So who else would like a constitutional amendment that allows you to vote for the Democratic candidate as described by the GOP? Those folks sound awesome
So where did concealed weapons permits come into it? The OP was about Kamala Harris comments on having a gun in her own home for self defense
I’m not a fan of that, but I’m quite aware that’s a pretty fringe opinion in America (I’m not sure I’d vote for a primary candidate who had my opinions on having guns for self defense 
).
Policy on concealed carry is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Harris has (quite correctly) not touched that with a barge pole. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it nothing a POTUS candidate can say or do will have any effect on states CCW regulations
Now, that’s plain wrong; leftists despise her. She’s a former prosecutor, so “ACAB” and all that. All the leftists I know think she’s as bad as Trump.
What does that have to do with keeping a pistol in one’s home for self-defense? Oh, wait, I forgot that I’m not allowed to have an opinion on guns unless I can field-strip an M2 Browning blindfolded and list off all the differences between an M16 and an AR15. I’ll see myself out.
By San Francisco standards Harris was a moderate centrist. By California and Democratic Party standards she is center-left (probably very slightly to the right of Gavin Newsom). By old school economic conservative/social moderate standards, I suppose she might seem very slightly leftist if you squint really hard and have astigmatism. She’ll look more solidly leftist if you’re a committed social conservative. By MAGA standards no doubt she’s the living avatar of Lenin.
Just depends on your lens, I suppose. But yeah, by my standards (and I’ve known a metric shit-ton of actual, doctrinaire Marxists) I can’t even remotely buy Harris as a leftist. She’s more or less the same sort of bland, vaguely centrist/center-left as Biden, Clinton (either one), Obama and most of the more viable national-level Democratic candidates.
Given the current political climate second amendment absolutists probably have less to fear from her than Trump.
I don’t trust you (gun person) to keep your gun at home, either.
This thread is silly. It is entirely reasonable for a person in Harris’ position to own a gun for self-defense. I say that as a person who has never owned or fired a gun, likely never will, and generally wishes there were a lot fewer guns and a lot more laws about who can own them and what kinds they can own.
A friend of mine was stabbed to death because some crackhead broke into his house to steal stuff. The thief/murderer ended up with a couple hundred bucks worth of tools. The idea that home invaders only want to take your stuff is bullshit. The best that you can say is that they might not kill you.
I have absolutely no problem with someone shooting an intruder. My friend might still be alive if he had been armed.
The crackhead is in jail for the rest of his life now, but my friend is still dead.
Yes, that is an issue. But not if someone breaks into my home, which is the issue HERE. If someone breaks into my home, they have started by committing a serious felony.
Yes. Harris was a law enforcement professional, and get daily death threats. If anyone gets to have a gun in their home, it is her.
Mind you, having a gun in your home for defense is a serious step, and one not to be taken lightly. Take a gun safety course, Go to a range. Keep your weapon secured, and if you have kids- securely locked away. I neither recommend this nor do I say nay.
This thread is about Harris- a law enforcement professional with daily death threats, keeping a gun secured in her HOME. And, by relation, about keeping a gun at home. Talking about road rage is moving the goalposts so far they are out of the stadium.
Harris is a law enforcement professional; many LEO think “civilians” should have limited rights to guns.
Nope. What they wanted to do is bring back the old ban on sales of new assault weapons, like the 1994 law.
CA law states anyone can keep a gun in their home or place of business. That is what we are talking about.
Plenty. CA has again tried to ban carrying CCW is “sensitive locations”- meaning more or less pretty much any built up area. Just like NYC did. But the courts blocked it.
“SB2 turns nearly every public place in California into a ‘sensitive place,’ effectively abolishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding and exceptionally qualified citizens to be armed and to defend themselves in public,” Carney wrote in his order.
So SCOTUS left a loophole that said of course a state can ban CCW from schools and such. So, the 'and such" turns out to be pretty much any public place.
Which has what to do with Harris keeping a gun in her home, or anyone keeping a gun in their home?
Exactly. And sure, that can branch out into us hoi polloi keeping a gun in our hames- is Harris making a good example? But she isnt carrying her gun around, she has Secret Service for that.
Right.
Hardly. But you should know the difference between a semi-automatic and a machine gun.
Right.
Yep. Let’s not get into “road rage” this is about a home invasion case, while the owner is still at home. Which is extremely dangerous to the homeowner.
Same here, other than the fact I do own a rifle and a pistol (both wimpy .22 caliber), guns which have provided some entertainment at the gun range but mostly sit trigger-locked in their bags in the closet, and wouldn’t do diddly-squat for self-defense in the event of a housebreak while I’m home. And that’s not why I bought them in the first place. But for DA Harris? Definitely makes sense.
ETA: And I wish every state had laws as restrictive as Massachusetts – although even those could use some tightening.
Interesting…this just happened this weekend and look at that…semi-auto weapons made into automatic weapons. Apparently it is not a difficult thing to do.
Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin blamed “Glock switches” - devices that can be attached to handguns to make them fire automatically - for the violence, posting on social media on Sunday that they “are the number one public safety issue in our city and state”.
“Converting a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon that discharges all bullets within seconds doesn’t belong on our domestic streets,” he wrote, adding that the city does not have the power to outlaw Glock switches, only the state.
Well, yeah, they are illegal in the USA-"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) classifies Glock switches as machine guns, making their possession illegal in most circumstances"
Glock Switch
A relatively simple, albeit illegal, device that allows a conventional semi-automatic Glock pistol to function as a fully automatic firearm. The switch is classified as a machine gun under federal law.
But again, this has little to do with Harris- or anyone keeping a pistol in the home for home defense. That is the issue here. Not illegal machine guns.
If John Kerry did say something similar I am sure it was a perfectly correct factual statement that he’s a gun owner who believes in owning guns for self defense.
Kamala Harris could have said exactly the same thing, and been just as factually correct, but instead said “an intruder who breaks into her home would be getting shot, sorry”
That right there is why John Kerry was never president but Kamala Harris will likely be president come January 2025. She’s actually very good at this.
Some people are more equal than others
I’ve been a law enforcement professional longer than she had been. i don’t hold that view. And an overwhelming majority of LEO’s I know (99%) don’t feel that way either.
WRONG!! From the Washington Post:
Biden’s less ambitious plan still offers plenty of cause for alarm for firearm owners. Alongside a raft of more common-sense measures (and a confusing aside about “smart gun technology”), its centerpiece is a ban on the manufacture and sale of what are known as “assault weapons,” with a proposal to bring their regulation under the National Firearms Act. This 1934 law currently applies to “machine guns” (i.e. fully automatic firearms), silencers and short-barreled rifles, but Biden’s plan would extend it to apply to what he characterizes as “assault weapons,” meaning semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns with interchangeable magazines that fire intermediate cartridges (the most notorious of which is the AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle) as well as “high capacity magazines” (generally understood under the 1994 bill to be those that can hold more than 10 bullets). Individuals who already own these items would be required to participate in a federal buyback program or register each of their qualifying firearms and magazines under the NFA — which comes with a $200 price tag (on top of extra fees incurred during the registration process). When it was first enacted in 1934, that $200 fee was intended to be prohibitively expensive; now, inflation aside, it still is for many people.
Both Biden and Harris campaigned on that plan. It would also prohibit the future manufacture and importation of so called “assault weapons”. You would not be able to buy or sell one. if you owned one the only way to get rid of it would be to turn it in. I own a successful firearms dealership. You think I don’t keep up with this stuff?
Re: the road rage scenario,
I’m perfectly happy to take the chance of the bat wielding beating unarmed me senseless if it also means bat wielding road rager doesn’t have access to a gun.
I reckon the chances of getting shot in a road rage incident are orders of magnitude higher than the chances of being dragged out of my car and beaten.
What if a number of five year olds (that number will vary) are charging you intent on causing mayhem?
Really.
If she did not say she carries it CCW is not even an issue, and as AG/DA she probably WAS eligible to carry, anyway because yes, the law does treat some life circumstances different from others, always has, always will, welcome to the world.
There is nothing wrong in the DA/AG keeping a firearm at home in case there is an intruder situation and at the same time advocating a stricter general regulation of who/what/where.
And indeed it was about the home not in the street. But it always happens with this doesn’t it? “What about this other scenario? What about that other hypothetical? Yes but if it were someone else it would not be the same!” Combined with the annoying All-Or-Nothing-ism that tends to pop up, yes, I’ll say it, from “both sides”, in these discussions.
.
Yeah I think the level of ire this pro gun comment generated among the gun nuts says all you need to know about how this was exactly the right thing for her to say.
I think I can take ‘em, regardless of number. They’re a notoriously undisciplined lot. Let ‘em do their worst!