Harris Laughs When Talking About Shooting Someone if They Break Into Her House
The same woman who in 2007 said police could walk into your home and make sure you’re responsible with your guns.
VP Kamala Harris’s conversation about gun ownership with Oprah, as Katie Pavlich put it, came off as “fake and disingenuous.”
The women made light of the situation of a homeowner defending their property:
Harris: If someone breaks into my house, they’re getting shot, sorry.
*Audience and Harris laugh*
Oprah: I hear that, I hear that.
Harris (while laughing): I probably shouldn’t have said that. My staff will deal with that later.
You know how I know Kamala's claim of "being a gun owner" is totally fake and disingenuous? This, right here. The last thing a gun owner wants is for someone to come into their home and for them to have to defend their life with a firearm. It isn't funny. It's terrifying and a… https://t.co/WBezQ9AzFC
— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) September 20, 2024
Pavlich wrote in her tweet:
You know how I know Kamala’s claim of “being a gun owner” is totally fake and disingenuous? This, right here. The last thing a gun owner wants is for someone to come into their home and for them to have to defend their life with a firearm. It isn’t funny. It’s terrifying and a life altering experience. She laughs about it and says things responsible gun owners don’t say. Further, if you’ve done any kind of self defense education or training you know an attorney would tell you to never say this. I find this attitude revolting.
I own a revolver and an AR. I hope I only use them at the range. I never want to be in a situation where I must use them in any other situation, especially when defending my family, myself, and home.
It isn’t funny. No sensible gun owner ever makes light of the possibility of using a gun for self-defense.
Yes, I have guns for self-defense.
Also, don’t forget what Harris said in 2007: “We’re going to require responsible behaviors among everybody in the community, and just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It’s a nervous laugh, not a funny-laugh. Women are particularly prone to it. It comes up with assertiveness that quickly withdraws into anxiety.
I’ve watched it several times over- because like Pavlich, I don’t believe the “I’m a gun owner like you” game. She thinks her comments are truly hilarious, because she believes that’s something gun owners would regularly joke about. This really is a topic she needs to be called out on and be forced to deliver enough details that the public can be assured that she is a responsible firearms owner.
What is your purpose in bringing up the “women are particularly prone…”. comment? It’s irrelevant and gratuitous.
The sex difference isn’t plumbing but brain function. Women prioritize feelings and men prioritize structure. Feelings are about what should be done now without regard to perverse consequences later (e.g. minimum wage increases). Structure worries mostly about collapse of the system. The Founding Fathers were structure guys, not feelings guys.
Men are better at running large systems that absolutely depend on stability to survive; and women are better at small systems like households and neighborhoods where stability doesn’t come up. The stereotype of the guy in the household is the too-strict father. The stereotype of women-run countries is collapsed countries.
The nervous laugh is women’s way of getting out of running the system that they nevertheless want to run.
Putting aside the bigotry, the comment is ridiculous. The insight about women is nil, Assertiveness that withdraws into anxiety.
How about passive-aggressive that starts aggressive and finishes passive-protected? “As you can see, I’m laughing” pose. That’s the passive part.
It’s all over in women. I don’t see it in men much because it appears too effeminate so they don’t do it.
Her laugh isn’t what’s annoying, the grammar of her laugh is annoying. It’s to fend off serious rebuttal without having to argue it.
What about your repeated bigotry? A more important topic than fake intellectualism.
I have spent less time in HR-organized consciousness raising sessions than I should have. I do like sociology though. Erving Goffman has a picture book “Gender Advertisements” on differences that come up all over in popular culture.
Masking your bigotry in pseudo-intellectual, Harris-like claptrap does not eliminate the bigotry.
Gender Advertisements made it into WIki, except Wiki takes Goffman as deploring where he is only observing. Subsequent works by others apparently are into deploring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Advertisements
Harris-like gibberish maksing as intellectualism and without the laugh.
You have to distinguish malevolent bigotry from beneficent bigotry.
If I say, as I often do, that things will be as good as they can get when a black with an IQ of 86 does as well as a white with an IQ of 86, and he’ll do it by acting white, that’s a plan that actually can work. It works by eliminating the chip-on-the-shoulder to racial contests, and the suggestion that anybody can act white.
Or you can the spend-even-more-on-teachers’-unions approach and get the same result as today.
The blacks-need-role-models approach vs blacks-need-money approach to bigotry.
Moved from the women to the black folk, so you can be bigoted against them in a “kind” fashion. How beneficent.
You can pretend you are high IQ as much as you like. but it’s no cover for being prejudiced. It does not take a rocket scientist to know this.
There’s plenty more, but it’s not worth the effort.
Your mind-reading skills are less than spectacular.
It’s an idiot-laugh, not a nervous laugh. She’s too dumb to be nervous about these fiascoes.
It’s a laugh caused by knowing what you are saying is false. It’s why she cackles so often. I have a firearm for self defense in my house and like everyone else I know who has one I’m pretty damn serious about it and never joke. I’ll certainly defend myself and my family but pray I never have to.
This is a new and improved Kamilla Harris. Whatever she said before her coronation must be forgotten.
Her current existence began the day she pulled a coup on the desiccated meat puppet.
So, what she now says is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the modified truth.
Ironically, no.
Kamala has literally come out and explained that “she was joking” when she said that. So it doesn’t count.
Remember when she said in the debate that she has no plans to take your guns? After her coronation, she’ll tell us she was joking then, too.
She already has. She just said she “supports the 2cd Amendment” but wants to ban “assault rifles”. I wish someone would ask her what, exactly an “assault rifle” is. What caliber is it. Who makes them. How many rounds are ok.
