Peter Funt, the former host of Candid Camera, had choice words for Kamala Harris’s gun ownership
In a classic case of the Left eating its own, Funt criticized Harris for owning a firearm in a USA Today op-ed.
According to a statement from a campaign aide to CNN, Harris owns a handgun.
This was enough to set Funt off.
Funt argues that Kamala Harris “has shot herself in the foot” for owning a gun.
The former Candid Camera host added that “Keeping a handgun for personal safety is a bedrock conservative view.”
While campaigning in Iowa, Harris stated that “I am a gun owner,” and justified her gun ownership on the grounds of “personal safety.”
Interestingly, BLP covered Kamala Harris’s latest call for gun control via executive order. Under a potential Harris administration, she vowed to take executive action if Congress didn’t take action within her first 100 days in office.
However, this was not enough for Funt who believes that “owning a handgun is a bad idea.”
Funt concluded by saying that “Kamala Harris doesn’t seem to have the courage to concede that owning a handgun for protection is a bad idea. Instead, she has given voters a real choice: Back candidates who care enough about gun control to not own handguns, or support the only major Democratic contender who has one and won’t throw it away.”
Despite anti-gun leftists’ insistence that the U.S. has non-existent gun control regulations, progressives have been able to score a few gun control victories over the last 70 years at the federal levels.
However certain states have made efforts to reverse these gun control trends.
Despite hand-wringing from gun control activists, crimes rates have dropped steadily as gun ownership has increased over the past few decades.
Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute details this:
Adjusted for the US population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56% increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49%.
There appears to be no pro-gun candidates on the Democratic side of the aisle for the 2020 elections
Bypass Tech Censorship!
Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
Did Bernie Sanders Just Endorse a Neocon Regime Change Foreign Policy?
Is Bernie Sanders the anti-war candidate that many non-interventionists are making him out to be?
Journalists Jacob Crosse and Barry Grey presented some interesting observations about Sanders’ foreign policy views.
Sanders criticized the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani in January and also stressed his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
During the Iowa presidential debate, Sanders loudly boasted, “I not only voted against that war, I helped lead the effort against that war.”
However, Sanders changed his tune when chatting with the New York Times.
The answers the Sanders campaign gave the Times showed its flexibility when it comes to foreign policy.
In other words, the Sanders campaign signaled to the military and intelligence apparatus that Sanders won’t present a threat to their interests and may actually carry out their interventionist agenda.
One question in the survey that the Times sent the Sanders campaign stuck out above the rest.
The third survey question asked, “Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?”
The Sanders campaign responded, “Yes.”
Based on this response, Sanders’ is signaling that he’s willing to continue Bush-era policies of “preemptive war.”
Like Obama, Sanders’ opposition to the Iraq War was a matter of politics rather than a principled opposition to regime change wars.
His campaign was also asked, “Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?”
Sanders responded, “Yes.”
Some of the wars that the U.S. carried out in the name of “human rights” have been the Bosnian war and the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s along with the aerial campaign against Libya in 2011 and the Civil War launched in Syria.
All in all, Sanders’ pro-peace/non-interventionist image is at best window dressing.
Under a Sanders presidency, the interventionist status quo will likely stay in place.
News4 days ago
Bernie Sanders 2020 ‘Win’ in NH Netted a LOSS OF 80,000 VOTES from 2016
News4 days ago
Virginia State Police are Silent About Door-to-Door Enforcement of Suppressor Ban
Violent Left3 days ago
New Mexico Bureaucrat Arrested for Vandalizing State GOP Headquarters
Violent Left4 days ago
New Hampshire Thug Arrested After Assaulting ‘MAGA’ Hat-Wearing 15-Year Old at Polling Site
News3 days ago
MS-13 Thug Gets Life Sentence in Virginia for Rape and Abduction
Tech3 days ago
More Censorship: Controversial Right-Wing YouTuber Nick Fuentes is Booted From Platform, Even Ben Shapiro Says It’s Too Far
Deep State3 days ago
Bill Barr Pushes Back Against Trump, Criticizes President’s Comments on Stone, Drops Case Against McCabe
Culture3 days ago
How Vulture Capitalists Use Their Ill-Gotten Gains to Push Transgenderism Onto Children
Violent Left4 days ago
Wife of ‘Proud Boys’ Member Imprisoned for Self-Defense Pleads for Help for Their Three Children
The Swamp2 days ago
SWAMP: FBI Press Officer Accepted Baseball Tickets From CNN Reporter
News4 days ago
GUILTY: Creepy Porn Lawyer Michael Avenatti Convicted in Extortion Trial
Politics4 days ago
MIT Warns That Voting App Used in Several States is Vulnerable for Hackers to ‘Alter, Stop or Expose’ Votes