Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 04-14-2019, 04:57 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Here's the exchange:
You're leaving out the part of the exchange where I specified exactly what you were failing to show.

Furthermore, even if I'm the worst person in the world, that does nothing to explain your refusal to provide a cite for the exact same assertion to all the other people asking nicely for it.
  #202  
Old 04-14-2019, 04:58 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
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
I can find a cite that the sun rises in the morning. But I have the sneaky suspicion that you can't find one for your assertion because a normal person would have done so by now.

Here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise

Your turn.

Last edited by CarnalK; 04-14-2019 at 05:02 PM.
  #203  
Old 04-14-2019, 05:08 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
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.
I appreciate that, but I wont give them the satisfaction. Lance will continue to play silly cite demands, etc. Lance and Bear disqualified themselves from getting any serious replies or cites.
  #204  
Old 04-14-2019, 05:10 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
You're leaving out the part of the exchange where I specified exactly what you were failing to show.

Furthermore, even if I'm the worst person in the world, that does nothing to explain your refusal to provide a cite for the exact same assertion to all the other people asking nicely for it.
Show, dont tell.



So, just come up with that full list of "credible death threats starting with 1990".
  #205  
Old 04-14-2019, 05:10 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I appreciate that, but I wont give them the satisfaction. Lance will continue to play silly cite demands, etc. Lance and Bear disqualified themselves from getting any serious replies or cites.
However will this thread continue if DrDeth takes his ball and goes home?

Peace.
  #206  
Old 04-14-2019, 05:13 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Show, dont tell.



So, just come up with that full list of "credible death threats starting with 1990".
A quick Google search shows at least one death threat which led to arrest against Senator Harris in the last year. It's pretty obvious that there are more death threats, but I don't feel like doing a ton of Googling on "Kamala Harris death threat" so I'll withdraw the claim.

Your turn.

Last edited by Lance Turbo; 04-14-2019 at 05:14 PM.
  #207  
Old 04-14-2019, 05:16 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I appreciate that, but I wont give them the satisfaction. Lance will continue to play silly cite demands, etc. Lance and Bear disqualified themselves from getting any serious replies or cites.
Look, man, I am saying I went looking on your behalf. Your contention sounded reasonable and quite likely to be true. But that pdf I linked earlier that explains how to get something on the ballot in San Francisco? I went through the whole thing. There is no mention of the DA having to sign off on its legality. At this point, I have to assume you're wrong.
  #208  
Old 04-14-2019, 06:22 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
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?
Yes, that would be a good start. As near as I can tell from reading the California Election Code (here is the part dealing with municipal initiatives and referendums], the elections official of the city (who was not Kamala) is charged with verifying legality as to form (did the petitions contain at least the right number of signatures? was it turned in by the deadline? etc.), and the city attorney (also not Kamala) has the duty of preparing a ballot title for and summary of the proposed measure. However, NOTHING I have seen provides support for your assertion that ballot initiatives must be approved as to legality of the contents, and NOTHING I have seen supports your assertion that the district attorney has any formal role whatsoever in getting an initiative on the ballot.

I think we all agree she was DA at the time. The question is: so what? What role does the district attorney play in the process, and what cite can you provide that she fulfilled that role by determining this particular proposition to be legal?

Last edited by slash2k; 04-14-2019 at 06:22 PM.
  #209  
Old 04-14-2019, 06:33 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
A quick Google search shows at least one death threat which led to arrest against Senator Harris in the last year. It's pretty obvious that there are more death threats, but I don't feel like doing a ton of Googling on "Kamala Harris death threat" so I'll withdraw the claim.

Your turn.
But that's not "credible death threats starting with 1990", is it?

Fine, I withdraw my claim, since i dont feel like playing your stupid cite game... which you now have found isnt so fun, is it?

