Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 04-14-2019, 01:41 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Are you sure you get the concept of, "Show. Don't tell."?
Are you saying i didnt see that?
  #152  
Old 04-14-2019, 01:47 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
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.
The DA or the AG have to sign off whether or not a Prop is legal. Likely the same in most states, but yes, here in CA. Last year the Prop to split CA into several states was blocked and didnt get on the ballot.

They can do so only if they can show the prop isnt legal. Or they can say "I dont think this is legal, but I am letting it get on the ballot anyway". But yes, they have to sign off on it's legality. Not whether or not it is proper, right/wrong anything else- legal.

The courts actually already ruled on almost the same SF law, year before and said it was unconstitutional.
  #153  
Old 04-14-2019, 01:49 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
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?
I don't deny that. I am well aware of her law enforcement career.
  #154  
Old 04-14-2019, 01:50 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Are you saying i didnt see that?
No I am not. Not even a little bit.
  #155  
Old 04-14-2019, 01:53 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The DA or the AG have to sign off whether or not a Prop is legal.
Show. Don't tell.

Show us that Kamala Harris signed off on this proposition. Surely there's a record of this somewhere. Show it to us.
  #156  
Old 04-14-2019, 01:59 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
....

You are entitled to expressing your opinion. But you've been expressing your opinion as objective fact.



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. ...
And that is all that is needed, thank you for proving my point.

She was AG when she did this:"Microstamping
On May 17, 2013, the state attorney general began enforcing a new law requiring that semi-automatic pistols incorporate microstamping.[46] With this technology, very small markings are engraved, using a laser, on the tip of the firing pin and on the breechface of the firearm. When the gun is fired, these etchings may be transferred to the primer by the firing pin, and to the cartridge case head by the breechface, using the pressure created when a round is fired. If successful, this imprints two identifying numbers, unique to that gun, on each spent cartridge casing.[47] This requirement applies to new guns being added to the California Department of Justice's roster of handguns certified for sale; semi-automatic handgun models already listed on the roster are not required to incorporate microstamping. Note of interest - this law was passed in 2007 and the wording in the law stated that it shall become effective when there are at least two companies, unencumbered by a patent, employing this technology. To date, no manufacturer offers this technology in firearms available to the public.[48]

In June 2018, in the case of National Shooting Sports Foundation v. California, the California Supreme Court upheld the state's microstamping law. The court wrote, "Impossibility can occasionally excuse noncompliance with a statute. But impossibility does not authorize a court to go beyond interpreting a statute and simply invalidate it
.

You are welcome to look up Gun laws in California on Wiki where this is quoted from.

Here are cites that say Harris is Pro Gun control:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/
https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...ssed/23655730/
https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/a...to-the-nation/
https://heavy.com/news/2019/01/kamal...s-gun-control/
https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/...e-K-Harris.pdf

So, even if you dont accept that Harris was in favor of a SF law banning all handguns, there is ample proof- her very own words- she is strongly in favor of gun control- except of course for herself. We call that being a hypocrite.
  #157  
Old 04-14-2019, 02:00 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I don't deny that. I am well aware of her law enforcement career.
Then we are done. You concede my point, thank you.
  #158  
Old 04-14-2019, 02:02 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Show. Don't tell.

Show us that Kamala Harris signed off on this proposition. Surely there's a record of this somewhere. Show it to us.
Sorry, you dont accept any other cite I gave and even made me cite that Harris was DA of SF when Prop F was put on the ballot. If you want to know about CA law, look it up yourself. I am tired of playing your silly 'cite" game.

Show me your cites.
  #159  
Old 04-14-2019, 02:11 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And that is all that is needed, thank you for proving my point.
...LOL. Are you seriously "declaring victory?"

