Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 04-13-2019, 04:53 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
She was the DA of SF when this was put on the ballot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fr...sition_H_(2005)

As DA she had to sign off and approve any proposition for the ballot as legal. She supported it in public.
1. Here is the corrected link.
2. Her name isn't mentioned in your link, so where does "she supported it in public" come from?
3. Of course she signed off on it-it had enough signatures to qualify, didn't it? Under what grounds do you think she could have refused to sign it?

Last edited by Czarcasm; 04-13-2019 at 04:54 PM.
  #102  
Old 04-13-2019, 04:56 PM
Chisquirrel is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Open carry (and closed carry) is illegal in California, so I am not allowed carry anywhere here. But as one who lives where Kamala was AG and DA, I contend that the laws she and others use to get votes do not apply to them.
So, while admitting that she doesn't carry, you also contend that she carries.
  #103  
Old 04-13-2019, 05:06 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Harris has taken that very position. Sure her owning a gun is legal, but she is/was in favor of banning all private handgun possession. Thus hypocritical.

We make fun at "Family values" GOP candidates with six divorces, and call then hypocrites. Even tho six divorces is legal, isnt it? So thus, Harris is being hypocritical.

But yes, despite her attempts it is legal to keep a handgun in your residence for personal protection.
If she publicly supported Proposition H, then I agree with this. Not the worst sin, but I see the argument.

I haven't seen a cite yet that she was in favor of banning all private handgun possession, but if she did, I'll give you the point.
  #104  
Old 04-13-2019, 05:44 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
According to this report:



Various Dopers have, in the past, argued that guns don't actually enhance one's personal safety and are actually a detriment to it. What do you make of Kamala owning a gun "for personal safety"? Do you think she's unaware of the statistics? Is she stupid? Do you think she's lying about actually owning a gun? Something else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Either your OP and this are the most preposterously disingenuous posts I've seen in a long time, or else you have a very hard time grasping some very simple concepts.

One can think of a gun in the home as a kind of powerful drug which has been shown to prevent certain serious diseases but which has very serious side effects including risk of death. Obviously, the utility of such a drug -- or of such a defensive instrument as a gun in the home -- is entirely dependent on the level of threat that it's purported to guard against. For someone who is at high risk for whatever reason, the benefits of owning a gun may outweigh the considerable demonstrated risks. For most people, a gun in the home affects their safety in overwhelmingly the opposite way that they think it does. That's the point of those studies. This heartbreaking story is just a few hours old. This sort of thing happens all the time, along with fatal gun suicides, guns used in intentional domestic violence, and all the other factors frequently cited. In a CDC study of child gun deaths in a dozen first-world nations, the US consistently had more children killed by gun violence than the grand total of all other 11 countries combined.
  #105  
Old 04-13-2019, 05:47 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
If only someone had wagged their finger like that at the NRA in 2003.
Well, y'all had things largely (entirely in parts of the country) your way up until Bill Clinton overreached. Pendulums swing, of course. Right now it has swung our way, so I will enjoy it while it lasts. You go ahead and do the same when it goes your way.
  #106  
Old 04-13-2019, 05:48 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
She was the DA of SF when this was put on the ballot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fr...sition_H_(2005)

As DA she had to sign off and approve any proposition for the ballot as legal. She supported it in public.
...THAT's your cite for your claim that "there are people who want to ban all handguns (Harris)"?

Holy shit. Okay.
  #107  
Old 04-13-2019, 06:00 PM
Chisquirrel is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Either your OP and this are the most preposterously disingenuous posts I've seen in a long time, or else you have a very hard time grasping some very simple concepts.

One can think of a gun in the home as a kind of powerful drug which has been shown to prevent certain serious diseases but which has very serious side effects including risk of death. Obviously, the utility of such a drug -- or of such a defensive instrument as a gun in the home -- is entirely dependent on the level of threat that it's purported to guard against. For someone who is at high risk for whatever reason, the benefits of owning a gun may outweigh the considerable demonstrated risks. For most people, a gun in the home affects their safety in overwhelmingly the opposite way that they think it does. That's the point of those studies. This heartbreaking story is just a few hours old. This sort of thing happens all the time, along with fatal gun suicides, guns used in intentional domestic violence, and all the other factors frequently cited. In a CDC study of child gun deaths in a dozen first-world nations, the US consistently had more children killed by gun violence than the grand total of all other 11 countries combined.
Oh please, it's not like more American children die to firearms than police officers and soldiers combined or any thing.

