Kamala Harris wants to "turn the page" on her own gun stance.

hello and welcome back to the better unspoken podcast man oh man the debate last night if you hadn't had a chance to check out the debate please go and watch the full debate in its entirety you know I don't care what side of the aisle you sit on if you're honest you'll admit that that debate was so lopsided and I don't mean in terms of who won I just mean in terms of how it was moderated how it was set up how the questions were set up wow it was very clear who was favored uh really really in the first maybe 15 20 minutes of the debate but there was one point that I wanted to highlight um on tonight that I had to do a little digging on because it it was a claim that that that that was made and it was reiterated a lot throughout the debate um and basically what it was was Trump was one of the things that that that former president Trump was saying about uh vice president kamla Harris was that she wanted to take guns and so at one point in the debate kamla decided to address him on it and I want y'all to take a listen to what she say it here y'all check this out Harris in 2017 you supported Bernie Sanders proposal to do away with private insurance and create a government-run Health Care System two years later you proposed a plan that included a private insurance option what is your plan today well first of all I absolutely support and over the last four years as vice president private healthcare options but what we need to do is maintain and grow the Affordable Care Act but I I'll get to that Lindsay I just need to respond to a previous point that the former president has made I've made very clear my position on fracking and then this business about taking everyone's guns away Tim Walls and I are both gun owners we're not taking anybody's guns away so stop with the continuous lying about this stuff that gave her the sound bite that she wanted right and I thought I'd look into that a little bit because that that that that kind of struck a cord and you you know she you know she got a little you know bravado on her chest and everything and she said it with such you know fervor and everything um no fact chicken was done nobody stopped her nobody said well actually so I thought I'd kind of dig a little bit and see exactly you know why Trump would say that you know because that's a pretty bold claim to make to say that somebody wants to take your guns you know so I had to do a little digging and this is what I found y'all this is going to blow your mind here check this out NRA and we know what NRA is and then we have the institute for legislative action check this out in 2008 the US Supreme Court decided the case of District of Colombia versus Hiller the case concerned a challenge to Washington DC's total ban on handgun ownership in overruling the ban the court made clear that the second amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes including self-defense the individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the second amendment was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald versus Chicago in 2010 which made clear that state and local governments may not infringe upon the right the Supreme Court again affirmed the individual's Second Amendment right in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus bruan 2022 not that long ago which made clear the right to carry a firearm for self-defense extends outside the home okay so here's the claim if it was up to Harris americ Americans would not enjoy an individual right to keep and bear arms in 2008 Harris was the da of San Francisco in this capacity Harris endorsed was called in amikas cure brief of district attorneys in support of the District of Colombia and its handgun ban in the hel case all right for those who don't know what an amikas Cur is basically uh that's if I'm not mistaken that's Latin for a Friend of the Court basically what that is is it's an entity that uh basically counsels or or weighs in and and lends an opinion to a court case right uh when that when when uh a court is weighing options and weighing and and deliberating and uh a Friend of the Court can say hey we have uh uh an opinion on this based on our jurisdiction based on our area of expertise based on our expert opinion that sort of thing and so they can lend themselves and lend their knowledge and their uh uh uh uh opinion to whatever the case is but it's up to the court to decide whether or not they actually want to take that opinion into consideration and so basically what you have uh reading here it says is advocating against the individual right to keep in bare arms the brief argue courts have consistently sustained um criminal firearms firearms laws against Second Amendment challenges by holding that ENT all and now I'm messing that up enter Ali alyah the Second Amendment provides only a militia related right to bear arms two the Second Amendment does not apply to legislation passed by state or local governments according to the document the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right but rather the ler Court in heler created this right the brief stated the Laurer Court's decision however creates a broad private right to possess any firearm that is a quote lineal descendant of a founding era weapon and that is in quote common use with a quote military application today okay so basically what this is saying here is if you read the Constitution right and I probably should pull see if I can pull up a copy of the Second Amendment here and see I want you guys to see what they're referring to CU I want to be able to see the exact language of the Second Amendment let's see where is it where is it where is it where is it and it would give me everything except that let me bear with me just a minute here I apologize for not being more prepared okay all right here we go Second Amendment a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed that's the language of the Second Amendment okay so keep that as the backdrop a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed again keep that language in mind now all right now let's go back and see if we can get clarity on what's being said here now this is the amikas cure right see it amichi cure brief Supreme Court of the United States and it's pertaining to this case District of Columbia versus Dick Anthony Hiller o What's that name right there okay so we have documented we have her name we see that she indeed endorsed this okay this document now let's look at what the document is saying here this is the summary of the argument the Das respectfully submit that the three DC code Provisions that issue in this appeal do not violate the Second Amendment so basically what this is saying is that they're looking for a reversal of the Supreme Court decision concerning this case okay basically what this case has said is that is that uh it was decided by the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment holds that individuals can carry firearms right and what this argument is saying is that no the Second Amendment does not say that individuals can bear arms basically what the argument is is that the Second Amendment you see it right here the Second Amendment provides only let me move this up so you guys can see it here says that the Second Amendment provides only a militia related right to bear arms y'all see that right not an individual right to bear arms remember the language of the Second Amendment said a well a a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed right so basically what this is saying is that kamla's opinion right along with the other Das that that that sign this petition right say it that no the Second Amendment does not protect the individual's right to bear arms she signed this right she endorsed this we not signed it but she endorsed this this has her on it that's her name again just in case y'all missed it that's her name that's her you follow me this was something that she agreed to and that she endorsed it right and then it it goes on to give additional let me let me let me let me go to the let me move me out of the way so you guys can really see here's the argument and and and again you see that the Das do not focus on the reasons for the reversal however leaving these arguments to petition ERS and other amichi instead the da urged the court to consider the potential negative and unintended and wholly unnecessary consequences of an affirming opinion in short and affirmance could it inadvertently call into question the wells settled Second Amendment principles under which countless state and local criminal Firearms laws have been upheld by courts Nationwide so basically are saying that there hey there there have been other cases Nationwide that have supported the idea that no the individual does not have rights to bear arms the Second Amendment does not give them does not give individuals the right to bear arms okay and then it goes on to say that the Second Amendment does not apply to legislation passed by state or local governments meaning that the state you know just like if you just like states can say uh one state can say well you you you require a permit some states require permits for you to be be able to carry a gun while other states don't you got some states that say you know um uh you have to have a permit in order to carry concealed while other states say you don't so the idea of States being able to govern themselves as it relates to Firearms that's what's at question here right that's what they're talking about they're saying that the second amendment has nothing to do with legislation that states or local governments pth pertaining to uh gun rights because the AR argument can be made and on the local level the argument can be made uh that a violation of the Second Amendment would be if your church didn't let you bring a gun into the into the sanctuary or the right of teachers to be able to bring guns into the school to protect themselves or the rights of of college kids to to be able to bring a gun on campus to protect themselves that sort of thing local governments can then can then uh make decisions or or can pass laws saying hey you know you can only have your gun in public places you can't take your gun into uh private establishment or they may pass laws that say uh or pass a ordinance or or something that says that it's up to the individual uh sovereignty of their property you know if I if I say you know that nobody can bring a gun into my house but me you know what I'm saying that there could be a local ordinance that that that establishes that to be the case or if I own a restaurant I can say no guns allowed at the restaurant I have the right to say that and there's there could be local laws and local ordinances passed to to affirm that for me would that be a violation of the Second Amendment if I'm able to restrict somebody else's ability to bear arms in my establishment so these are the type of things that that that are called into question in this brief and this was something that that uh at at the time da kamla Harris endorsed so again this is the rationale I want y'all to understand that this is the rationale behind the brief that she was a part of of orchestrating and in endorsing right so this is what he's talking about when he says that she wants to take your guns yeah she's saying that she has that that her and her and Tim Walls have guns but look is it look look at look at this document right here that's where she's challenging the Supreme Court on the ability for indiv uh concerning individuals being able to bear arms so that was a completely dishonest statement that she made and I just wanted to highlight that because clearly we have a document here that's showing her right the loyal Court's decision however creates a broad private right private right to possess any firearm that is a lineal descendant of a founding era weapon and that is in common use with a military application today now let's talk about that you don't have to think hard you really don't have to think too hard we all know people who love their guns right and when I say love their guns love talking about guns I have friends who love talking about guns who love showing off their guns you get into a conversation with them about their gun they going to go out to the car and go get their gun and they keep in big long bags and they they bring the they they Pop the trunk on you and they don't mind showing you their guns but these are people who I can I can pretty much save with about a 98 99.96% statistically significant accuracy that they'll be voting for kamla Harris but I don't think they know that she actually wanted to take guns she wanted to eliminate the individual ability to bear arms she felt like she she actually felt like and it's documented that she felt like the right to bear arms is exclusively a militia and that to take guns away from individuals is not unconstitutional what can you say just wanted to show yall that until next time be easy