Kamalatoe was pandering as usual, but if someone breaks into my house they are getting shot.
Especially if it’s Kamala, walking into “the sanctity of my home” to nose into whether I have all my gun locks locked.
Color me skeptical. Next she is going to tell us that she earned the money for her AR working extra shifts at McDonalds.
Whatcha all need is to get them sticks out of yer asses.
That is exactly the kind of response people give to that line –‘someone breaks into MY house, they’re getting…..’
You can hit her on hypocrisy., because she IS coming for your guns, but the line is in line with how a lot of people would say that.
Break into MY house and I won’t do a damned thing. The pets will take care of it..
…and any evidence.
I don’t know anyone that laughs while saying it.
I laugh when I say it, but if I were a candidate for president I certainly wouldn’t put it that way. In fact, after I laugh, I always add that I hope I never have to draw on anyone much less shoot them. She should have said so, and that she did not say so makes me seriously doubt the authenticity of her statement.
She’s just won Alec Baldwin’s endorsement.
Which home is she referring to? If the VP mansion, sure as shootin’, the intruder will be shot courtesy of the USSS (the fun folks “protecting” DJT) but in Cali home, maybe she’s depending on the Second Gentleman to come to her aid? Maybe Willie Brown could lend her one of his pieces.
Doesn’t work that way when you are one of Willie’s pieces.
Chauncey Gardner is a genius in comparison.
It’s a character comparison, not an IQ comparison. The point of Forrest Gump wasn’t that he was dumb but that he had high character.
Go tell other people what they mean to say, especially when you miss the entire point!
Kamala represents freedom ………….. from reality.
She said “we” could walk into someone’s locked house – meaning pretty much anyone in government, I guess.
Meanwhile … Traitor Joe says to shoot through the door with a shotgun and then, if that doesn’t work, to pee yourself if the guy gets on top of you.
Self-Defense … according to Democrats. And then they’re going to arrest you for violating the civil rights of the criminal, anyway.
And Traitor Joe said something about shooting in the air, too … I forget how it all was supposed to fit together …
Yes, the retarded pedophile’s advice was to empty your shotgun into the air leaving it completely useless against your attacker.
Yeah. First it was fire both barrels into the air from your balcony to scare them away so now you have a very expensive club, this is a crime, and then to just shoot through the door which would also land you in jail especially in a number of blue states. Don’t shoot at something you can’t see.
Which, in Arizona, makes you a felon under
Skibidi’sShannon’s Law.When I am asked what my home defense gun is, I laugh and reply, “Which room?”
I usually say “the one closest at hand.”
Someone should ask her some routine questions. Ex1–What kind of gun do you own? Ex2- How often do you go to the range? That may exhibit whether she is a serious, or actual, gun owner or not.
The media people wouldn’t know what to ask. They know nothing about firearms, and are proud of their ignorance.
Kamala gets her security paid for at taxpayer expense. If kamala owns firearm, she has spent no more than 1 hour practicing at the range, and she would panic during actual situation and fumble loading the bullets. Kamala is such a fraud.
Meanwhile trump has survived 2 assassination attempts.
fake phony garbage
she let it “slip” that she against criminals
more bs from the left
I’m surprised she had the sense to realize she shouldn’t say what she said. But, she said it.
Of course she’s laughing. If someone breaks into her house, the Secret Service shoots them. And liberals love having the power to kill. That’s why they love abortion so much.
Here’s an honest politician (not a liberal).
Isn’t the vile crone-harlot delightful?
All the “joy” and “vibes” of a sadistic, malignantly narcissistic and vindictive would-be Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot.
Excellent post, observations and points, Mary; thank you.
And, you’re right. This wasn’t a “slip,” by Harris; it was a transparently calculated and dishonest statement intended to bolster Harris’s alleged (and, fallacious) anti-crime and pro-firearms bona fides.
This is a contrived and staged “Sister Souljah” moment.
I have no idea who she is appealing to. The left is horrified that someone would use a firearm to defend themselves and those on the right especially gun owners are laughing at her claims. She is not convincing anyone.
The crone-harlot is sufficiently narcisstic and un-self-aware to believe that such statements will help her win support with white, rural, blue-collar workers in PA and in Rust Belt states.
This transparently insincere and theatrical performance of blatsny pandering won’t work, but Harris will still engage in such posturing.
” *blatant* pandering”
What makes Harris’s totally inappropriate flippancy and jocularity talking about shooting a home invader even more despicable and insincere, is that if such an event happened, it won’t be Harris doing the shooting; it will be her (presumably competent) Secret Service agent.
Gun owners know there is law governing self-defense. Intruders can’t just be shot; there must be a rational expectation that one’s life or another one’s life is in danger. Kami obviously know that. Does anyone actually believe anything she says? She knows she’s a liar, Oprah knows she’s a liar (OK, maybe Oprah is that stupid), her supporters know she’s a liar and her opponents knows she’s a liar.
She can say this because she wouldn’t be the one doing the shooting. Her private security detail or the SS would do it instead.
After the invader gets off five, maybe six shots.
If she is a firearm owner then how come there has never been any pictures of her at the range? Where is her background check? California requires all firearm sales to go through an FFL. Where is her application? Who sold her the gun? California keeps the list of firearm purchasers on file. Why has no one asked the California about it? To obtain one in the first place she had to take a firearm safety course and pass a test administered by a DOJ Certified Instructor. Why hasn’t he or she come forward? If none of this is true then is she in possession of an illegal firearm?