. That’s the judicial roadblock.
“It’s not constitutional… I think that’s the constitutional issue, not whether or not you’re getting your money back for what’s been confiscated, but it’s the government confiscating it in the first place.” Swearer added to her comments on the constitutionality of a mandatory gun buyback program instituted by the feds.
Swearer did say that there was the possibility that a 1994-type law could be passed that would ban any assault weapon sales moving forward. The grandfathering clause would be the key for the survival of such a bill in the courts. That being said, congressmembers aren’t going to be passing an “assault weapons” ban anytime soon because the American people don’t want it. It would be political su*cide for any elected official to put their name on such an extreme measure.
Kamala Harris Tries To Change Her Tune, But At The Cost Of Looking Like A Flip-Flopping Pancake
It was as soon as 2022 that Kamala Harris said that “assault weapons” are only “designed for a specific purpose” of trying to “k*ll a lot of human beings.” She’s wrong, of course. She couldn’t even tell you what an “assault weapon is,” because that’s an arbitrary and nonexistent category of weapons. If you go into a firearms shop and ask for an “assault weapon”, the store owners would look at you like you have three heads. That narrows it down like saying you want a drink that is liquid when you go to a restaurant.
Even if she could provide a logical definition of what an “assault weapon” is, the reality is that they aren’t only used for “k*lling human beings.” You can use these “assault weapons” however you want. Plenty of people use all sorts of weapons for hunting or sport. They’re referring to that “scary” AR-15, but that can be used for a host of scenarios, the most important of which is home defense.
Let’s be honest. The American people will not go along with a federal mandatory gun buyback program. It doesn’t matter how it’s drawn up and sold to the public, it will not fly under any circumstances. The gun-grabbers have been exposed as the anti-U.S. Constitution bureaucrats that they are and that is why they’ve largely been losing on this issue for years now.
If Kamala Harris was so concerned with gun violence, she would look at cities like Chicago that are deep blue Democrat strongholds that have strict gun laws, and yet their gun violence is through the roof. The humble glock is responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in Chicago and throughout the country. Do you hear her calling for the banning of a 9mm handgun? No, because she knows it would be her downfall.
The saga of Kamala Harris’s shapeshifting continues, and you can be sure she’s going to try to ignore these radical calls she made to institute a gun confiscation program. She has to if she’s ever going to make it anywhere with the moderate and undecided voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
What do you think? Do you support federalized mandatory gun confiscation/buyback programs? As always, let us know what the people think in the comments below.