Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 04-25-2019, 03:53 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Republican politicians who have had an abortion: for sure there’s some, but it’s a secret buried deeper than the Ark of the Covenant in that government warehouse.
Not necessarily; we had one running for State Representative back last year, and she admitted to having had 3(!) in her youth, but framed it all in some sort of Christian redemption story. She was batshit crazy across the board though (read this!) and got trounced by her Democratic opponent.

Which always struck me as kind of ironic, because the moderate incumbent she defeated in the primary probably would have won handily over the Democrat.
  #252  
Old 04-26-2019, 08:12 AM
DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 5,351
Serves the Pubs right. Schadenfreude feels good sometimes.
  #253  
Old 04-28-2019, 08:20 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,491
Some people will probably find this interesting:

Quote:
“Kamala Harris doesn’t seem to have the courage to concede that owning a handgun for protection is a bad idea,” Funt continued. “Instead, she has given voters a real choice: Back candidates who care enough about gun control to not own handguns, or support the only major Democratic contender who has one and won't throw it away.”
  #254  
Old 04-28-2019, 08:48 PM
dba Fred is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,057
Can’t you see, Harris’s position has evolved: They called me a gun grabber so I grabbed myself one!
  #255  
Old 04-28-2019, 08:50 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Some people will probably find this interesting:
It's interesting that those views were "widely criticized" according to your link. I'll give you credit, you did find one person who objects to Senator Harris owning a handgun.
  #256  
Old 04-28-2019, 10:07 PM
Happy Fun Ball is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The down hill slope
Posts: 3,161
Interesting thread.

Joining late, I will still add my two cents:

Who gives a shit if she has a gun. As a liberal-leaning independent I am (and always have been) agnostic on gun ownership and believe it is settled law thanks to Heller and McDonald. Many of my friends who are card carrying, Sanders supporting Democrats also would not give a shit as many of them also own guns. In the main, democrats want regulation of guns, not an outright ban. This has always been my impression and I always thought it was strange that the GOP have painted Democrats as gun grabbers because I never saw this as a priority. Background checks, assault weapon bans, gun show loophole closure, sure, but banning guns? Never.

Finally, wow, I never noticed how over the top angry Scumpup was until this thread; has this person been this fucking partisan and angry for a long time or is this a new thing? Guy is over the top and should really seek some therapy or take a vacation.
  #257  
Old 04-29-2019, 03:29 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,231
You all on the left should probably see a chiropractor for all of the twisting and turning you are during to attempt to reconcile past posts on this board with your current support for Harris owning guns.

I mean, we have heard for years that people own guns solely for the purpose of extending our penis size, or to feel like Clint Eastwood when any right thinking person knows that owning guns is far more dangerous to you and your family that any bad guy that we just have a juicy hard on hoping, praying that we get to kill.

But now when Harris owns guns, it is for the very responsible purpose of self protection. The rest of us owning guns will use them to commit suicide, commit crimes, or be taken by one of our kids, but not Harris. It is good to know that once I chance my voters registration from Republican to Democrats and maybe throw out a statement in support of abortion that my gun ownership may become responsible as well.
  #258  
Old 04-29-2019, 03:38 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You all on the left should probably see a chiropractor for all of the twisting and turning you are during to attempt to reconcile past posts on this board with your current support for Harris owning guns.

I mean, we have heard for years that people own guns solely for the purpose of extending our penis size, or to feel like Clint Eastwood when any right thinking person knows that owning guns is far more dangerous to you and your family that any bad guy that we just have a juicy hard on hoping, praying that we get to kill.

But now when Harris owns guns, it is for the very responsible purpose of self protection. The rest of us owning guns will use them to commit suicide, commit crimes, or be taken by one of our kids, but not Harris. It is good to know that once I chance my voters registration from Republican to Democrats and maybe throw out a statement in support of abortion that my gun ownership may become responsible as well.
...you all "on the right" should stop making strawman arguments, attacking positions positions that people haven't taken, and take a bit of time to read the thread so you can realize that you are arguing with yourself.
  #259  
Old 04-29-2019, 04:07 AM
Chisquirrel is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You all on the left should probably see a chiropractor for all of the twisting and turning you are during to attempt to reconcile past posts on this board with your current support for Harris owning guns.

