Harris: ‘If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot’

[BPPLEE]

If a residence has previously cleared and a perimeter secured, why would an agent need to be inside the house at all times?

I would have a dog in the house, a protection trained malinois

 

[Hammster]

Most assault style weapons used in recent mass shootings have been legally purchased or owned. A few of the many cases where assault style weapons were legally owned by the shooter:

Las Vegas, Nev.—Shooter with more than 20 assault style weapons
and 12 bump-fire stocks killed 58 people and wound over 500 others.
Sutherland Springs, Texas— Ruger AR-556 Rifle; killed 26
churchgoers.
Uvalde, Texas— AR-15-style weapon killed 19 children; 2 teachers
Buffalo, New York— AR-15-style rifle killed 10 shoppers
Boulder, Colorado—Ruger AR-556 semi-automatic killed 10
people including a police officer
Dayton, Ohio— AR-15-style weapon equipped with a 100-round
ammunition magazine to kill nine people and injure over 25 others
in less than 30 seconds at a local bar
El Paso, Texas— AK-47-style weapon killed 22 at a Walmart.
Gilroy, Calif.— AK-47-style weapon wounded 17 and killed three
including a 13-year-old girl and 6-year-old
Pittsburgh, Pa.— AR-15-styleweapon killed 11 worshipers. The
deadliest anti-Semitic attack committed against the Jewish
community in America.

How many so-called assault-style weapons are owned that have NOT been used to kill somebody?

 

[Hammster]

If a residence has previously cleared and a perimeter secured, why would an agent need to be inside the house at all times?

Because she’s the Vice President. You do know that there are SS agents inside the WH, right?

 

[JosephZ]

That’s funny because when you take away the fully automatic capability of the firearm it’s no longer a military weapon.

Exactly, it then becomes a semiautomatic version of a military weapon.

This classification is hilarious, so all weapon manufacturers have to do is make a new design that’s not intended for the military and put it on the market to civilians first then afterwards they can design it for military use then it’ll be legal because it wasn’t originally designed for the military?

As long as it doesn't meet the definition of an assult weapon, they would be free to do that. What defines an assault weapon varies by state, but the description below includes the most common features that determine whether or not a rifle is considered to be an assault weapon.

A semiautomatic rifle that— has the capacity to utilize a magazine that is not a fixed magazine; and
does have any 1 of the following:

• A pistol grip.
• A forward grip.
• A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of the weapon.
• A grenade launcher.
• A barrel shroud.
• A threaded barrel.

It shouldn’t matter who or what it was originally designed for as long as it meets the requirements of the law then it’s not illegal to own.

The AR-15 was initially designed for the military. The M-16 is based on the AR-15 design. The AR-15 was designed to kill enemy combatants in the most efficient way possible. There's no reason for weapons like the AR-15 or those similar to it to be in the hands of civilians. Currently the law allows these assault style weapons to be sold to the general public, and that needs to change.

 

[JosephZ]

Because she’s the Vice President. You do know that there are SS agents inside the WH, right?

Yes, but they don't stay in the White House living quarters with the president and their families.

 

[BPPLEE]

Yes, but they don't stay in the White House living quarters with the president and their families.

I really don’t know. I don’t know what SS protection for the WH entails

 

[Always in His Presence]

“If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” [Harris] said, laughing. “I probably should not have said that. My staff will deal with that later.”

What exactly does she find humorous? Killing a person or creating and issue for her staff to "deal with it later"?

 

[BPPLEE]

What exactly does she find humorous? Killing a person or creating and issue for her staff to "deal with it later"?

I asked the same thing

 

[JosephZ]

What exactly does she find humorous? Killing a person or creating and issue for her staff to "deal with it later"?

Neither probably. It was likely an intentional move to get the media and others talking about her interview with Oprah, in particular the part where she discussed her position on the Second Amendment and gun control. It seems everyone in the country is talking about it right now, so if that was her intention, it worked well.

 

[eleos1954]

“If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” [Harris] said, laughing. “I probably should not have said that. My staff will deal with that later.”

“I think for far too long on the issue of gun violence, some people have been pushing a really false choice to say you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away. I’m in favor of the second amendment, and I’m in favor of assault weapons bans, universal background checks, red flag laws,” Harris said, prompting Winfrey to ask about her gun ownership.

https://wgntv.com/news/politics/harris-if-somebody-breaks-into-my-house-theyre-getting-shot-during-event-with-oprah/

Abundant historical evidence indicates that the Second Amendment was meant to leave citizens with the ability to defend themselves against unlawful violence. Such threats might come from usurpers of governmental power, but they might also come from criminals whom the government is unwilling or unable to control.

Criminals do not care about laws and regulations.

assault weapons bans
universal background checks
red flag laws

These things need to be strictly defined as to what they are of which they do not do.

 

[comana]

and in the case of an armed burglary which would proabaly actually be considered robbery in most cases the victim would be even MORE justified to shoot.

The situation is unnecessarily escalated by both parties having guns.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Neither probably. It was likely an intentional move to get the media and others talking about her interview with Oprah, in particular the part where she discussed her position on the Second Amendment and gun control. It seems everyone in the country is talking about it right now, so if that was her intention, it worked well.

Obviously neither of us know why she would be laughing at the thought of shooting someone.

 

[Hammster]

Obviously neither of us know why she would be laughing at the thought of shooting someone.

She laughs when she is nervous and says things that she’s unsure of.

 

[Bradskii]

Irrelevant! So was Hillary and we know how that turned out. Trump now has a shot at NY, historically that is unheard of. Polls can be manipulated and most likely are in this case. Kamala is a disaster in an interview just check out the Oprah interview, it was pathetic.

I simply asked you what she was leading. What do you think it is?

 

[Bradskii]

assault weapons bans
universal background checks
red flag laws

These things need to be strictly defined as to what they are of which they do not do.

Could you start the ball rolling and give us your preferred definition?

 

[dogs4thewin]

The situation is unnecessarily escalated by both parties having guns.

The criminal does not care about the law if they wanted a gun they would get one one way or another or else get some weapon one way or the other.

 

[dogs4thewin]

In my experience bad people have far outnumbered innocent victims.

Either way though the bad people usually are legally barred from having guns anyway and do not care.

 

[dogs4thewin]

This is true.
The thought of getting rid of them has crossed my mind numerous times. I have no need for them, at all. otoh, I don't know how to get rid of them legally and safely, so I keep them stowed away in a safe place for mostly sentimental reasons.

On the topic of "at the ready for defense", self defense, home defense etc there is no other way to couch that discussion. One is defending against the fear of something.
There are other utilitarian reasons to have a gun, if it's part of a job (i.e. law enforcement) or for hunting (just to name a couple examples). I have several guns and most were purchased for hunting. I used to go hunting with my dad and uncles. I haven't been hunting in over 40 years. They're old, probably worthless and too much trouble to unload on someone else (pun intended).
I inherited the Glock from my late father, the other handgun was an impulse buy at the gun show. I don't need nor even want either of them, then nor now.


If and when the time comes, I will do so.

I don't quite understand your point. I don't want to be held liable for my grandson hurting himself or another - nor do I want him in that situation either, he's far too young to have his life ruined in that manner.

that was my point people who seem to think that folks who improperly handle guns and "accidents" happen are simply let off the hook are wrong. That is notto say that you thought that.

 

[Postvieww]

I simply asked you what she was leading. What do you think it is?

Maybe a gaslighting campaign!

 

[comana]

The criminal does not care about the law if they wanted a gun they would get one one way or another or else get some weapon one way or the other.

But we have created an arms race that feeds the problem.