Next time, play square and fair and dont play stupid games.
  #210  
Old 04-14-2019, 06:53 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,827
Wow.
  #211  
Old 04-14-2019, 07:32 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Wow.
Even if I wasn't on his side of the argument, I'd agree with him that you've debated disingenuously in this thread.
  #212  
Old 04-14-2019, 07:39 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Even if I wasn't on his side of the argument, I'd agree with him that you've debated disingenuously in this thread.
Yes, I agree. Lance has debated disingenuously in this thread.
  #213  
Old 04-14-2019, 08:02 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
Refusing to substantiate your core criticism of Harris isn't exactly the height of honest debate neither. You must have heard this "DA must sign off" somewhere. Tell us!
  #214  
Old 04-14-2019, 09:11 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
As to having credible threats - the position itself is considered one that comes with such threats.
Quote:
... we literally have hundreds of threats and inappropriate communications that are made against judicial and prosecutorial officials at a federal level every year...

... This morning, deputies escorted courthouse employees into the building in Kaufman County, Texas, a measure of security just two days after District Attorney Mike McLelland and his wife Cynthia were found shot to death in their home. ...

... Certainly everyone in this line of work at some point in time has threats leveled at them, and it is part of the job, and you can't let it change the way you run your court or the way you prosecute or frankly your quality of life. You worry more about your family than yourself, but you just need to be aware and take precautions and always, you know, just be aware of your surroundings and know what's going on. ...
DAs have been murdered; those murders make the news. Threats against DAs are routine and usually do not make the news.

It is very reasonable for her to have long felt that she is under greater than average American risk of attempted murder.
  #215  
Old 04-14-2019, 09:23 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Even if I wasn't on his side of the argument, I'd agree with him that you've debated disingenuously in this thread.
You can go through my entire posting history and you won't find a post as disingenuous as this one...

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.
  #216  
Old 04-14-2019, 09:36 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 CarnalK View Post
Refusing to substantiate your core criticism of Harris isn't exactly the height of honest debate neither. You must have heard this "DA must sign off" somewhere. Tell us!
Presumably the same place where this came from.
  #217  
Old 04-14-2019, 09:48 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,188
DAs do not certify city wide ballot initiatives. The city attorney will attest to the requirements being met, and the city leadership will then place the matter on the ballot working with the county and state election process.

There's a pretty high bar to denying a voter referendum to be placed on the ballot. Obvious conflict with superior law is a valid reason for not placing something on the ballot. SF city government should have done that, but they didn't. Harris wouldn't be the one to do that.

She was the one acting as attorney general to certify that non existent microstamping technology was commercially available triggering inclusion on the CA roster. For that, she's pretty terrible.

But really, these are somewhat trivalities. It's quite obvious Harris is anti. No need to reach for anything greater than that.

Her status as a former peace officer doesn't give her any greater ability or confer any additional privilege either. 9th circuit ruled on that in Silvestri.

If she wants to possess and even carry a firearm for personal protection as she sees fit, good for her. I'd like to see her fight for the rest of CA to do the same in the manner they see fit. I'm not holding my breath.
  #218  
Old 04-14-2019, 10:05 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 11,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post

If she wants to possess and even carry a firearm for personal protection as she sees fit, good for her. I'd like to see her fight for the rest of CA to do the same in the manner they see fit. I'm not holding my breath.
I haven't see anything about wanting to carry a firearm. I haven't seen anything that says she wants more rights than any other Californian.
  #219  
Old 04-14-2019, 10:18 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
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.
This is an idiotic comparison. Kamala Harris has made no secret of the fact that she owns a gun, unlike the publicly homophobic conservatives who desperately try to keep their gay-sex escapades secret.

The attitude "I'm going to publicly denounce a particular thing as evil and wrong but secretly engage in it myself and hope nobody ever finds out" is hypocritical. The attitude "I'm going to publicly advocate for changing the laws that allow a particular thing while publicly acknowledging that I'm currently legally doing the thing that the laws allow" is not.

I'm surprised at you, DrDeth: that was a really dumb attempt at a false equivalence.
  #220  
Old 04-14-2019, 10:33 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I haven't see anything about wanting to carry a firearm. I haven't seen anything that says she wants more rights than any other Californian.
Me either, hence the "if". I was thinking more like Bloomberg with his armed security. But that's another thread. In any event, Harris owning a firearm or many isn't going to persuade anyone one way or the other. I'm much more interested in her actions in her official capacity.
  #221  
Old 04-14-2019, 10:43 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
You can go through my entire posting history
I'd rather rub fiber glass in my eyes.

Last edited by Scumpup; 04-14-2019 at 10:43 PM.
  #222  
Old 04-14-2019, 11:03 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,188

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
This is quite a chickenshit dodge.

...

This is looking more and more like something you just made up.
Knock it off. Both of these coments are out of line. The first as insulting and the second as an accusation of lying.

Loathe though I am to moderate in a thread I'm participating in, I missed this earlier. This ends my participation.

[/moderating]
  #223  
Old 04-14-2019, 11:50 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
DAs do not certify city wide ballot initiatives. The city attorney will attest to the requirements being met, and the city leadership will then place the matter on the ballot working with the county and state election process.

....

She was the one acting as attorney general to certify that non existent microstamping technology was commercially available triggering inclusion on the CA roster. For that, she's pretty terrible.

But really, these are somewhat trivalities. It's quite obvious Harris is anti. No need to reach for anything greater than that.

Her status as a former peace officer doesn't give her any greater ability or confer any additional privilege either. 9th circuit ruled on that in Silvestri.

If she wants to possess and even carry a firearm for personal protection as she sees fit, good for her. I'd like to see her fight for the rest of CA to do the same in the manner they see fit. I'm not holding my breath.
Remember that San Francisco is sorta unique in being the City AND County of SF. The County Board of Supervisors is also the City council.

But yes, i concur with all your post.
  #224  
Old 04-24-2019, 07:44 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Ok, Now Kamela comes out of the closet:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pav...cond-amendment
During a town hall hosted by CNN Monday night, Harris, D-Calif, said that if a bill from Congress did not make it to her desk, she would unilaterally mandate background checks for customers purchasing a firearm from any dealer who sells more than five guns a year.

KAMALA HARRIS PLEDGES EXECUTIVE ORDER ON GUN CONTROL IF CONGRESS DOESN'T ACT IN HER FIRST 100 DAYS

Dealers who violate the law, she said, would have their licenses revoked. The other executive orders would prohibit fugitives from purchasing a firearm or weapon, as well as close the loophole that allows some domestic abusers to purchase a firearm if their victim is an unwedded partner.



Now, at first glance, that's not crazy talk. Let's make anyone who sells more than five guns a year a 'dealer" who has to do background checks. I got no issue with that. In fact, I kinda like it, gets rid of the 'strawman" loophole. I do have a issue with a executive order for it, however. (The law doesnt define who is a gun "dealer' who has to get a FFL, so a bright line of over five sales is reasonable)


But Harris was DA, a AG even, so "Dealers who violate the law, she said, would have their licenses revoked." means she hasnt actually read the law. Dealers who have a license must do a background check on all gun sales. Already if you fail to do so there are criminal and civil penalties. If you dont have a license, then they can't take it away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...d_Check_System

Then there's this "The other executive orders would prohibit fugitives from purchasing a firearm or weapon..." which is already against the law.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/44...53009/download

Now of course some will have doubts about Faux news, so:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/u...n-control.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ed/3548859002/

Last edited by DrDeth; 04-24-2019 at 07:46 PM.
  #225  
Old 04-24-2019, 07:46 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
That seems more posturing than anything else.
__________________
Oy.
  #226  
Old 04-24-2019, 07:48 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,772
Quote:
...Now of course some will have doubts about Faux news, so:
Let me be the first to solemnly swear I have no doubts about Fox News.