That said, the OP is obviously a parody of a serious topic, not meant for actual debate or discussion, but to "own the libruls".
  #108  
Old 04-13-2019, 06:24 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
1. Here is the corrected link.
2. Her name isn't mentioned in your link, so where does "she supported it in public" come from?
3. Of course she signed off on it-it had enough signatures to qualify, didn't it? Under what grounds do you think she could have refused to sign it?
Her name in the newspapers at that time. Ads.

No, the DA can refuse anything for the ballot that isnt legal. Prop H was Unconstitutional. Not only under the 2nd, but under CA law.
  #109  
Old 04-13-2019, 06:25 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
...THAT's your cite for your claim that "there are people who want to ban all handguns (Harris)"?

Holy shit. Okay.
Wasnt that a handgun ban?
  #110  
Old 04-13-2019, 06:29 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
...THAT's your cite for your claim that "there are people who want to ban all handguns (Harris)"?

Holy shit. Okay.
Holy shit? A citywide ban on guns is a weird cite for the idea that some people want to ban handguns? Harris signing off on a law she assuredly knew was illegal is a nothingburger to you? W T F?
  #111  
Old 04-13-2019, 06:59 PM
sps49sd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
So, while admitting that she doesn't carry, you also contend that she carries.
I do not admit she does not carry. She says she keeps it locked up.

I hope your comprehension of this post is better than your comprehension of my previous post you are commenting on.
  #112  
Old 04-13-2019, 07:06 PM
sps49sd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Wasnt that a handgun ban?
It wasn't a complete ban. Peace officers, security guards, and active duty military were exempt when on duty.

I don't know where they would be kept when off duty.

Last edited by sps49sd; 04-13-2019 at 07:07 PM. Reason: Edited typo
  #113  
Old 04-13-2019, 07:14 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Holy shit? A citywide ban on guns is a weird cite for the idea that some people want to ban handguns? Harris signing off on a law she assuredly knew was illegal is a nothingburger to you? W T F?
1) His cite was broken.
2) His cite didn't include Harris.
3) His cite is for a law that was ultimately decided to be invalid, but it's absurd to say "she assuredly knew it was illegal." Folks obviously have different interpretations of the constitution in this respect, and the city decided their chance of success was worth litigating it in the courts.
4) Limiting handguns within city limits to possession by cops and security professionals != a desire to "ban all handguns."

I don't know that it was the worst cite I've ever seen in my life, but it's in the top 5%.
  #114  
Old 04-13-2019, 07:21 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,659
Trying to do DrDeth's legwork for him, I Googled "Khamala Harris Proposition H", and found nothing mentioning her supporting the proposition. The closest I could find was her offering "lukewarm support" for a different package of gun control measures, and an article that mentioned her in tangential relationship to a different proposition H in 2002, about police department oversight.

Far be it from me to accuse him of talking out his ass, but I find myself jawdroppingly unconvinced.
  #115  
Old 04-13-2019, 07:25 PM
aruvqan is offline
Embracing the Suck
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Eastern Connecticut
Posts: 16,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Isn't that a Catch-22 for you guys: Vox - Living in a house with a gun increases your odds of deathQuote:
Guns can kill you in three ways: homicide, suicide, and by accident. Owning a gun or having one readily accessible makes all three more likely. One meta-analysis ”found strong evidence for increased odds of suicide among persons with access to firearms compared with those without access and moderate evidence for an attenuated increased odds of homicide victimization when persons with and without access to firearms were compared.” The latter finding is stronger for women, a reminder that guns are also a risk factor for domestic violence. ..
Sorry, gun owner and unless you know exactly where to shoot, you can stay alive with no face and brain damage ...

Me? I have an assortment of prescription drugs and alcohol and the ability to mix them to go gently off to sleep and not wake up. Much less messy and more my idea of a way to go. Though if the opportunity presented itself I would prefer to go somewhere physician assisted suicide was available and have it professionally done.
  #116  
Old 04-13-2019, 07:25 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
1) His cite was broken.
2) His cite didn't include Harris.
3) His cite is for a law that was ultimately decided to be invalid, but it's absurd to say "she assuredly knew it was illegal." Folks obviously have different interpretations of the constitution in this respect, and the city decided their chance of success was worth litigating it in the courts.
4) Limiting handguns within city limits to possession by cops and security professionals != a desire to "ban all handguns."