I mean, we have heard for years that people own guns solely for the purpose of extending our penis size, or to feel like Clint Eastwood when any right thinking person knows that owning guns is far more dangerous to you and your family that any bad guy that we just have a juicy hard on hoping, praying that we get to kill.

But now when Harris owns guns, it is for the very responsible purpose of self protection. The rest of us owning guns will use them to commit suicide, commit crimes, or be taken by one of our kids, but not Harris. It is good to know that once I chance my voters registration from Republican to Democrats and maybe throw out a statement in support of abortion that my gun ownership may become responsible as well.
Strangely enough, I trust a former DA and sitting Senator to be more responsible than someone that posts this drivel.
  #260  
Old 04-29-2019, 07:56 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You all on the left should probably see a chiropractor for all of the twisting and turning you are during to attempt to reconcile past posts on this board with your current support for Harris owning guns.

I mean, we have heard for years that people own guns solely for the purpose of extending our penis size, or to feel like Clint Eastwood when any right thinking person knows that owning guns is far more dangerous to you and your family that any bad guy that we just have a juicy hard on hoping, praying that we get to kill.

But now when Harris owns guns, it is for the very responsible purpose of self protection. The rest of us owning guns will use them to commit suicide, commit crimes, or be taken by one of our kids, but not Harris. It is good to know that once I chance my voters registration from Republican to Democrats and maybe throw out a statement in support of abortion that my gun ownership may become responsible as well.
Cite for any of this? My impression is that we're almost all fine with legitimate self-defense. We do get tired of all the balderdash and hyperbole from gun worshipers.

I'll offer cites for this claim, even if you have no cite for yours. As an example of balderdash, use the quoted post above. As an example of hyperbole, consider the recent citation in another thread that gun toters believe they have saved 350,000 lives with their 'DGUs.'

@ UltraVires — Does that 350,000 figure seem plausible to you?
  #261  
Old 04-29-2019, 09:47 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,227

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Fun Ball View Post
Finally, wow, I never noticed how over the top angry Scumpup was until this thread; has this person been this fucking partisan and angry for a long time or is this a new thing? Guy is over the top and should really seek some therapy or take a vacation.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to add this, but it's not appropriate for this forum. If you want to take shots at another poster, do it in the Pit.

[/moderating]
  #262  
Old 04-29-2019, 10:52 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,777
I for one applaud the OP for trying to fill Bricker's "libz iz hypocritz" shoes.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #263  
Old 04-29-2019, 11:42 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You all on the left should probably see a chiropractor for all of the twisting and turning you are during to attempt to reconcile past posts on this board with your current support for Harris owning guns.
Who are these posters? Can you show us the posts? These people sound really awful. Do they exist?
  #264  
Old 04-29-2019, 12:05 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Fun Ball View Post
Interesting thread.

Joining late, I will still add my two cents:

Who gives a shit if she has a gun. As a liberal-leaning independent I am (and always have been) agnostic on gun ownership and believe it is settled law thanks to Heller and McDonald. Many of my friends who are card carrying, Sanders supporting Democrats also would not give a shit as many of them also own guns. In the main, democrats want regulation of guns, not an outright ban. This has always been my impression and I always thought it was strange that the GOP have painted Democrats as gun grabbers because I never saw this as a priority. Background checks, assault weapon bans, gun show loophole closure, sure, but banning guns? Never.
...
We care for that same reason we give a Republican Evangelical Public Homophobe a hard time if he is found having gay sex. Is there anything bad about having gay sex? Nope. But there is a problem if you preach that gay sex is bad, but you're having it in secret. Just like Harris preaches we dont need a handgun for personal protection- but she does.

I will going out that a "assault weapon ban" is indeed a "gun ban".
  #265  
Old 04-29-2019, 12:28 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,776

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I for one applaud the OP for trying to fill Bricker's "libz iz hypocritz" shoes.
As your post followed that of Bones by about an hour, you should have refrained from personal attacks. Any further will get you a Warning.

[ /Moderating ]
  #266  
Old 04-29-2019, 01:45 PM
Chisquirrel is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Just like Harris preaches we dont need a handgun for personal protection- but she does.
Half this thread has been discussing the dearth of cites for this claim. Do you have anything where she claims no one needs a handgun but her?
  #267  
Old 04-29-2019, 02:00 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Half this thread has been discussing the dearth of cites for this claim. Do you have anything where she claims no one needs a handgun but her?
In fact, it looks like the context of her remarks was that she believes that the debate on gun laws and safety should not come down to a binary "guns for everyone" or "guns for noone" discussion.

