Today, Vice President Kamala Harris, tweeted about gun control. To her credit, we were able to make out some meaning because when she talks, it's indecipherable. Credit where it is due.
It is reasonable to say that weapons of war have no place on the streets of a civil society.
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) August 17, 2023
It is time to renew the assault weapons ban.
Now, there is no explanation of what a 'weapon of war' might be. Is that a tank or a cannon or an F-16? Who knows!
Uh, so the cluster bombs you just sent to Ukraine that will maim children are ok to have on the streets? Those are weapons of war too, love. https://t.co/IFaWbB7rkW
— StarStruck (@kosolom) August 17, 2023
Maybe she means the cluster bombs? We can all agree we don't need those on the streets of America.
You’re surrounded by an armed security detail everyday, for self-defense.
— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) August 17, 2023
Explain to the American people why they shouldn’t have the same right (without sounding like a poorly scripted character from Veep…) https://t.co/9Ue6Wn81jL
Representative Dan Crenshaw shot back with a much needed reality check. Kamala doesn't have to worry about rising crime rates because she is fully protected by people carrying ... GUNS!
Oh, c'mon Dan. It might be difficult to tell the difference between what comes out of the HBO writers' room, and what the predictive text algorithm in Harris' head spits out, but at least give the Veep writers the benefit of the doubt that several hundred people OKd it before it…
— Daniel Reid (@danielp_reid) August 17, 2023
Recommended
At least Veep was somewhat entertaining.
She can't because she's a commie.
— Chase Dizzie 🇺🇸 (@ChaseDizzie) August 17, 2023
By the way, pass the DEATH PENALTY for all convicted child rapists and child sex traffickers.
We must start in Texas.
My biggest issue is that they can’t and won’t define “assault weapon”. It’s like saying we need to ban hate speech. If you can’t define, then it’s a slippery slope to our basic rights being curtailed.
— Nelson Hillcrest (@NelsonHillcrest) August 17, 2023
Exactly. It's a way to bring confusion to language so they can slip lots of guns in the category of 'weapons of war'.
“Rules for thee but not for me” -democRATS
— David Sanchez (@dsanchez7835) August 17, 2023
It’s also a continuation of the democrats’ poor policy priority list and complete refusal to think long term and win back middle America.
— Nelson Hillcrest (@NelsonHillcrest) August 17, 2023
Easy. It's the same reason that we call the killing of a politician an assassination, but that word doesn't apply to everyday homicide.
— Hedonista75 (@HedonistaLibera) August 17, 2023
I'm certain you understand the distinction.
Happy to clear that up for you, Scooter.
Democrats should definitely run with the idea the death of politicians is so much more important than when everyday citizens are killed. I'm sure that will really win over voters.
When you're surrounded by security, you are securely surrounded in the moment. But you cannot forget the context that surrounds you and your security. Because only when you are secure, can you surround the security of the context in the moment.
— squeueness (@squeueness) August 17, 2023
Kamala, is that you?
The only right afforded to us by the constitution that holds the statement "shall not be infringed" is the second amendment. All laws restricting your access to firearms are illegal without question. Don't let the government tell you otherwise
— Ryan Biesheuvel (@RyanBiesh) August 17, 2023
Bingo. Say it louder for the people in the back and the Democrats.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member