At this stage I don't even know what your point is. I mean:

Quote:
She was AG when she did this:"Microstamping
On May 17, 2013, the state attorney general began enforcing a new law requiring that semi-automatic pistols incorporate microstamping.[46] With this technology, very small markings are engraved, using a laser, on the tip of the firing pin and on the breechface of the firearm. When the gun is fired, these etchings may be transferred to the primer by the firing pin, and to the cartridge case head by the breechface, using the pressure created when a round is fired. If successful, this imprints two identifying numbers, unique to that gun, on each spent cartridge casing.[47] This requirement applies to new guns being added to the California Department of Justice's roster of handguns certified for sale; semi-automatic handgun models already listed on the roster are not required to incorporate microstamping. Note of interest - this law was passed in 2007 and the wording in the law stated that it shall become effective when there are at least two companies, unencumbered by a patent, employing this technology. To date, no manufacturer offers this technology in firearms available to the public.[48]

In June 2018, in the case of National Shooting Sports Foundation v. California, the California Supreme Court upheld the state's microstamping law. The court wrote, "Impossibility can occasionally excuse noncompliance with a statute. But impossibility does not authorize a court to go beyond interpreting a statute and simply invalidate it
.

You are welcome to look up Gun laws in California on Wiki where this is quoted from.

Here are cites that say Harris is Pro Gun control:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/
https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...ssed/23655730/
https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/a...to-the-nation/
https://heavy.com/news/2019/01/kamal...s-gun-control/
https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/...e-K-Harris.pdf

So, even if you dont accept that Harris was in favor of a SF law banning all handguns, there is ample proof- her very own words- she is strongly in favor of gun control- except of course for herself. We call that being a hypocrite.
What does any of this have to do with Harris's state of mind in 2005? You know, the questions I've been asking you about?

And how does "being in favour of microstamping", a sensible gun-control measure, paint Harris as a hypocrite? Is she in favour of micro-stamping everybody's guns except the guns that she owns? Can you prove that? Do you even understand what the word "hypocrite" means? Do you not understand that being in favour of "gun control" does not necessarily mean you are in favour of banning guns in their entirety?
  #160  
Old 04-14-2019, 02:17 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Sorry, you dont accept any other cite I gave and even made me cite that Harris was DA of SF when Prop F was put on the ballot. If you want to know about CA law, look it up yourself. I am tired of playing your silly 'cite" game.

Show me your cites.
I didn't 'make' you cite that Harris was DA of SF. That was never in dispute and no one asked for that information.

You have asserted several times that Kamala Harris signed off of Prop H in order for it to be on the ballot. Several posters have asked about this process. Instead of backing that up you pretend that people are asking if she was DA when the proposition was put on the ballot and citing that she was DA and that the proposition was put on the ballot.

This is not what I and several other posters are asking for.

We know that Kamala Harris was DA of San Francisco.

We know that Prop H was on the ballot.

What we don't know is that Kamala Harris acting as DA of San Francisco had anything to do with Prop H getting on the ballot. Do you have a cite for that?

Last edited by Lance Turbo; 04-14-2019 at 02:18 AM.
  #161  
Old 04-14-2019, 02:27 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
What we don't know is that Kamala Harris acting as DA of San Francisco had anything to do with Prop H getting on the ballot. Do you have a cite for that?
...I'm not sure that this is DrDeth's claim (although at this stage it really is hard to tell.) I think DrDeth is asserting that after the "yes" vote for Proposition H won the ballot, Kamala Harris signed or made some sort of declaration that Proposition H is "legal." Then it went to court: and the courts declared it "illegal" and that means Kamala Harris is a very very bad person. Or something like that.
  #162  
Old 04-14-2019, 07:05 AM
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: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The DA or the AG have to sign off whether or not a Prop is legal. Likely the same in most states, but yes, here in CA. Last year the Prop to split CA into several states was blocked and didnt get on the ballot.
Cite? This is not a trivial request: this is central to your claim. Your cites have been so astonishingly shoddy and off-point so far that I 100% don't take anything you're saying at face value. Where are you getting this idea from, and what's the exact text of the law that requires the DA to sign off on propositions?

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 04-14-2019 at 07:06 AM.
  #163  
Old 04-14-2019, 07:08 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Kind of like when Ayn Rand collected Social Security?
I'm mildly curious what you think your point is here.
  #164  
Old 04-14-2019, 07:10 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, and slavery at one time was perfectly Constitutional. What's your point?

Her law was ruled UnConstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Exactly.