Last edited by elucidator; 04-24-2019 at 07:49 PM. Reason: Doh! A dear, a female dear....
  #227  
Old 04-24-2019, 10:02 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,446
So, essentially, she isn't going to grab any guns or do anything other than attempt to enforce the laws already on the books. Isn't that what gun nuts are always clamoring about, anyway?
  #228  
Old 04-24-2019, 11:34 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
So, essentially, she isn't going to grab any guns or do anything other than attempt to enforce the laws already on the books. Isn't that what gun nuts are always clamoring about, anyway?
A Executive order is not a attempt to enforce the laws already on the books.
  #229  
Old 04-24-2019, 11:34 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
So, essentially, she isn't going to grab any guns or do anything other than attempt to enforce the laws already on the books. Isn't that what gun nuts are always clamoring about, anyway?
She doesn't have the power to "grab guns" via an emergency declaration.
  #230  
Old 04-24-2019, 11:58 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
As recently as the 20th century Bernie Sanders drove a gasoline-powered automobile, so I guess he's out too.

I guess it may be difficult to find a Democratic candidate with the same level of morality and sincerity as the Republicans.
Laughing my ass off here...
  #231  
Old 04-25-2019, 12:24 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,237
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?
Well, letís see. There was whatsername in Arizona, then the Republican baseball team. I donít know exactly how many players were on that team, probably 20-25? So thatís like about 3-5% of Congress that have been attacked by gun-wielding assailants in the last few years. I think itís safe to say thatís dramatically higher than the frequency of such attacks in the general population.
  #232  
Old 04-25-2019, 12:50 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
A Executive order is not a attempt to enforce the laws already on the books.
What exactly do you think an executive order is?
  #233  
Old 04-25-2019, 08:15 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,772
The meaning of "execute" the law has evolved.
  #234  
Old 04-25-2019, 08:57 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Well, letís see. There was whatsername in Arizona, then the Republican baseball team. I donít know exactly how many players were on that team, probably 20-25? So thatís like about 3-5% of Congress that have been attacked by gun-wielding assailants in the last few years. I think itís safe to say thatís dramatically higher than the frequency of such attacks in the general population.
When was the last time a Senator was attacked by a gun-weilding assailant? The 60's? Better yet, has a female Senator ever been attacked by a gun-weilding assailant?
  #235  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:03 AM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 11,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
When was the last time a Senator was attacked by a gun-weilding assailant? The 60's? Better yet, has a female Senator ever been attacked by a gun-weilding assailant?
So a female Representative has a vastly different risk than a female Senator? That's the turf you want to defend?

Yeah, it's been awhile since Senator Kennedy was shot. We can all relax.

BTW, has anyone established she wants to carry her gun around with her, or is it just at home in case of intruders?
  #236  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:04 AM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
When was the last time a Senator was attacked by a gun-weilding assailant? The 60's? Better yet, has a female Senator ever been attacked by a gun-weilding assailant?
Well there was this guy:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...terror-1176806

And this group:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/u...ew-mexico.html

The inflammatory rhetoric of Trump and the right wing is creating these threats in real time.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #237  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:06 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,387
When was the last time a female Senator and former AG from California named Kamala Harris was attacked with a gun? Obviously, until we know this, we can't evaluate whether she faces more danger than non-Kamala-Harris-named CA former AG Senators.
  #238  
Old 04-25-2019, 10:27 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
What exactly do you think an executive order is?

In this case, exactly as she claimed- It's going outside the laws, with a Executive Order, bypassing Congress.

what do you think it is?

Last edited by DrDeth; 04-25-2019 at 10:27 AM.
  #239  
Old 04-25-2019, 10:33 AM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
When was the last time a female Senator and former AG from California named Kamala Harris was attacked with a gun? Obviously, until we know this, we can't evaluate whether she faces more danger than non-Kamala-Harris-named CA former AG Senators.
We must also take into account that although Harris could be described as "law abiding" up to this point, we don't really know what that even means. Further, every criminal was law abiding until s/he committed hir first crime. Why, some here seem to think that Harris might even be the supposedly non-existent "good guy with a gun."
I think, that, on the whole obsessing over Harris having a gun is a waste of time . As a connected politician, she'd have one if she wanted it no matter what the law says. A good many congresscritters used to circumvent the law by having themselves deputized as US marshals until the AG put a stop to it 20 or so years ago. I'm sure Harris could manage something similar, if the law weren't already in her favor.
  #240  
Old 04-25-2019, 10:41 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,772
What we got here is liberal hypocrisy! Right here, in River City!
  #241  
Old 04-25-2019, 11:55 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
When was the last time a Senator was attacked by a gun-weilding assailant? The 60's? Better yet, has a female Senator ever been attacked by a gun-weilding assailant?
I find it strange that you're making a distinction between a Senator being attacked and a representative being attacked (which has happened to members of both parties). Anyway, what do you think of my explanations in posts 181 and 182 as to why her understanding of the statistics might not be wrong, since she's different than the average person (the average person is indeed in more danger by having a gun at home, right?).

Also, I'd love your collusion explanation, whenever you have it put together.

Last edited by RitterSport; 04-25-2019 at 11:56 AM. Reason: Added post numbers
  #242  
Old 04-25-2019, 12:18 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I find it strange that you're making a distinction between a Senator being attacked and a representative being attacked (which has happened to members of both parties). ...
She's a senator, not a representative. Why would that be strange?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
... Anyway, what do you think of my explanations in posts 181 and 182 as to why her understanding of the statistics might not be wrong, since she's different than the average person (the average person is indeed in more danger by having a gun at home, right?). ...
I think the Kellerman study has various flaws, but one of the things I hoped to see in this thread were arguments about how averages don't necessarily invalidate one's personal decision. Your post #182 was an excellent example of this. As for #181, your first, third, and fourth points strike me as reasonable, and #2, 5, and 6 strike me as far more speculative. I don't think there's much evidence to support the assertion that anti-gun / African-American / progressive politicians are in significantly more danger than pro-gun / non-African-American / non-progressive politicians. In addition to them, I'd also note that women are generally at less risk of violent crime than men, and wealthy people are generally at less risk of violent crime than poor people, both of which cut against Kamala's perceived risk.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
... Also, I'd love your collusion explanation, whenever you have it put together.
It's still a work in progress, on my computer at home, but I haven't forgotten about it.
  #243  
Old 04-25-2019, 12:59 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
In this case, exactly as she claimed- It's going outside the laws, with a Executive Order, bypassing Congress.

what do you think it is?
That's not what an executive order is. From the top of my head, executive orders give guidance to executive branch staff on how to carry out various actions as they relate to their job duties.

For example, a law could say, the IRS will do X. X can be broadly construed, so the President, via executive order, can clarify that he is directing the IRS to do X via means A, B, and C, but not D. And here is from the wiki:

Quote:
In the United States, an executive order is a directive issued by the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government and has the force of law.[1] The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. Article Two of the United States Constitution gives the president broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive branch. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[2]
A president probably has room to clarify what constitutes a dealer, but it would need to go through the rule making process rather than executive order if I recall correctly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
When was the last time a Senator was attacked by a gun-weilding assailant? The 60's? Better yet, has a female Senator ever been attacked by a gun-weilding assailant?
This hair splitting is absurd. What's next, phases of the moon?
  #244  
Old 04-25-2019, 01:20 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
She's a senator, not a representative. Why would that be strange?
Because it's too specific, as Bone points out. I think politicians make more sense as a class than Senators vs. Representatives, for this purpose. Is your point that there are fewer Senators, so it's less likely they would be a target? They have better security?