I don't know that it was the worst cite I've ever seen in my life, but it's in the top 5%.
If she is smart enuf to be DA then AG, she has to know at least CA state law. So either she knew the law was illegal or she is stupid. Pick one.

Banning all private possession of handguns is certainly banning all handguns. No one in favor of a handgun ban includes Police officers also, let's be real. Besides Police officers can't be banned under state law anyways. It didnt include the uS Military either.


Boy "I propose a law that would ban the possession of all guns in the uSA, except those held by police and military... but since cops and the Army get to keep theirs, that's not a "ban"".
  #117  
Old 04-13-2019, 07:34 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Boy "I propose a law that would ban the possession of all guns in the uSA, except those held by police and military... but since cops and the Army get to keep theirs, that's not a "ban"".
Did Kamala Harris propose such a law? Your own cite shows that she did not.
  #118  
Old 04-13-2019, 07:36 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Trying to do DrDeth's legwork for him, I Googled "Khamala Harris Proposition H", and found nothing mentioning her supporting the proposition. The closest I could find was her offering "lukewarm support" for a different package of gun control measures, and an article that mentioned her in tangential relationship to a different proposition H in 2002, about police department oversight.

Far be it from me to accuse him of talking out his ass, but I find myself jawdroppingly unconvinced.
I was up there, i saw her face on TV. In any case, can you deny she was DA? And thus she ruled that Prop H was legal? When it wasn't. It wasnt even close to being legal, and even the City of SF knew that.


https://www.spur.org/publications/vo...-san-francisco

"The measure raises significant legal questions regarding the authority of state versus local governments to regulate firearms. The ordinance refers Article XI of the California Constitution as providing Charter-created cities, such as San Francisco, with “home rule” power. This power allows counties to enact laws that exclusively apply to residents within their borders, even when such a law conflicts with state law or when state law is silent.

However, the California Government Code states that “it is the intention of the Legislature to occupy the whole field of regulation of
the registration or licensing of commercially manufactured firearms...and such provisions shall be exclusive of all local regulations, relating to registration or licensing of commercially manufactured firearms, by any political subdivision.” This law seems to indicate that state government believes it has ultimate authority over local government in regulating firearms.

San Francisco passed a ban on handguns 
in 1982, which was subsequently struck down by California Courts on the grounds that state law superseded the local ordinance. In Doe v. City and County of San Francisco (136 Cal. App. 3d 509), the court ruled that the handgun ban conflicted with Penal Code section 12026, which allows California residents to keep a firearm in their homes without a permit."


https://www.revolvy.com/page/San-Fra...n-H-%282005%29
On June 13, 2006, in the case of Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco (Case No. CPF-05-505960), San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren struck down the ban, saying local governments have no such authority under California law. Judge Warren sided with the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, and other petitioners represented by Chuck Michel of Trutanich-Michel, LLP, in Long Beach, California, who sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers the day after the measure passed.[3] Judge Warren wrote in his 30-page ruling that "Proposition H is adjudged invalid as preempted by state law."[1]

The judge's decision was not without precedent considering a California appeals court nullified an almost identical San Francisco gun ban on exactly the same grounds in 1982.[4]

The City appealed Judge Warren's ruling, but lost by a unanimous decision from the three judge panel in the Court of Appeals issued on January 9, 2008. On February 19, 2008, San Francisco asked the California Supreme Court to review Court of Appeal's decision. The state Supreme Court reached a unanimous decision on April 9, 2008 that rejected the city's appeal and upheld the lower courts' decision.


So, Harris HAD to know that "a California appeals court nullified an almost identical San Francisco gun ban on exactly the same grounds in 1982."

Note that her appeals were rejected by a unanimous decision. Not one single judge agreed that Prop H was legal.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/Co..._13_05_SC.html

"It's not easy to do, but gun control advocates in San Francisco have come up with an anti-firearms measure that embarrasses even some gun control advocates. The red-faced ones may realize this one is not likely to work even if it is upheld in court, which it almost certainly will not be. But the pointlessness of the initiative didn't stop San Franciscans from approving it by a hefty majority......

So what's wrong with this plan? Just about everything. Start with the fact that it appears to conflict with the state constitution, which gives the state sole jurisdiction over firearms regulation -- a defect that doomed San Francisco's last handgun ban, passed in 1982.