Now when you say things like "She said that gun laws that were unconstitutional were perfectly OK," it carries the implication that she said laws were perfectly OK, despite the fact that they were known to be unconstitutional at the time, which she either knew or should have known to be the case.

So for future reference, the way you properly describe this is along the lines of "she approved gun laws that were later found to be unconstitutional."

It's the difference between disregarding the Supreme Court's past rulings, and failing to outguess how they might rule in the future.
  #165  
Old 04-14-2019, 07:50 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
... It's the difference between disregarding the Supreme Court's past rulings, and failing to outguess how they might rule in the future.
But it WAS disregarding past rulings. San Francisco had already been told it could not ban guns.
  #166  
Old 04-14-2019, 07:59 AM
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: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
But it WAS disregarding past rulings. San Francisco had already been told it could not ban guns.
So walk me through this. Lots of people put enormous effort into this proposition, and it won. Were all the people who voted for it secretly gun nuts who just wanted to funnel some city money to the NRA? Were they all enormous idiots who didn't realize that if an identical ban had been struck down, this one would be too?

Or was there some difference between the two proposals, and proponents of Prop H thought that the differences might enable it to pass muster?

The scenario being put forward--that over a hundred thousand voters voted in favor of something that they knew would be struck down, and that city leaders including attorneys signed off on something that was unambiguously illegal--is a little difficult to countenance.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 04-14-2019 at 08:00 AM.
  #167  
Old 04-14-2019, 08:07 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
So walk me through this. Lots of people put enormous effort into this proposition, and it won. Were all the people who voted for it secretly gun nuts who just wanted to funnel some city money to the NRA? Were they all enormous idiots who didn't realize that if an identical ban had been struck down, this one would be too?

Or was there some difference between the two proposals, and proponents of Prop H thought that the differences might enable it to pass muster?

The scenario being put forward--that over a hundred thousand voters voted in favor of something that they knew would be struck down, and that city leaders including attorneys signed off on something that was unambiguously illegal--is a little difficult to countenance.
I think it's a safe bet to never underestimate the stupidity of Californians. I suspect the vast majority of the 100,000+ voters who supported it had no clue about the previous judicial rulings, and those that did thought it would be good politics to gin up some enthusiasm among the masses, even though it was going to be struck down by the courts.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 04-14-2019 at 08:07 AM.
  #168  
Old 04-14-2019, 08:09 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
So for future reference, the way you properly describe this is along the lines of "she approved gun laws that were later found to be unconstitutional."
Refresh my memory. Was this one of those 5-4 rulings, widely touted by the "winning" side as just as good as 9-0? And OP is chastising someone for not guessing which way the 5-4 cookie would crumble?

The way you've phrased it I guess it wasn't one of those 2-1 rulings by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, led by right-winger Diarmuid O’Scannlain whose gun-nut rulings are so off-the-charts that even the Alito-Thomas Scotus overturns them ... by 5-4 vote.

Such moral clarity about guns the American Scotus has given us now.
  #169  
Old 04-14-2019, 08:17 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,151
OP, I think a better and more useful way to start this thread might have been something like this, assuming you understand why some personal possession of a hand gun may make more sense for some people than for the average person (I like the medicine argument someone made above):

------
Kamala Harris says that she owns a gun for personal safety. As a gun rights supporter, of course I support her right to do so. She's made statements in the past that seem to indicate that personal gun ownership should be severely restricted or banned. I disagree with her position. She thinks she should own a gun because she's personally at greater risk than the average person. My positions is that bureaucrats are not in a good position to determine who should be able to own a gun (barring some extreme circumstances, like being a felon) and determine who is at greater risk. Rather, I think that should be left up to individuals, since they know their circumstances best. Furthermore, guns are useful for other reasons, such has hunting, collecting, and simply for fun. My view is that being part of a free society also means being free to own a gun, and in fact that right is in our Constitution, and the Supreme Court has affirmed a personal right to own a gun. I'm not saying she's being hypocritical simply for owning a gun, since she really is at elevated risk and that probably justifies it in her mind. I'm saying she's incorrect in trying to restrict gun ownership for various reasons, some that are probably contrary to the Constitution.

What do you think? Do you think that her determination that she should own a gun undermines her general positions on gun control? Do you think that the government should have a large part in determining who should own a gun?
------

I think that would have been a more useful start.
  #170  
Old 04-14-2019, 08:55 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,151
BTW, even if it is her goal to turn the US into some sort of gun-free hellhole like the UK or Australia (I have no idea what her actual position is, and this thread hasn't made it any clearer), the fact is that she hasn't achieved that yet and the US is still awash in guns. Even holding that position, if it is her position, makes her a target, further justifying her personal ownership.

OP, I don't know what your motivation was for starting this thread the way you did. If it was really, ha ha, look at the hypocritical gun-grabber, she doesn't even understand statistics, and ha ha libs for supporting such an ignorant hypocrite, that seems more like a rant to me and probably should have been started in the Pit.
  #171  
Old 04-14-2019, 09:04 AM
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: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
OP, I don't know what your motivation was for starting this thread the way you did. If it was really, ha ha, look at the hypocritical gun-grabber, she doesn't even understand statistics, and ha ha libs for supporting such an ignorant hypocrite, that seems more like a rant to me and probably should have been started in the Pit.
I trust that HD started the thread he intended to start. Your suggestion would've been a thread much more appropriate for Elections, but he wanted to start the thread he wanted to start, and he also didn't want to go to the Pit, so here we are.
  #172  
Old 04-14-2019, 09:11 AM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I'm mildly curious what you think your point is here.
I'm idly curious why you thought your phrasing above would dispose me to continue dialog with someone I know in advance will disagreewith virtually anything I say.
  #173  
Old 04-14-2019, 09:18 AM
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: 40,599
FWIW, again trying to do DrDeth's work for him, I've spent about ten minutes reading various cites about the initiative process, including the handout given to prospective initiative sponsors, the Wiki on the process, and the CA AG's website on the process. I'm not seeing anywhere in the process that the district attorney gets to say, "I'm pretty sure this initiative won't survive a court challenge, so I'm gonna cut out the middleman and just deny the initiative."

I have two predictions:
1) DrDeth won't provide any evidence that the DA does this; and
2) DrDeth won't admit the mistake.
  #174  
Old 04-14-2019, 09:36 AM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
FWIW, again trying to do DrDeth's work for him, I've spent about ten minutes reading various cites about the initiative process, including the handout given to prospective initiative sponsors, the Wiki on the process, and the CA AG's website on the process. I'm not seeing anywhere in the process that the district attorney gets to say, "I'm pretty sure this initiative won't survive a court challenge, so I'm gonna cut out the middleman and just deny the initiative."

I have two predictions:
1) DrDeth won't provide any evidence that the DA does this; and
2) DrDeth won't admit the mistake.
I also did a quick search before I asked for his cite. I know if Washington their is a process to go to court prior to getting something on the ballot if it doesn't qualify for some reason. I think the standard is very high, as courts prefer to wait to see if it passes before reviewing (just like they would with any other law)

My guess is the A.G. (and maybe the D.A., but that's less clear) can make a decision that they failed to get enough signature or otherwise don't quality for a vote. I'm much less inclined to believe that an elected non-judicial partisan official can keep a measure off the ballot simply because, in their view, it's not constitutional. I can envision all kinds of mischief with that short of power.
  #175  
Old 04-14-2019, 10:09 AM
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: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I can envision all kinds of mischief with that short of power.
Exactly.
  #176  
Old 04-14-2019, 10:25 AM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Exactly.
Man, I need to proof-read better. "Sort of power." Not "short of power."
  #177  
Old 04-14-2019, 10:53 AM
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: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Man, I need to proof-read better. "Sort of power." Not "short of power."
Maybe I shoulda said "Almost exactly." I knew what you meant .
  #178  
Old 04-14-2019, 11:42 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The DA or the AG have to sign off whether or not a Prop is legal. Likely the same in most states, but yes, here in CA. Last year the Prop to split CA into several states was blocked and didnt get on the ballot.
I did some research too.

The initiative to split CA into smaller states was kept off the ballot due to a lawsuit that was ruled on by the CA Supreme Court as opposed the the CA AG unilaterally deciding that it wasn't legal and keeping it off the ballot.

Here's a cite for that: California Supreme Court Squashes Bid To Split State Into Three.
  #179  
Old 04-14-2019, 12:24 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
... She thinks she should own a gun because she's personally at greater risk than the average person. ... she really is at elevated risk ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
... Even holding that position, if it is her position, makes her a target, further justifying her personal ownership. ...
RitterSport, I appreciate your thoughts. My OP was directed more towards her risk assessment than an accusation of hypocrisy. You've made the case that she really has elevated risk above and beyond the average citizen. I don't think I'm convinced of that. Do you have anything you'd like to add to support your argument on that point?
  #180  
Old 04-14-2019, 12:27 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You've made the case that she really has elevated risk above and beyond the average citizen. I don't think I'm convinced of that. Do you have anything you'd like to add to support your argument on that point?
She put people in jail for over 25 years. As a result, she has had a steady stream of credible death threats since 1990.
  #181  
Old 04-14-2019, 01:05 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
RitterSport, I appreciate your thoughts. My OP was directed more towards her risk assessment than an accusation of hypocrisy. You've made the case that she really has elevated risk above and beyond the average citizen. I don't think I'm convinced of that. Do you have anything you'd like to add to support your argument on that point?
Do I have a cite? No, I don't have a cite for her personal risk relative to the average person. Here's why I think she's at elevate risk relative to say, me:

1. She's a candidate for president
2. She is or is perceived to be anti-gun
3. She's a former DA and attorney general, so may have many ex-cons angry at her
4. Since she's running, she's more in the public eye than other former DAs and attorneys general, making her more of a target for those ex-cons
5. She an African American politician -- Obama apparently received more death threats than any other presidents
6. She's a progressive senator that is getting more attention than non-candidate senators, and that may trigger some loony, domestic terrorist, or other would-be killer

There are probably other reasons that I haven't thought of.

Whereas I live in a very safe neighborhood in anti-gun NJ and, as a nobody, no one has any reason to try and kill me. I spend no time in the public eye, haven't put anyone in jail, and no one cares about my gun views.

It seems really obvious that she's at elevated personal risk compared to your average schmo. But, I can't officially cite it, so this is just my opinion.

Last edited by RitterSport; 04-14-2019 at 01:06 PM. Reason: "loony", not "loonie"
  #182  
Old 04-14-2019, 01:25 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,151
It occurs to me that there's really another side to the statistics question. While it's true that the average person is safer without a gun in the home, it's not true that a gun is a danger in the home to a specific person.

Many people drive without a seat belt, ride their bike without a helmet, smoke cigarettes, drink and drive, drink to excess, have suicidal thoughts, have violent tendencies, are otherwise careless.

If I were to have a gun in my home, I'd have it locked up unloaded. I'm also the kind of person who doesn't smoke, doesn't ride a bike without a helmet, doesn't speed (excessively). I'm not depressed and I haven't committed any domestic violence whatsoever. So, it's probably likely that having a gun in my house wouldn't raise my risk as much as it does for the "average person". Similarly, she spent years prosecuting crimes and has probably seen the results of gun use, careless or otherwise, and would probably be expected to treat a gun in the home with the respect it deserves. If she's not depressed nor has suicidal thoughts, and she's at little or no risk for domestic violence, that's another reason why her risk would be lower.

IMO, she's at elevated personal risk for the reasons mentioned (you may or may not agree). She may also be at reduced risk for gun ownership for the reasons above.

Certainly we can agree that many people are careless with guns, don't store them properly, leave them out where kids find them, are depressed or at risk of domestic violence (either being a perpetrator or victim). If none of those things apply to a specific person, such as Harris or me, the other part of those statistics may be reduced.
  #183  
Old 04-14-2019, 02:17 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I didn't 'make' you cite that Harris was DA of SF. That was never in dispute and no one asked for that information.
Yes, you did. You replied to my post that she was DA of SF with "show, dont tell" and "Show anything that supports your point." Then bitched about 'broken" wiki links as if you couldn't Google it yourself. Then you admitted "I don't deny that. I am well aware of her law enforcement career."