Quote:

I think the Kellerman study has various flaws, but one of the things I hoped to see in this thread were arguments about how averages don't necessarily invalidate one's personal decision. Your post #182 was an excellent example of this. As for #181, your first, third, and fourth points strike me as reasonable, and #2, 5, and 6 strike me as far more speculative. I don't think there's much evidence to support the assertion that anti-gun / African-American / progressive politicians are in significantly more danger than pro-gun / non-African-American / non-progressive politicians. In addition to them, I'd also note that women are generally at less risk of violent crime than men, and wealthy people are generally at less risk of violent crime than poor people, both of which cut against Kamala's perceived risk.
I guess the question is, is her wealth or womanhood more of an outlier than her status as a Senator running for President, in terms of the relative dangers. I'd say that the latter cases (Senator, candidate) are more of an outlier and would have a larger affect on her personal risk.

Anyway, if you agree that many of my points are valid, doesn't that undercut the whole purpose of this thread?

Quote:
It's still a work in progress, on my computer at home, but I haven't forgotten about it.
Thanks!
  #245  
Old 04-25-2019, 01:24 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
... (the average person is indeed in more danger by having a gun at home, right?).
This is outside of the discussion about Harris, but this is also not accurate.
  #246  
Old 04-25-2019, 01:29 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
... Anyway, if you agree that many of my points are valid, doesn't that undercut the whole purpose of this thread? ...
Not at all. As I said earlier:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
... one of the things I hoped to see in this thread were arguments about how averages don't necessarily invalidate one's personal decision. ...
  #247  
Old 04-25-2019, 01:31 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,123
Here we go. Did my heart good to see them get their pee-pees smacked, I must say. It doesn't sit well with me when our political and bureaucratic employees give themselves privileges unavailable to common slobs. Harris gets a pass because she is technically LE, I guess, but her job was never the same as a what a police officer does.

Last edited by Scumpup; 04-25-2019 at 01:32 PM.
  #248  
Old 04-25-2019, 01:50 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
In this case, exactly as she claimed- It's going outside the laws, with a Executive Order, bypassing Congress.

what do you think it is?
Wait, now she isn't proposing to enforce the laws on the books?

Executive orders are for clarifying where the law is vague and how to execute those laws - so creating that bright "five gun" line is entirely within the purview of the office. Even the NRA agrees that unlicensed firearm dealers are criminals.

I agree with Bone in that I'd rather Harris clarify it via ATF regulation instead of another method, but to claim she's "bypassing Congress" is junk. When prosecutors AND defense attorneys hate the wording of a law, because it's so vague, clarification should not only be desired, but required. The current law is like a speed limit sign reading, "Whatever The Cop Feels Like Today".

The rest of it is, essentially, "We're going to FOCUS on how to enforce these laws to prevent unnecessary gun deaths."
  #249  
Old 04-25-2019, 02:04 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
This is outside of the discussion about Harris, but this is also not accurate.
I non-sarcastically bow to your superior knowledge on this subject, but I thought that was the baseline assumption for this thread -- that the statistics show that having a gun in the home increases your risk rather than decreases it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Not at all. As I said earlier:
I wish you had started with that (Let's have a discussion about how individual circumstances can affect the decision to own a gun) rather than the way you did (What? Doesn't she understand statistics?). I think the discussion would have been more productive.
  #250  
Old 04-25-2019, 02:21 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I non-sarcastically bow to your superior knowledge on this subject, but I thought that was the baseline assumption for this thread -- that the statistics show that having a gun in the home increases your risk rather than decreases it. ...
That line from the OP was offered with a heavy dose of sarcasm, although I apparently failed to make that clear. My apologies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
... I wish you had started with that (Let's have a discussion about how individual circumstances can affect the decision to own a gun) rather than the way you did (What? Doesn't she understand statistics?). I think the discussion would have been more productive.
There are, undoubtedly, a lot of ways the thread could have been started. Kamala was in the news with her recent comment, which is what had me thinking about the subject, so that's what I started with, but I will try to keep your suggestions here in mind in the future.
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 03:52 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