Mediaboss Marketing

Vice President Kamala Harris called for an assault weapons ban while claiming she supports the Second Amendment at the same time during an appearance on Thursdays "The Jennifer Hudson Show."

While mourning the victims of gun violence, Harris decried the "weapons of war" prevalent on the streets and called for a new assault weapons ban to stop mass shootings.

"We shouldn't have to be presented with this false choice which suggests you're either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want reasonable gun safety laws. That's a false choice." Harris said.

Kamala Harris appeared on "The Jennifer Hudson Show" on Thursday. (NBC)

She added, "It is reasonable to say that weapons of war have no place on the streets of America and by that, I mean assault weapons. Weapons of war. They were literally designed to be weapons of war. We need an assault weapons ban. These are reasonable things to do."

MICHELLE OBAMA SCOLDS AMERICANS OVER GUN RIGHTS: UNFETTERED ACCESS TO FIREARMS IS NOT A GOOD THING

She also decried the U.S. Congress as "pitiful" for being unable to push "reasonable gun safety laws" in the face of the gun lobby.

"I just think it is pitiful the people of the United States Congress do not have the courage to stand up to the gun lobby, stand up to the NRA and say 'look, I support the Second Amendment, but we need reasonable gun safety laws. Have some courage," Harris said.

Kamala Harris previously called for an assault weapons ban after the Uvalde, Texas shooting. (Leigh Vogel/Abaca/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

President Biden has called for a federal ban on "assault weapons and high-capacity magazines" similar to one passed in 1994. Harris also called for an assault weapons ban following the Uvalde school shooting in May.

"We are not sitting around waiting to figure out what the solution looks like. You know, we're not looking for a vaccine. We know what works on this," Harris told reporters at the time. "Let's have an assault weapons ban."

While the Democratic Party has been mostly unified in calling for an assault weapons ban, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Director Steve Dettelbach was blasted for being unable to provide a definition of the term "assault weapon."

ATF DIRECTOR LAMBASTED FOR NOT DEFINING ASSAULT WEAPON: WHY IS HE LEADING THE AGENCY?

Later during Harris interview, she discussed the alleged racial bias present in hospitals and doctors offices that cause higher maternal deaths among Black and Native American women.

"They walk into the hospital, clinic or the doctor's office, just not taken as seriously. And so the work that I've been doing is to really lift this issue up because I think we should all agree with these statistics, knowing that we have some of the worst outcomes for maternal health and mortality of any so-called advanced nation. For shame," Harris said.

U.S. President Joe Biden has called for a reinstatement of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban. ((Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images))

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

She added as a suggestion that there would be to efforts to "train healthcare providers about racial bias."

See original here:
Harris claims Second Amendment support while pushing for assault weapons ban: 'Literally' weapons of war - Fox News

After the Washington Legislature passed a a ban on dozens of types of rifles on Wednesday, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy had an immediate message to residents in the Evergreen State: Move on up to the Last Frontier.

For all those great citizens of the State of Washington who value the 2nd amendment (actually all of the Constitution) think about moving to the great state of Alaska, Dunleavy wrote on Twitter.

The Washington gun ban includes more than 50 gun models, including AR-15s, AK-47s, and others that reload automatically after each bullet is fired. It prohibits their future sale, distribution, manufacture, and importation, with rare exemptions that are limited to sales to law enforcement and the military in Washington.

Once signed by Gov. Inslee, the law will go into effect immediately. Inslee, a long-time advocate for such a ban, expressed his support for the bill when the measure passed the state House in March. In 1994, when he was in the U.S. House, he voted for a similar federal ban.

Like Loading...

View post:
Dunleavy to dismayed Washingtonians: If you love the Second Amendment, move to Alaska - Must Read Alaska

It was difficult in the past few weeks to witness the mass shootings at a Nashville schoolhouse and a Louisville bank, both committed by disturbed individuals who had far too easy access to assault-style weapons.

It was equally hard to witness the assault on democracy perpetrated by Republican members of the Tennessee House of Representatives who temporarily expelled two Democratic colleagues for loudly demonstrating for stricter gun control.

The Second Amendment was intended to prevent the federal government from interfering with well-regulated state militias, but its abuse today too often encourages the slaughter of innocent citizens.