Asking for a cite on something you are well aware of is a silly immature game. I dont play that game. You can take your future bogus requests for cite for things you are likely already "well aware of " and put them where the sun don't shine.

As WC Fields once said "Go away kid, ya bother me. "
  #184  
Old 04-14-2019, 02:18 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
But it WAS disregarding past rulings. San Francisco had already been told it could not ban guns.
Yep.
  #185  
Old 04-14-2019, 02:23 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think it's a safe bet to never underestimate the stupidity of Californians. I suspect the vast majority of the 100,000+ voters who supported it had no clue about the previous judicial rulings, and those that did thought it would be good politics to gin up some enthusiasm among the masses, even though it was going to be struck down by the courts.
And the politicians who knew full well it was illegal were fine with that. IMHO. They knew that some few people would panic and hand in their guns- less guns "on the street". IMHO. They also figured that maybe the injunction would take a while, and thus the SFPD would confiscate some guns- which the owners would never get back*- and thus "less guns "on the street". IMHO. And anything that harassed and annoyed those evil murderous gun owners was a Good Thing. IMHO.

*yes, legally you'd be allowed to get your gun back, but you'd have to hire a lawyer and sue, and the City of SF has better lawyers. Even if you did get your gun back it'd cost thousands of dollars in legal fees.
  #186  
Old 04-14-2019, 02:24 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Refresh my memory. Was this one of those 5-4 rulings, widely touted by the "winning" side as just as good as 9-0? And OP is chastising someone for not guessing which way the 5-4 cookie would crumble?

The way you've phrased it I guess it wasn't one of those 2-1 rulings by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, led by right-winger Diarmuid O’Scannlain whose gun-nut rulings are so off-the-charts that even the Alito-Thomas Scotus overturns them ... by 5-4 vote.

Such moral clarity about guns the American Scotus has given us now.
Both ruling- as I have stated and even cited- were unanimous, which is highly unusual.
  #187  
Old 04-14-2019, 02:27 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yep.
I've looked too, though, and I can't find anything that supports your assertion that the Harris had to sign off on the legality of a ballot measure.
https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/...tive_Guide.pdf

This is pretty vital to your point, istm.

Last edited by CarnalK; 04-14-2019 at 02:31 PM.
  #188  
Old 04-14-2019, 02:33 PM
sps49sd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 298
Fron the November 2005 ballot:
How "H" Got on the Ballot
On December 14, 2004 the Department of Elections received a proposed ordinance with supporting signatures from Supervisors Ammiano, Daly, Dufty and Gonzalez (adopted prior to the expiration of Supervisor Gonzalez's term of office).
The City Elections Code allows four or more Supervisors to place an ordinance on the ballot in this manner.

Anyone who wants to peruse the relevant CCSF City Charter (I think the referenced City Attorney is the DA, but I am not sure):
Elections
  #189  
Old 04-14-2019, 02:55 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
(I think the referenced City Attorney is the DA, but I am not sure)
Nope.
  #190  
Old 04-14-2019, 03:25 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
She put people in jail for over 25 years. As a result, she has had a steady stream of credible death threats since 1990.
Cite?
  #191  
Old 04-14-2019, 03:54 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, you did. You replied to my post that she was DA of SF with "show, dont tell" and "Show anything that supports your point." Then bitched about 'broken" wiki links as if you couldn't Google it yourself. Then you admitted "I don't deny that. I am well aware of her law enforcement career."

Asking for a cite on something you are well aware of is a silly immature game. I dont play that game. You can take your future bogus requests for cite for things you are likely already "well aware of " and put them where the sun don't shine.

As WC Fields once said "Go away kid, ya bother me. "
Nope.
  #192  
Old 04-14-2019, 03:55 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Cite?
Would a link to her Wikipedia page showing the dates she was active in law enforcement suffice? I only ask because you already provided that.
  #193  
Old 04-14-2019, 04:06 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
Could you maybe stop screwing around and back up the assertion that she authorized a bad law to go on the ballot?

