• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So, Kamala own a Glock

JMB1911A1 said:
Too bad that the state of CA regards all Glocks as “unsafe” weapons. In fact, only Gen 3 Glocks are legal to own in CA since they are grandfathered in.

MSN

www.msn.com

“"Note that California law classifies ALL Glocks as 'unsafe handguns' because they do not have a compliant chamber load indicator, lack a magazine disconnect mechanism, and until our lawsuit caused California to repeal the requirement, of course lacked microstamping," Kostas Moros, an attorney with Michel & Associates representing the California Rifle & Pistol Association, posted on X.​
​
"The only reason we can still buy Gen 3s is because they are grandfathered in, but they are still 'unsafe handguns,'" Moros continued. "We can't buy more modern Glocks new in gun stores (just secondhand from exempt cops, or from those who moved here with them from other states). She supported the Unsafe Handgun Act and expanded it such that microstamping began to be enforced in 2013. So why does she own an 'unsafe handgun'?"”​

I wonder if she bought it before or after she supported the 2005 Proposition H that banned all handguns in San Francisco?

www.nationalreview.com

Kamala Harris’s Previous Support for a Ban on Handguns Highlights the Gun-Control Movement’s Broader Aims | National Review

Harris wants gun control, and she’ll go where the pickings are easiest.
www.nationalreview.com www.nationalreview.com

Guns for me but not for thee. Some pigs are more equal than other in CA.

Maybe she has a Glock “giggle switch” to go with her cackle? (BTW, that last comment was sarcasm for our gun control brethren)
Click to expand...
Are you gonna vote for kamala now since she owns a gun?
 
zincwarrior said:
I cited the case. Its quite infamous but expected. The Crown is not subject to the peasants.
Click to expand...

The quote the relevant part that you think supports your case.

zincwarrior said:
YOU started it bro.
Click to expand...

You are the one eulogizing about police officers, while in the same breath, you say they have ZERO duty to protect, and can "wash their hands of me", whenever they choose.
 
Rich2018 said:
The quote the relevant part that you think supports your case.



You are the one eulogizing about police officers, while in the same breath, you say they have ZERO duty to protect, and can "wash their hands of me", whenever they choose.
Click to expand...

Police departments- and by extension individual officers- have fairly broad discretion over how they will enforce the law.

If you think about it, you would see how this must be so. Too bad that means you probably won't understand anytime soon.
 
memberya2 said:
Are you gonna vote for kamala now since she owns a gun?
Click to expand...
Nope. Kamala and the Blue Falcon think that they can bullshit us on their stance on the 2A. They are both part of the Democrat nomenklatura. Guns for me but not for thee.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
Nope. Kamala and the Blue Falcon think that they can bullshit us on their stance on the 2A. They are both part of the Democrat nomenklatura. Guns for me but not for thee.
Click to expand...
You can own a gun in california why does it matter if its a glock or not you said some glocks were allowed maybe thats the one kamala owns.
 
memberya2 said:
You can own a gun in california why does it matter if its a glock or not you said some glocks were allowed maybe thats the one kamala owns.
Click to expand...
You can only own certain guns in CA. For no good reason. Then CA handgun roster is a blatant attempt to limit the rights of the people.

BTW, Kamala, as a DA, was not limited by the roster. Rules for thee, not for me. Some animals are more equal than other animals, especially in CA.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
You can only own certain guns in CA. For no good reason. Then CA handgun roster is a blatant attempt to limit the rights of the people.

BTW, Kamala, as a DA, was not limited by the roster. Rules for thee, not for me. Some animals are more equal than other animals, especially in CA.
Click to expand...
I hear what your saying but not all pistols are banned i know about the roster but your agreeing some types of glocks are allowed because they are grandfathered.

We dont know what type of glock she owns in the first place.
 
memberya2 said:
I hear what your saying but not all pistols are banned i know about the roster but your agreeing some types of glocks are allowed because they are grandfathered.

We dont know what type of glock she owns in the first place.
Click to expand...
I don't think she does either. I doubt she has been to the range I since she got it.

Almost as bad as Tim "Blue Falcon" Walz trying to use a shotgun. $2100 shotgun and he can't load it. Wonder if he borrowed it form John Kerry?
 
Rich2018 said:
The quote the relevant part that you think supports your case.



You are the one eulogizing about police officers, while in the same breath, you say they have ZERO duty to protect, and can "wash their hands of me", whenever they choose.
Click to expand...
You have issues Bro.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
I don't think she does either. I doubt she has been to the range I since she got it.

Almost as bad as Tim "Blue Falcon" Walz trying to use a shotgun. $2100 shotgun and he can't load it. Wonder if he borrowed it form John Kerry?
Click to expand...

I have a vest like that.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
Too bad that the state of CA regards all Glocks as “unsafe” weapons. In fact, only Gen 3 Glocks are legal to own in CA since they are grandfathered in.

MSN

www.msn.com

“"Note that California law classifies ALL Glocks as 'unsafe handguns' because they do not have a compliant chamber load indicator, lack a magazine disconnect mechanism, and until our lawsuit caused California to repeal the requirement, of course lacked microstamping," Kostas Moros, an attorney with Michel & Associates representing the California Rifle & Pistol Association, posted on X.​
​
"The only reason we can still buy Gen 3s is because they are grandfathered in, but they are still 'unsafe handguns,'" Moros continued. "We can't buy more modern Glocks new in gun stores (just secondhand from exempt cops, or from those who moved here with them from other states). She supported the Unsafe Handgun Act and expanded it such that microstamping began to be enforced in 2013. So why does she own an 'unsafe handgun'?"”​

I wonder if she bought it before or after she supported the 2005 Proposition H that banned all handguns in San Francisco?

www.nationalreview.com

Kamala Harris’s Previous Support for a Ban on Handguns Highlights the Gun-Control Movement’s Broader Aims | National Review

Harris wants gun control, and she’ll go where the pickings are easiest.
www.nationalreview.com www.nationalreview.com

Guns for me but not for thee. Some pigs are more equal than other in CA.

Maybe she has a Glock “giggle switch” to go with her cackle? (BTW, that last comment was sarcasm for our gun control brethren)
Click to expand...
Reread what you just typed. Glocks are prohibited except for gen 3 Glocks that were grandfathered in.
 
Rich2018 said:
Prohibited by who ?
Click to expand...
For civilians for purchase in the state of California. Although, I forgot that she was a DA and would fall under LEOSA, meaning that she would be exempt from that law regardless.
 
Personally, I don't think she owns a Glock. I think she just said Glock because everyone knows that name.

22cf4713c9c114d4b0c4d2e5b00551d2.jpg
 
JMB1911A1 said:
Personally, I don't think she owns a Glock. I think she just said Glock because everyone knows that name.

22cf4713c9c114d4b0c4d2e5b00551d2.jpg
Click to expand...
She was a prosecutor, so I'd imagine she'd be somewhat familiar with firearms as they're often submitted for evidence.
 
Maccabee said:
For civilians for purchase in the state of California. Although, I forgot that she was a DA and would fall under LEOSA, meaning that she would be exempt from that law regardless.
Click to expand...

Pity California couldn't prohibited all Glocks.
 
Rich2018 said:
Pity California couldn't prohibited all Glocks.
Click to expand...
Why? Besides the constitution specifically precluding them from doing so, what would banning clocks accomplish?
 
Maccabee said:
She was a prosecutor, so I'd imagine she'd be somewhat familiar with firearms as they're often submitted for evidence.
Click to expand...
Being a prosecutor does it mean she's familiar with firearms.

I have a hard time believing anything that she says
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom