Kamala Harris vows to enact more gun cotrol through EO if legistation isn't passed

[Pilot321]

We have Katie Muth in common and she is holding a 'town hall' meeting at Ursinus tomorrow night. I would love to not be the only one there countering her and her mission.

Yes, but they are basically all interchangeable. It is the same message with the same people running them.

[Walleye Hunter]

Yes, but they are basically all interchangeable. It is the same message with the same people running them.

Yep, their story is scripted.

[gghbi]

In my district three first time female, far left Democrats beat Republican incumbents this past election. All had the same exact talking points, and backers. It is a strategy that is working for the Democrats. State Senator Katie Muth, House Representative Chrissy Houlihan, and State Rep, Danielle Friel Otten. All are anti gun and backed by Bloomberg and Soros anti gun groups. Even Chester County has turned Progressive Democrat.

This is the real problem, once they are in, it is hard to get them out.

[jthrelf]

I don't understand her proposed EOs. I saw earlier today they include requiring FFLs to perform background checks for sales (which is the case today...) and prohibiting sales to fugitives (also the case today per the 4473....). What the hell is she yapping about.

[Yoder]

Shocking. I'm pretty sure any Democrat elected is going to say gun violence is a National "Emergency " and sign some crazy executive order.

[KPShooting]

Shocking. I'm pretty sure any Democrat elected is going to say gun violence is a National "Emergency " and sign some crazy executive order.

[GOYABEAN]

The more crap she spouts out the more I really believe she's a daily user of some type of legal or illegal drugs !

[sbmania]

Shocking. I'm pretty sure any Democrat elected is going to say gun violence is a National "Emergency " and sign some crazy executive order.

So knowing this is a genuine possibility, why don't we lean on Trump to get proactive and sign some EO that says 50 state carry is legal, or at least it will not be prosecuted as a violation of law and will not be a prohibitor for firearms ownership. I'm not a lawyer and admittedly ignorant of how these things work, but I just think if we know they are planning something stupid and possibly questionably legal, why don't we strike first? It seems in today's America, it doesn't matter whether something is legal or not (ie bumpstock ban), it just matters if you have the balls to do it and hold firm.

[JustinR]

EOs can't create law, so the kind of smart thing about making EOs of existing law is it makes it look like you're doing something in the eyes of everyone that doesn't know what laws are already there.

We read these EOs and go, "That's all already law, it won't change anything."

To the anti-gun types, they read it and go, "Look at these new rules! She's doing something that Republicans haven't been willing to do! She's taking on gun violence!" And her polling goes up amongst her supporters.

Virtue signalling paired with demagoguery, pure and simple.

[Pilot321]

EOs can't create law, so the kind of smart thing about making EOs of existing law is it makes it look like you're doing something in the eyes of everyone that doesn't know what laws are already there.

We read these EOs and go, "That's all already law, it won't change anything."

To the anti-gun types, they read it and go, "Look at these new rules! She's doing something that Republicans haven't been willing to do! She's taking on gun violence!" And her polling goes up amongst her supporters.

Virtue signalling paired with demagoguery, pure and simple.

Exactly. Virtue Signaling to the IGNORANT.