University of California at Berkeley law professor Franklin Zimring, a staunch supporter of gun control, says the new ordinance is a "sure loser" in court. Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who as mayor signed the 1982 law, saw no point in taking a position on this one because of its obviously fatal infirmity. Current Mayor Gavin Newsom admitted the initiative is "a public opinion poll."


Note the last three- a gun control advocated admitting the law is a "sure loser" in court. Sen Feinstein "saw no point in taking a position on this one because of its obviously fatal infirmity".

Feinstein knew it wasn't legal. Newsom knew it wasn't legal. Are you saying Harris somehow thought it was, when no one else thought so?

It was such a slam dunk that SF actually had to pay the NRA's legal expenses:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2009...380-000-for-su

Last edited by DrDeth; 04-13-2019 at 07:40 PM.
  #119  
Old 04-13-2019, 07:42 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Did Kamala Harris propose such a law? Your own cite shows that she did not.
What are you babbling about? I was using that to show such a law would be considered a "gun ban" despite Left Hand of Dorkness's claim that allowing police to own guns doesn't make a 'gun ban".
  #120  
Old 04-13-2019, 07:46 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I was up there, i saw her face on TV. In any case, can you deny she was DA? And thus she ruled that Prop H was legal? When it wasn't. It wasnt even close to being legal, and even the City of SF knew that.


https://www.spur.org/publications/vo...-san-francisco

"The measure raises significant legal questions regarding the authority of state versus local governments to regulate firearms. The ordinance refers Article XI of the California Constitution as providing Charter-created cities, such as San Francisco, with “home rule” power. This power allows counties to enact laws that exclusively apply to residents within their borders, even when such a law conflicts with state law or when state law is silent.

However, the California Government Code states that “it is the intention of the Legislature to occupy the whole field of regulation of
the registration or licensing of commercially manufactured firearms...and such provisions shall be exclusive of all local regulations, relating to registration or licensing of commercially manufactured firearms, by any political subdivision.” This law seems to indicate that state government believes it has ultimate authority over local government in regulating firearms.

San Francisco passed a ban on handguns 
in 1982, which was subsequently struck down by California Courts on the grounds that state law superseded the local ordinance. In Doe v. City and County of San Francisco (136 Cal. App. 3d 509), the court ruled that the handgun ban conflicted with Penal Code section 12026, which allows California residents to keep a firearm in their homes without a permit."


https://www.revolvy.com/page/San-Fra...n-H-%282005%29
On June 13, 2006, in the case of Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco (Case No. CPF-05-505960), San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren struck down the ban, saying local governments have no such authority under California law. Judge Warren sided with the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, and other petitioners represented by Chuck Michel of Trutanich-Michel, LLP, in Long Beach, California, who sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers the day after the measure passed.[3] Judge Warren wrote in his 30-page ruling that "Proposition H is adjudged invalid as preempted by state law."[1]

The judge's decision was not without precedent considering a California appeals court nullified an almost identical San Francisco gun ban on exactly the same grounds in 1982.[4]

The City appealed Judge Warren's ruling, but lost by a unanimous decision from the three judge panel in the Court of Appeals issued on January 9, 2008. On February 19, 2008, San Francisco asked the California Supreme Court to review Court of Appeal's decision. The state Supreme Court reached a unanimous decision on April 9, 2008 that rejected the city's appeal and upheld the lower courts' decision.


So, Harris HAD to know that "a California appeals court nullified an almost identical San Francisco gun ban on exactly the same grounds in 1982."

Note that her appeals were rejected by a unanimous decision. Not one single judge agreed that Prop H was legal.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/Co..._13_05_SC.html

"It's not easy to do, but gun control advocates in San Francisco have come up with an anti-firearms measure that embarrasses even some gun control advocates. The red-faced ones may realize this one is not likely to work even if it is upheld in court, which it almost certainly will not be. But the pointlessness of the initiative didn't stop San Franciscans from approving it by a hefty majority......

So what's wrong with this plan? Just about everything. Start with the fact that it appears to conflict with the state constitution, which gives the state sole jurisdiction over firearms regulation -- a defect that doomed San Francisco's last handgun ban, passed in 1982.

University of California at Berkeley law professor Franklin Zimring, a staunch supporter of gun control, says the new ordinance is a "sure loser" in court. Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who as mayor signed the 1982 law, saw no point in taking a position on this one because of its obviously fatal infirmity. Current Mayor Gavin Newsom admitted the initiative is "a public opinion poll."