It is shameful enough that we are so willing to sacrifice our children and neighbors and our sense of safety in defense of a Constitutional right whose original intent has been obscured. Must we also sacrifice the very Constitution that so many gun advocates say they need their firearms to defend?

Benjamin Wood, chair Sangerfield Democratic Committee

Continued here:
LETTER: Original intent of Second Amendment being obscured - Rome Sentinel

When you have a disease, medicine can treat the symptoms and you might feel better. But if the underlying cause of the symptoms is not treated the disease will continue to cause symptoms.

We have gun disease in America. For decades now, gun violence is happening with greater frequency. Theres a lot of talk about how to treat the symptoms: arm school teachers, arm everybody, blame it on the mentally ill and more excuses and Band-Aids. Yet nobody talks about the primary cause of our disease, which is the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment was written in the 18th century, when the new country had neither a regular army nor local police enforcement. It was also a time of muskets. The second amendment is outdated, and even more so now in the 21st century. We need a new amendment. It could simply say: The right to bear arms shall be well regulated. We already have precedents where new amendments cancelled previous amendments. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment prohibiting the sale or drinking of alcohol. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery that was implied in the original Constitution.

Its time that we the people address the underlying cause of our national sickness. Our national gun disease needs treatment. The treatment is a gun control amendment.

Richard HackelChebeague Island

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

See original here:
Letter to the editor: A new amendment can repeal the Second ... - Press Herald

Following the school shooting in Nashville, State Rep. Tim Burchett (Tenn., District 2) went viral for making comments like were not gonna fix it criminals are gonna be criminals and mentioning how his father, a World War II veteran, told him if somebody wants to take you out, and doesnt mind losing their life, theres not a whole heck of a lot you can do about it. Burchett also explained Americas high level of gun violence by stating Other countries dont have our level of freedom either.

Comparing the war in the Pacific in 1944 to an elementary school today is both inaccurate and deeply concerning. Its inaccurate since war is a situation where it is permissible to kill others to achieve an objective that is ideally worth more than the lives it will take. Elementary school is not a place where adages about war should be applied, especially if its to dismiss what we could do to prevent such violence. The fact some think such adages are appropriate shows the current situation is untenable.

Furthermore, what does freedom mean in Burchetts mind? Does it mean other countries do not have a constitutional right to bear arms? If so, he is mostly correct. In every other regard, however, other Western countries freedoms stack up to the U.S. exceed it perhaps, since one cannot effectively exercise their freedoms while suffering or dying from a debilitating gunshot wound.

The right to bear arms is a questionable measure of freedom. I am not here to say guns should be banned outright. Although I wish I could snap my fingers and have all weapons designed to eliminate humans disappear, there are far too many firearms to properly regulate. However, that does not mean we should sweep aside smaller, phased goals. For now, a more serious discussion about banning assault rifles, or about banning future commercial sales of these weapons, needs to occur.

I will admit right here I know way too little about hand-held firearms to properly engage in this debate. Rep. Burchett is right when he says criminals are going to find a way around existing laws to acquire guns, so I believe we should make the deadliest guns as scarce as possible to decrease the chances they would fall into the wrong hands. My current opinion is assault rifles, and eventually all assault weapons, should be banned. The same goes for accessories like high-capacity magazines, which are useful for a shooter trying to kill as many people as possible, but dead weight while defending against one or two attackers at home or in public. The police, of course, will still have access to the weapons they need to protect against and respond to threats.

Increased numbers of school resource officers or other armed guards may act as a stopgap, but an expensive one at that, especially considering there is little evidence of their presence deterring attacks. At Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida and in other major school shootings in 2018 where an SRO or guard was present, the shooter was stopped by the guard or SRO in zero cases. That is certainly not to say there are not heroic SROs or guards out there who could prove quite effective, but considering the number we would need relative to the number of school shootings (way too high to be acceptable, but too low to start treating American schools like forward operating bases in an active war zone), this should not be our end goal. Shortening active shooter incidents would be great but preventing them would be even better.

My main issue, however, is this debate is not happening in the manner it should. People are making uninformed comments that do not address other peoples points. At the congressional level, we have the NRA to thank for that, but at the personal level, we should stop using blanket statements to shut down our opponents arguments.

Read the original:
Does Second Amendment rhyme with freedom? - Waite Park Newsleader