Last edited by CarnalK; 04-14-2019 at 04:07 PM.
  #194  
Old 04-14-2019, 04:14 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Would a link to her Wikipedia page showing the dates she was active in law enforcement suffice? I only ask because you already provided that.
Show, dont tell.

I want the list of credible death threats starting with 1990. Date order please.
  #195  
Old 04-14-2019, 04:25 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Could you maybe stop screwing around and back up the assertion that she authorized a bad law to go on the ballot?
It wont make any difference. You guys will just complain the link is broken, Lance will say "Show dont tell" even tho he is already well aware of the facts, and even after I provide it you will say it doesnt make any difference because she wanted to let the courts decide- which is exactly what has been said several times now.


#113 Left Hand of Dorkness: "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.

Procrustus "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."


Banquet Bear "[I]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.....the politicians and legal experts who signed the proposition into law held the opinion that what they signed into law was legal. [I/I]"

So since, even if I prove my point- it will be pointless as those three have already dismissed it, why shoudl i bother?

And honestly since lance keeps playing silly "Are you sure you get the concept of, "Show. Don't tell."?" games with cites he already is "well aware of', there no reason to bother.
  #196  
Old 04-14-2019, 04:26 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Nope.

Are you sure you get the concept of, "Show. Don't tell."?
  #197  
Old 04-14-2019, 04:36 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
So DrDeth rabbit holes aside -

Will her advertising her gun ownership impact her nomination chances (or general election chances if she got the nom) at all?

I'm guessing not. The single issue gun rights voters will be in the DrDeth mode: they have her pegged as a "gun grabber" and this clearly will not change that perception. And most who are for gun control as their prime issue are not against gun ownership per se. They are for assuring responsible ownership if they are owned. My WAG is that gun rights/control will not be a prime issue this cycle.
  #198  
Old 04-14-2019, 04:43 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
It wont make any difference. You guys will just complain the link is broken, Lance will say "Show dont tell" even tho he is already well aware of the facts, and even after I provide it you will say it doesnt make any difference because she wanted to let the courts decide- which is exactly what has been said several times now.
This is quite a chickenshit dodge.

Nobody asked if she was DA. Nobody asked if Prop H was put on the ballot.

When I said, "Show. Don't Tell," I also specified exactly what you were failing to show.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Show. Don't tell.

Show us that Kamala Harris signed off on this proposition. Surely there's a record of this somewhere. Show it to us.
This is a post (not the only one) where you make that claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The DA or the AG have to sign off whether or not a Prop is legal. Likely the same in most states, but yes, here in CA. Last year the Prop to split CA into several states was blocked and didnt get on the ballot.

They can do so only if they can show the prop isnt legal. Or they can say "I dont think this is legal, but I am letting it get on the ballot anyway". But yes, they have to sign off on it's legality. Not whether or not it is proper, right/wrong anything else- legal.

The courts actually already ruled on almost the same SF law, year before and said it was unconstitutional.
This is looking more and more like something you just made up.
  #199  
Old 04-14-2019, 04:52 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
It wont make any difference. You guys will just complain the link is broken,
I'm not in the "you guys" group. The lynchpin of your argument is that Kamala signed off on a obviously illegal law. You have not even attempted to corroborate that assertion. Yet you have all the time in the world to engage in content free bickering with Lance. If you look back you'll see that I certainly haven't been opposed to your position throughout this thread but I'm coming to the conclusion that you are either full of shit or believing someone else who was full of shit.

Last edited by CarnalK; 04-14-2019 at 04:53 PM.
  #200  
Old 04-14-2019, 04:53 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Here's the exchange:
Lance Turbo
Show. Don't tell.

My response:
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.

Lance Turbo
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.


So there's your original response. You asked me to provide cites for stuff you were well aware of. You are playing silly cite games. So, i suggest you take this mallet and go over to that pile of sand. I dont play silly cite games.

So, just come up with that full list of "credible death threats starting with 1990".

Last edited by DrDeth; 04-14-2019 at 04:54 PM.
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 04:01 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