The irony that Harris is saying that people can responsibly own guns is of course lost on the people who most vociferously argue that people can responsibly own guns.
  #268  
Old 04-29-2019, 03:32 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
In fact, it looks like the context of her remarks was that she believes that the debate on gun laws and safety should not come down to a binary "guns for everyone" or "guns for noone" discussion.
Well, at least Peter will be safe.
  #269  
Old 04-29-2019, 05:33 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,791
ISWYDT. Repent.
  #270  
Old 04-29-2019, 05:44 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,154
The silly thing is, even if her position were that no one should have guns, the fact is that people can have guns today, which makes it more dangerous for her as a public figure, presidential candidate, etc. If she were running for office in the UK, she would probably decide she didn't need a gun, since they are much more rare there. So, she's facing reality in the world as it is, which has a lot of guns in America, rather than as she (hypothetically) would like it.

Of course, that's apparently not her position.

Strained analogy: It could be the position of the United States that there should be no nuclear weapons. The United States could work to try and get treaties negotiated and get other countries to get rid of their weapons. However, in the world as it is, other countries do have these weapons, so the US can't unilaterally disarm.

So, even if it were her position to ban all guns, she wouldn't be hypocritical by having one for protection, given that other people have guns.

And, even if it's true that having a gun in your home is more dangerous on average, it's obviously not going to be more dangerous for every specific case.

And, the assault weapons ban is, of course, a gun ban on certain weapons, but it's disingenuous to say someone who wants the AWB wants to "ban guns". When the FDA bans some drug, no one would say the FDA has banned drugs, unless they want to be really misunderstood. I look forward to the English lesson coming, no doubt, but we all understand what I'm talking about.

This whole thread is so annoying. The OP was really a sarcastic rant and should have been moved directly into the Pit anyway.
  #271  
Old 04-29-2019, 09:12 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Half this thread has been discussing the dearth of cites for this claim. Do you have anything where she claims no one needs a handgun but her?

That's my opinion based upon her history. But that wasnt the issue that cites were needed for it was the fact that Harris approved the SF handgun ban while she was DA there.

Last edited by DrDeth; 04-29-2019 at 09:13 PM.
  #272  
Old 04-29-2019, 09:59 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
That's my opinion based upon her history. But that wasnt the issue that cites were needed for it was the fact that Harris approved the SF handgun ban while she was DA there.
'Fact' huh? Are you sure that's the right word? Also, didn't you withdraw this claim?
  #273  
Old 04-29-2019, 11:28 PM
Chisquirrel is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
That's my opinion based upon her history. But that wasnt the issue that cites were needed for it was the fact that Harris approved the SF handgun ban while she was DA there.
Again, what history? Your privision of "cites" showing she approved the handgun ban in SF stemmed from your exact assertion here, of her "guns for me, not for thee" stance. Given that was your only "proof" and has been thoroughly debunked, do you have anything more than your feelings?
  #274  
Old 04-30-2019, 12:05 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
'Fact' huh? Are you sure that's the right word? Also, didn't you withdraw this claim?
No, I just decided to stop arguing it.
  #275  
Old 04-30-2019, 12:10 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Again, what history? Your privision of "cites" showing she approved the handgun ban in SF stemmed from your exact assertion here, of her "guns for me, not for thee" stance. Given that was your only "proof" and has been thoroughly debunked, do you have anything more than your feelings?
My proof hasnt been debunked. Her face was on TV supporting the Prop. Unlike Feinstein, who went on record as saying Prop H was useless, Harris didnt speak out. But the fact remains she was DA of SF county when the law was proposed, put on the ballot on passed. Where is her record saying it was UnConstitutional then? Since is was so clearly unconstitutional that two court ruled unanimously and Even Feinstein and Gavin said it wouldn't pass the courts. Why didnt Harris speak out then, if you are so sure she was against Prop H?

But she did ban all new models of handguns while AG of CA. That's on the record.

Also:
Harris is a cosponsor of fellow California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons Ban of 2019,” which bans 205 guns by name and targets the most popular rifle platform in the United States.

She’s also a cosponsor of Feinstein’s bill to support red flag gun confiscation laws, as well as a bill from Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., to ban “large capacity” magazines.


https://www.conservativereview.com/n...ills-supports/

Last edited by DrDeth; 04-30-2019 at 12:12 AM.
  #276  
Old 04-30-2019, 12:59 AM
Chisquirrel is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
But she did ban all new models of handguns while AG of CA. That's on the record.
Funny, I thought that was Schwarzenegger and AB 1471, passed in 2007. Just because the appropriate patents expired under Harris' watch isn't her banning guns - it's her doing what is constitutionally and legally required.

Quote:
Also:
Harris is a cosponsor of fellow California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons Ban of 2019,” which bans 205 guns by name and targets the most popular rifle platform in the United States.

She’s also a cosponsor of Feinstein’s bill to support red flag gun confiscation laws, as well as a bill from Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., to ban “large capacity” magazines.


https://www.conservativereview.com/n...ills-supports/
From your own cite:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamala Harris
In terms of gun policy, though, I think that for too long and still today, we are being offered a false choice which suggests you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away.
Sounds almost entirely OPPOSITE of your claims.
  #277  
Old 04-30-2019, 01:07 AM
Chisquirrel is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
My proof hasnt been debunked. Her face was on TV supporting the Prop. Unlike Feinstein, who went on record as saying Prop H was useless, Harris didnt speak out. But the fact remains she was DA of SF county when the law was proposed, put on the ballot on passed. Where is her record saying it was UnConstitutional then? Since is was so clearly unconstitutional that two court ruled unanimously and Even Feinstein and Gavin said it wouldn't pass the courts. Why didnt Harris speak out then, if you are so sure she was against Prop H?
As for this: lack of condemnation is not a sign of support. I don't know whether she was against it or not, and you have yet to remotely prove your point.
  #278  
Old 04-30-2019, 07:17 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, I just decided to stop arguing it.
It seems like you withdrew your claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Fine, I withdraw my claim, since i dont feel like playing your stupid cite game...
  #279  
Old 04-30-2019, 07:24 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Funny, I thought that was Schwarzenegger and AB 1471, passed in 2007. Just because the appropriate patents expired under Harris' watch isn't her banning guns - it's her doing what is constitutionally and legally required.

....
DrDeth, is Chisquirrel correct that Harris just did what was constitutionally and legally required under a law passed in 2007? If that's the case then, "But she did ban all new models of handguns while AG of CA. That's on the record" is, well, disingenuous at best, and not really debating in good faith.
  #280  
Old 04-30-2019, 07:27 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,060
This is going well.
  #281  
Old 04-30-2019, 08:03 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
My proof hasnt been debunked. Her face was on TV supporting the Prop. Unlike Feinstein, who went on record as saying Prop H was useless, Harris didnt speak out. But the fact remains she was DA of SF county when the law was proposed, put on the ballot on passed. Where is her record saying it was UnConstitutional then? Since is was so clearly unconstitutional that two court ruled unanimously and Even Feinstein and Gavin said it wouldn't pass the courts. Why didnt Harris speak out then, if you are so sure she was against Prop H?
Setting aside my opinions on the topic, this is perhaps the weakest set of arguments I have seen in Great Debates in a long time. Really pathetic.
  #282  
Old 04-30-2019, 12:32 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Funny, I thought that was Schwarzenegger and AB 1471, passed in 2007. Just because the appropriate patents expired under Harris' watch isn't her banning guns - it's her doing what is constitutionally and legally required.



From your own cite:



Sounds almost entirely OPPOSITE of your claims.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la...#Microstamping
Microstamping
On May 17, 2013, the state attorney general began enforcing a new law requiring that semi-automatic pistols incorporate microstamping.[47] 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.[48] 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.[49]

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." A spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation said that no new models of semiautomatic handguns will be marketed in California.[50][51]

In August 2018, in the case of Pena v. Lindley, the Ninth Circuit found the requirement to be constitutional.[52]


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.[49]

https://www.gunownersca.com/2017/09/...ers-dont-care/

https://www.range365.com/nssf-says-c...satisfy#page-4

https://reason.com/2019/02/06/califo...pistol-models/
A California statute requires that all new models of semi-automatic handguns stamp the handgun's serial number in two locations on each round of ammunition. It is possible for a handgun's firing pin to stamp the serial number onto the cartridge's primer, which is a disk in the center of the back side of the ammunition. It not possible to stamp a serial number in two locations, as an erudite amicus brief from the Cato Institute explains. Nevertheless, California Attorney General Kamala Harris in May 2013 declared that all conditions for implementation by the statute had been met. Accordingly, all pistol models created since May 2013 are prohibited from commercial sale in California.

Talk is cheap, actions speak loudly.
  #283  
Old 04-30-2019, 12:34 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
DrDeth, is Chisquirrel correct that Harris just did what was constitutionally and legally required under a law passed in 2007? If that's the case then, "But she did ban all new models of handguns while AG of CA. That's on the record" is, well, disingenuous at best, and not really debating in good faith.

Nope: 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.[49]

And in fact, microstamping as required by Harris is impossible and useless. The Court even agreed it was impossible "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.".
  #284  
Old 04-30-2019, 12:35 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
In fact, it looks like the context of her remarks was that she believes that the debate on gun laws and safety should not come down to a binary "guns for everyone" or "guns for noone" discussion.

The irony that Harris is saying that people can responsibly own guns is of course lost on the people who most vociferously argue that people can responsibly own guns.
It is convenient, however, that in the non-binary debate about who should own guns, Harris believes that she is one of the people who should own them, much like how New York's concealed carry list is filled with celebrities.

As far as the other point, do I really need cites? Every other, I mean every other gun control thread talks about how people who own guns for self defense are deluding themselves, that owning guns puts one and one's family in more danger than the smallish chance that one might need to use it in self defense. But if Harris owns one, it is a smart and rational choice? Why?

For those supporting Harris' choice to own a gun, do you believe she should be allowed to carry it for protection, or simply leave it in her home locked in a safe?
  #285  
Old 04-30-2019, 01:14 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It is convenient, however, that in the non-binary debate about who should own guns, Harris believes that she is one of the people who should own them, much like how New York's concealed carry list is filled with celebrities.
If you think this is a valid point, you might want to actually pay attention to the discussion on gun control debates. The side you seem to be talking about actually talks about closing loopholes to background checks and things like that, while your side talks about thoughts and prayers to the parents of first graders murdered by insane people with easy access to a wealth of weapons.

Quote:
As far as the other point, do I really need cites?
Why start now with cites? All of your posts in this thread have been about beating down strawmen; god forbid we want to change the conversation to reality.
  #286  
Old 04-30-2019, 01:16 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Nope: 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.[49]

And in fact, microstamping as required by Harris is impossible and useless. The Court even agreed it was impossible "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're getting into inside-baseball gun issues that I'm not really following, but are you blaming this on Harris because she decided to start enforcing the law? I can't tell from your cite whether this was something she chose to do or was required to do. Were the conditions not met? Are there not "two companies, unencumbered by a patent, employing this technology"?

It doesn't look like those companies had to make the technology available to the public, just that they were employing the tech -- maybe it's used by the military? The police? I have zero idea.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with whether it may be safer for specific people to keep a gun at home relative to the average, and whether Harris does or doesn't understand statistics, but I guess the thread is permanently hijacked.
  #287  
Old 04-30-2019, 01:20 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It is convenient, however, that in the non-binary debate about who should own guns, Harris believes that she is one of the people who should own them, much like how New York's concealed carry list is filled with celebrities.

As far as the other point, do I really need cites? Every other, I mean every other gun control thread talks about how people who own guns for self defense are deluding themselves, that owning guns puts one and one's family in more danger than the smallish chance that one might need to use it in self defense. But if Harris owns one, it is a smart and rational choice? Why?

For those supporting Harris' choice to own a gun, do you believe she should be allowed to carry it for protection, or simply leave it in her home locked in a safe?
We actually had some back and forth a few pages back about why it may make certain people safer to own a gun than the average person (they may be at significant personal risk, they may be very careful with handling and have lots of training). There were some good analogies about how some medications may increase your risk of death so the average person wouldn't take them, but for people with a disease treated by that medication, it would decrease their risk of death.

Maybe review some of that before we rehash it all here, OK?
  #288  
Old 04-30-2019, 02:42 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
You're getting into inside-baseball gun issues that I'm not really following, but are you blaming this on Harris because she decided to start enforcing the law? I can't tell from your cite whether this was something she chose to do or was required to do. Were the conditions not met? Are there not "two companies, unencumbered by a patent, employing this technology"?

It doesn't look like those companies had to make the technology available to the public, just that they were employing the tech -- maybe it's used by the military? The police? I have zero idea.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with whether it may be safer for specific people to keep a gun at home relative to the average, and whether Harris does or doesn't understand statistics, but I guess the thread is permanently hijacked.
The tech is not used by anyone at all, anywhere. It actually is technologically impossible to do what CA law wants, as the courts admitted.

Yes, the Law was passed but it was entirely up to the AG to determine when the Law would be put into effect. Harris decided to do so.

I dont think this is a hijack at all. The point was that Harris carries a gun- legally of course. We all agree it is legal for her to carry one. The issue is- with Harris's stance on gun control is it hypocritical or elitist for her to carry a gun for personal protection when she feels the general citizenry should not be able to do so? That was the whole point.

The Hijack was for people to insist that one of my more extreme examples of Harris being anti-gun (which is a well known fact) be verified.

Last edited by DrDeth; 04-30-2019 at 02:46 PM.
  #289  
Old 04-30-2019, 02:47 PM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Did I miss the memo? Are Democrats perceived to be anti-gun?
you did indeed miss the memo.
  #290  
Old 04-30-2019, 03:30 PM
Chimera is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,397
Republican bullshit and propaganda.

Plenty of us Democrats own guns. Very few Democrats want to seize all of them.

Just like the lie that the Military overwhelmingly supports Trump. Truth is, per Military Times surveys, Trump has never had even 50% support from the military.

But hey, I'm a Democrat, simultaneously a complete pussy who can't defend himself, and a scary monster who wants to force Republicans to become gay muslims and have abortions.
  #291  
Old 04-30-2019, 03:30 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The tech is not used by anyone at all, anywhere. It actually is technologically impossible to do what CA law wants, as the courts admitted.

Yes, the Law was passed but it was entirely up to the AG to determine when the Law would be put into effect. Harris decided to do so.

I dont think this is a hijack at all. The point was that Harris carries a gun- legally of course. We all agree it is legal for her to carry one. The issue is- with Harris's stance on gun control is it hypocritical or elitist for her to carry a gun for personal protection when she feels the general citizenry should not be able to do so? That was the whole point.

The Hijack was for people to insist that one of my more extreme examples of Harris being anti-gun (which is a well known fact) be verified.
From what I read from your cites, it's technically impossible to stamp the bullet/shell in two places, but I didn't see that microstamping was technically impossible. Again from your cites, the law couldn't become effective until at least two companies were "employing this technology" (microstamping, I imagine), not doing the impossible task of stamping in two places. Are you saying that two companies aren't employing that technology? Then, I guess Harris violated the law by declaring it in force? Seems like an extraordinary claim.

This is a hijack because the original post asked about whether she understood the statistics around personal gun ownership.
  #292  
Old 04-30-2019, 04:07 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
From what I read from your cites, it's technically impossible to stamp the bullet/shell in two places, but I didn't see that microstamping was technically impossible. Again from your cites, the law couldn't become effective until at least two companies were "employing this technology" (microstamping, I imagine), not doing the impossible task of stamping in two places. Are you saying that two companies aren't employing that technology? Then, I guess Harris violated the law by declaring it in force? Seems like an extraordinary claim.

This is a hijack because the original post asked about whether she understood the statistics around personal gun ownership.
No companies at all are employing microstamping. And with CA being such a huge market, trust me, if they could, they would. In fact there are a couple small gun manufacturers based in CA.

It's expensive, difficult and has almost zero law enforcement value. The FBI isnt pushing for it, for example. (Criminals dont use guns registered to them, the stamping wears off quickly, and a minute with a emery board will remove the stamp on the firing pin)

The way CA law requires microstaming is also technologically impossible.

Indeed that was one of the questions posed by the Op. Also posed was "What do you make of Kamala owning a gun "for personal safety"?

My answer was that it was perfectly legal, but hypocritical, due to her anti gun stance.
  #293  
Old 04-30-2019, 05:55 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,154
It doesn't seem legal to me, since the law can't become effective until at least two manufacturers, unencumbered by the technology, are employing the tech. But, honestly, you definitely know more about this than I do. I'm not up at all on California, or any other state's gun laws, other than being annoyed that NJ treats BB guns exactly the same as regular guns.