Note the last three- a gun control advocated admitting the law is a "sure loser" in court. Sen Feinstein "saw no point in taking a position on this one because of its obviously fatal infirmity".

Feinstein knew it wasn't legal. Newsom knew it wasn't legal. Are you saying Harris somehow thought it was, when no one else thought so?

It was such a slam dunk that SF actually had to pay the NRA's legal expenses:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2009...380-000-for-su
So far the only cite that Harris supported this was your recollection. While that might be accurate, it's surprising we can't find any confirmation on the internet.

Allowing it on the ballot does not equal support. Even if it had a slim chance of passing constitutional review. I don't think you want partisan elected officials deciding what the people get to vote on. The courts can, (and did) figure it out after the election.

If she did, but now owns a gun, as I said earlier, that's fair (but mild) criticism of her. Kind of like advocating for higher tax rates but taking advantage of the lower rates until the rates can be changed. She'd prefer (presumably) to live in a city with no private ownership of handguns, but until that happens, she wants a gun too.
  #121  
Old 04-13-2019, 07:49 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
She'd prefer (presumably) to live in a city with no private ownership of handguns, but until that happens, she wants a gun too.
Kind of like when Ayn Rand collected Social Security?
  #122  
Old 04-13-2019, 07:52 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
In any case, can you deny she was DA? And thus she ruled that Prop H was legal? When it wasn't. It wasnt even close to being legal, and even the City of SF knew that.
...you must know that this isn't how it works. When Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional that doesn't mean that the people who signed the Act into law "ruled that it was legal, even when it wasn't." You are playing with words here.
  #123  
Old 04-13-2019, 07:53 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
What are you babbling about? I was using that to show such a law would be considered a "gun ban" despite Left Hand of Dorkness's claim that allowing police to own guns doesn't make a 'gun ban".
I'll be extra clear and not at all babbley...

You have failed to provide a cite that Kamala Harris had anything to do with this law other than to defend it in court as part of her duties as district attorney. Completely and utterly failed.
  #124  
Old 04-13-2019, 07:56 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
So far the only cite that Harris supported this was your recollection. While that might be accurate, it's surprising we can't find any confirmation on the internet.

Allowing it on the ballot does not equal support. Even if it had a slim chance of passing constitutional review. I don't think you want partisan elected officials deciding what the people get to vote on. The courts can, (and did) figure it out after the election.

If she did, but now owns a gun, as I said earlier, that's fair (but mild) criticism of her. Kind of like advocating for higher tax rates but taking advantage of the lower rates until the rates can be changed. She'd prefer (presumably) to live in a city with no private ownership of handguns, but until that happens, she wants a gun too.
She wasnt a sponsor, and those are the only names I can see in support. That was a while ago, no?

No, but it means she Oked it as legal. And it clearly wasn't. She just could have not allowed it on the ballot. It isnt uncommon, it happens in CA. Prop 9 was just stricken and not allowed on the ballot.

In any case, she unilaterally banned all new handgun models from being sold in CA, based upon a totally spurious and useless "Microstamping" hypothesis. She's not stupid. On one hand she tries hard to ban any and every gun. On the other, she talks about "reasonable gun control". She knows any gun banner has no chance to be President.

Yes, and that is not being wrong or evil, but it is being hypocritical.
  #125  
Old 04-13-2019, 07:57 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...you must know that this isn't how it works. When Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional that doesn't mean that the people who signed the Act into law "ruled that it was legal, even when it wasn't." You are playing with words here.
Nonsense. There were questionable sections, sure. But Prop H was in no way "questionable". Everyone knew it was illegal.
  #126  
Old 04-13-2019, 07:58 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I'll be extra clear and not at all babbley...

You have failed to provide a cite that Kamala Harris had anything to do with this law other than to defend it in court as part of her duties as district attorney. Completely and utterly failed.
As DA she ruled it was legal to be put on the ballot. And the DA doesnt have to defend a law.
  #127  
Old 04-13-2019, 08:00 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
She wasnt a sponsor, and those are the only names I can see in support. That was a while ago, no?
Huh. Y'know what, Ima take my cue from Obama here and just say, please proceed.
  #128  
Old 04-13-2019, 08:00 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
As DA she ruled it was legal to be put on the ballot. And the DA doesnt have to defend a law.
Show. Don't tell.

Last edited by Lance Turbo; 04-13-2019 at 08:00 PM.
  #129  
Old 04-13-2019, 08:05 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Nonsense. There were questionable sections, sure. But Prop H was in no way "questionable". Everyone knew it was illegal.
....the bolded is an objective statement that is falsifiable. I didn't know it was "illegal".I I hadn't even heard about it until I read this thread and millions of people around the world haven't heard of it either. So again: you are playing with words. How about skipping the hyperbole for just a little bit?
  #130  
Old 04-13-2019, 08:46 PM
sps49sd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
....the bolded is an objective statement that is falsifiable. I didn't know it was "illegal".I I hadn't even heard about it until I read this thread and millions of people around the world haven't heard of it either. So again: you are playing with words. How about skipping the hyperbole for just a little bit?
It should be clear from context that he meant the Cit leadership, not everyone in the universe including You. Did you miss that, or are you being pedantic when there are actual points that could be discussed and disputed in this thread?

Last edited by sps49sd; 04-13-2019 at 08:46 PM.
  #131  
Old 04-13-2019, 08:58 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
It should be clear from context that he meant the Cit leadership, not everyone in the universe including You. Did you miss that, or are you being pedantic when there are actual points that could be discussed and disputed in this thread?
...if the Cit leadership objectively knew that Prop H was illegal then they wouldn't have signed it into law. The line between "legal" and "illegal" isn't a well defined line in the sand. So yes I'm being pedantic. Because the law is pedantic.

And the claim that "Harris knew it was illegal" because "everyone knew it was illegal" just doesn't hold up. They signed it into law because they held the opinion that the proposition was legal. The courts ruled otherwise. That's how things work.
  #132  
Old 04-13-2019, 09:45 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Show. Don't tell.
What do you want me to show? That ballot propositions in CA have to be cleared for legality before they are put on the ballot? Or that she was DA at that time? Either one is liek asking for proof that the sun rises in the morning, why are you asking for silly cites? Even when i provide them, you'l; just ignore them anyway, like that rest of my cites.
  #133  
Old 04-13-2019, 09:46 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
....the bolded is an objective statement that is falsifiable. I didn't know it was "illegal".I I hadn't even heard about it until I read this thread and millions of people around the world haven't heard of it either. So again: you are playing with words. How about skipping the hyperbole for just a little bit?
Yeah. sure. We're talking about all the politicians and legal experts concerned with the law. I am sure there's a goat herder in the Sudan who had no idea. Who gives a fuck?
  #134  
Old 04-13-2019, 09:53 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yeah. sure. We're talking about all the politicians and legal experts concerned with the law. I am sure there's a goat herder in the Sudan who had no idea. Who gives a fuck?
And your evidence that all the people who voted for this proposition and who brought it forward were like, "I totes know this bill violates CA law, but what the hey, our city has an extra $300,000 lying around that we don't know what to do with, let's spend that on paying off the NRA"?

Proceed.
  #135  
Old 04-13-2019, 10:06 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yeah. sure. We're talking about all the politicians and legal experts concerned with the law. I am sure there's a goat herder in the Sudan who had no idea. Who gives a fuck?
...the politicians and legal experts who signed the proposition into law held the opinion that what they signed into law was legal. If you have an evidence that they thought otherwise: if you have some sort of unique insight into Kamala Harris's brain that nobody else has access too, then now would be the time to present it.
  #136  
Old 04-13-2019, 10:16 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
What do you want me to show?
Show anything that supports your point. Show that Kamala Harris had anything to do with this law. You have made several assertion, some of which appear to be factually false, but haven't really supported anything.

When you were asked to support your assertion that Harris wanted to ban all handguns you provided a (broken) link to a Wikipedia page on which Harris's name did not appear.

Try harder.
  #137  
Old 04-13-2019, 10:58 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Harris has taken that very position. Sure her owning a gun is legal, but she is/was in favor of banning all private handgun possession. Thus hypocritical.
No, not necessarily. Just because you think something should be illegal doesn't mean that if you do it while it isn't illegal, you must be a hypocrite.

It's perfectly possible to endorse, in a logically consistent manner, the idea that society as a whole would be better off without allowing private handgun ownership, while at the same time maintaining that as long as private handgun ownership is allowed, you personally would rather have one than not.

(A similar example is animal-rights activists who support a legal ban on owning animals as pets, but who work in animal shelters helping pets get adopted. Their reasoning, which is not intrinsically hypocritical, is that "animal enslavement" ought to be illegal, but as long as it isn't, then the next best thing is getting abused animals rescued and cared for and adopted out to loving owners.)

Personally, when it comes to guns I have no problem with responsible and legal private gun ownership, but I think the Second Amendment ought to be repealed. That's not hypocritical either.
  #138  
Old 04-13-2019, 11:49 PM
Chisquirrel is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
I do not admit she does not carry. She says she keeps it locked up.

I hope your comprehension of this post is better than your comprehension of my previous post you are commenting on.
Oh, I absolutely got your point. You want to call her a liar, without using those words. I just wanted you to clarify that point.

ETA: With absolutely no evidence or reasoning. Just because you WANT her to be a hypocrite.

Last edited by Chisquirrel; 04-13-2019 at 11:50 PM. Reason: Added a nut
  #139  
Old 04-14-2019, 12:04 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Show anything that supports your point. Show that Kamala Harris had anything to do with this law. You have made several assertion, some of which appear to be factually false, but haven't really supported anything.

When you were asked to support your assertion that Harris wanted to ban all handguns you provided a (broken) link to a Wikipedia page on which Harris's name did not appear.

Try harder.
Was Harris DA of SF when Prop H was put on the ballot?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris

27th District Attorney of San Francisco
In office
January 8, 2004 – January 3, 2011


Oh gee, my wiki link went bad. Man, that takes some MAD skilz to figure out, and of course it means Wiki is wrong, right? Gesusfuck, if that's you idea of a rebuttal, you lose.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fr...sition_H_(2005)
Proposition H was a local ordinance on the November 8, 2005 ballot in San Francisco, California, which gained national attention for its banning of most firearms within the city. The measure passed with a yes vote of 123,033 to a no vote of 89,856. The proposition was later struck down in court.

Thereby as DA of SF, Harris had to pass on that Prop getting on the ballot.

Please show your cite that she wasnt DA at that time.

And then of course I saw harris on TV on a yes on H ad, giving a soundbite about how handgun violence is bad. Are you saying I didnt see her?

Last edited by DrDeth; 04-14-2019 at 12:08 AM.
  #140  
Old 04-14-2019, 12:07 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...the politicians and legal experts who signed the proposition into law held the opinion that what they signed into law was legal. If you have an evidence that they thought otherwise: if you have some sort of unique insight into Kamala Harris's brain that nobody else has access too, then now would be the time to present it.
She did? Are you sure? Because Senator Feinstein and Mayor Newsom said it wasnt legal. And every Judge said it wasnt legal- rare unanimous decisions. So either Harris is stupid or she deliberately let a bad law get on just to harass gun owners. You pick. Since she has done other stuff just to harass gun owners, I know what my pick is.
  #141  
Old 04-14-2019, 12:11 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
She did? Are you sure? Because Senator Feinstein and Mayor Newsom said it wasnt legal. And every Judge said it wasnt legal- rare unanimous decisions. So either Harris is stupid or she deliberately let a bad law get on just to harass gun owners. You pick. Since she has done other stuff just to harass gun owners, I know what my pick is.
...I don't give a fuck what Feinstein or Newsom think. Your assertion was that Harris knew that the law was illegal. Now your claim has changed. I'm not going to pick. That's your job. Are you withdrawing your claim she "knew it was illegal?"
  #142  
Old 04-14-2019, 12:16 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
No, not necessarily. Just because you think something should be illegal doesn't mean that if you do it while it isn't illegal, you must be a hypocrite.

It's perfectly possible to endorse, in a logically consistent manner, the idea that society as a whole would be better off without allowing private handgun ownership, while at the same time maintaining that as long as private handgun ownership is allowed, you personally would rather have one than not.
...
It's perfectly possible to endorse, in a logically consistent manner, the idea that society as a whole would be better off without allowing gay sex, while at the same time maintaining that as long as gay sex is allowed, you personally will have secret gay sex. How many GOP politicians have we said are hypocritical on this very point.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-we...-out-to-be-gay

Recently, there has been former Ohio state Rep. Wesley Goodman, who resigned late last week after it came out that he had had sex with a man in his office.

In March, former Oklahoma state Sen. Ralph Shortey resigned after being hit with child prostitution charges for allegedly soliciting sex from a 17-year-old boy. Shortey has reportedly decided this week to plead guilty to a child sex trafficking charge.

Both Goodman and Shortey are married men who were clear political opponents of the LGBT community while in office.

After Shortey was arrested, the Associated Press noted that he “routinely” voted for anti-LGBT bills, quoting the director of the LGBT advocacy organization Freedom Oklahoma who said, “He was never vitriolic about it, but he would make the bad votes.”

More strident was Goodman who, as the Columbus Dispatch reported, “consistently touted his faith and conservative values,” with a Twitter bio that read: “Christian. American. Conservative. Republican.....The LGBT community will never tire of bringing up the long history of Republican gay sex scandals every time new—and increasingly unsurprising—allegations emerge, precisely because they seem to be so predictable in hindsight."


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/o...hypocrisy.html

http://www.newnownext.com/19-republi...y-sex/12/2016/

Hypocrites.

....

Nope. That is exactly the definition of hypocritical.
  #143  
Old 04-14-2019, 12:18 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...I don't give a fuck what Feinstein or Newsom think. Your assertion was that Harris knew that the law was illegal. Now your claim has changed. I'm not going to pick. That's your job. Are you withdrawing your claim she "knew it was illegal?"
And you dont care what twelve judges said either, eh?

Nope, she knew it was. That's my opinion. Or she was totally ignorant of the law. You pick. There's no possible "She knew the law but still thought it was legal".
  #144  
Old 04-14-2019, 12:20 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Thank you for posting a (broken) link to a page that doesn't even mention Kamala Harris again. That's not actually as strong an argument as you think it is.

Try harder.
  #145  
Old 04-14-2019, 12:23 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And you dont care what twelve judges said either, eh?

Nope, she knew it was. That's my opinion. Or she was totally ignorant of the law. You pick. There's no possible "She knew the law but still thought it was legal".
This demonstrates your lack of imagination and little else. No one else is restricted to these two choices.

There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
  #146  
Old 04-14-2019, 12:41 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And then of course I saw harris on TV on a yes on H ad, giving a soundbite about how handgun violence is bad. Are you saying I didnt see her?
Are you sure you get the concept of, "Show. Don't tell."?
  #147  
Old 04-14-2019, 12:49 AM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post

Thereby as DA of SF, Harris had to pass on that Prop getting on the ballot.
This is where you’re losing me. What is her role in the process? If she as the right to block a voters’ initiative, what are the standards? Shouldn’t she let the courts decide Constitutional questions?

I’m not from California, so I’m seriously just asking.
  #148  
Old 04-14-2019, 01:16 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And you dont care what twelve judges said either, eh?
...nope. What 12 judges have said says nothing to Harris's state of mind.

Quote:
Nope, she knew it was. That's my opinion.
You are entitled to expressing your opinion. But you've been expressing your opinion as objective fact.

Quote:
Or she was totally ignorant of the law. You pick. There's no possible "She knew the law but still thought it was legal".
So I've just googled "Kamala Harris" and Proposition H and I can't find anything at all (apart from being DA at the time) that links her to the proposition. I've just realized that this entire discussion is based on assertions you have made.

So the ball is back in your court. How does the ballot system work in San Francisco? What role did the DA play in this? The proposition didn't even take effect. I mean its obvious that you aren't an "objective narrator" here. So why should we trust the way you have chosen to frame the story?
  #149  
Old 04-14-2019, 01:37 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I think she has more than the typical number of dangerous people who might wish to do her harm as a result of her law enforcement career.
Probably this. I expect she's received many death threats, but like most gun owners, she's never been in an actual deadly altercation or combat situation, so she misunderstands how a personal weapon affects the safety of the people in her home. And until the gun kills somebody, it's undetermined whether it's more of a threat to the owner, the occupants, or the imaginary intruder. It's usually the owner or occupants, but human psychology is a huge barrier to imagining that our own errors or incompetence will grievously harm us or our loved ones.
  #150  
Old 04-14-2019, 01:40 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Thank you for posting a (broken) link to a page that doesn't even mention Kamala Harris again. That's not actually as strong an argument as you think it is.

Try harder.
It wasnt supposed to mention Harris. It was about Prop H.

So, before I waste more time on your little cite game, do you deny that Harris was DA of SF when Prop H was put on the ballot? That is what I have been citing. Can you cite otherwise?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017