I'll end my part in this hijack -- if you read the OP, it had nothing to do with her hypocrisy, but was all about her seeming lack of knowledge about statistics.
  #294  
Old 04-30-2019, 07:03 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I dont think this is a hijack at all. The point was that Harris carries a gun- legally of course. We all agree it is legal for her to carry one. The issue is- with Harris's stance on gun control is it hypocritical or elitist for her to carry a gun for personal protection when she feels the general citizenry should not be able to do so? That was the whole point.

The Hijack was for people to insist that one of my more extreme examples of Harris being anti-gun (which is a well known fact) be verified.
Speaking of the need to verify what you claim, where is it established that she carries a gun? All I’ve seen is that she owns a gun.
  #295  
Old 04-30-2019, 07:53 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Speaking of the need to verify what you claim, where is it established that she carries a gun? All I’ve seen is that she owns a gun.
That's a very good point that was mentioned early in the thread, but never established one way or the other.

I just did a search of "carries a gun" and "Kamala Harris." Looking through the first few dozen hits I'm seeing nothing but opinions on reddit, Twitter, gun-rights, sites, etc.

So I'd say it's possible that this information hasn't been made public.
  #296  
Old 04-30-2019, 09:43 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The Hijack was for people to insist that one of my more extreme examples of Harris being anti-gun (which is a well known fact) be verified.
It is not a hijack to insist that you back back up your nonsensical and clearly false claims.
  #297  
Old 04-30-2019, 09:49 PM
Chimera is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,397
The list of recent shootings involving AR-15s is pretty lengthy.

You can own a handgun, not have any issues with other people owning handguns and long guns, and still think that people don't need to have easy access to AR-15s and that something needs to be done about the mentally ill purchasing guns.
  #298  
Old 04-30-2019, 10:17 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,394
What I don't get is why Kamela Harris + "owns gun" all of a sudden, one day in 2019 = GOPers expect and demand of politicians logical consistency and mathematical awareness extending to applied statistics cross-referenced with hypocrisy avoidance. If we set out to document all the ways GOP politicians fail to live up to this standard, this thread would never end and would end up taking over the internet, possibly sucking the whole thing into a cyber black hole.

Maybe a gun-packing, female black president would seem a little strange, even threatening. Refuse to have a hearing on her Supreme Court nominee? Maybe she'll put a cap in McConnell's ass! Bring an AR 15 to her baseball practice and start shooting? Maybe she'll gun you the fuck down! GOPers may never understand how their hackneyed stereotype about "liberals" and their crushing uniformity in their millions could possibly tolerate such a combination of factors in a politician, but it may have to do with a felicity for other numerical data, things like the number of gun deaths per year, the CO2 level, the deficit, the % of the tax cuts going to the 1%, and so on.

I realize I am interjecting. I have read every post. I still don't understand Harris' role in Prop H- her face on TV carries no legal weight, and I can't see in what way she is responsible for it. As for microstamping- she was DA, which is the executive, and the legislative writes the laws. If it really is a terrible law, there are remedies. How about the "we are repealing this stupid law Act"? I realize the Dems dominate CA and this is more of a conservative hobby horse, but if it really is bad law, GOPers their could make themselves useful by making a rational public case for once instead of grandstanding and bloviating all the time.
  #299  
Old 05-01-2019, 12:21 AM
Chisquirrel is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
[B]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.[49]

Didn't your teacher tell you not to use Wikipedia as a definitive cite?

Let's actually use the wording from the bill:


Commencing January 1, 2010, for all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 12131, it is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired, provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.


Simply, that's not what you have claimed. It has nothing to do with manufacturers using it and everything to do with them being able to. Given that the microstamping technology is available without patent, she was bound by law. Swing and a miss, yet again.
  #300  
Old 05-01-2019, 12:30 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,141
In the thread title
Kamala owns a gun "for personal safety"

why is "for personal safety" in scare quotes? Don't scare quotes suggest that alternate facts lurk behind a lying veneer?

People often impute their own psychological pathologies to others. Do gunslingers think Harris uses the gun for masturbation? Do gun nuts think Harris stalks white boys in hoodies, hoping they'll try to rape her so she can "stand her ground"? Should Mitch McConnell be wearing a bulletproof vest? If not, what is the reason for the scare quotes?
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 12:22 PM.

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