Unless what they wanted to steal was guns. Then pretty smart.
Home break in rates pretty average actually.
As one of the group who perceives the statement as a calculated campaign move, possibly a good one but not sure, I think your assessment of which way most of us plan on voting is inaccurate. One poster pkbites is clearly a never going to vote for her, but others here are in her camp.
TBH I’m not convinced that make much difference., perception is all that matters and reality has nothing to do with it. Sucks but thats the reality we live in and I’m very happy that Harris seems to actually get this. Not that I think this statement (or any of her other statements) is anything other than 100% true statement of her attitude towards gun ownership for self defense (she was a DA in Oakland, FFS). But that doesn’t matter. it seems plausible, it sounds like a funny off the cuff remark and that’s what matters.
The shrill screams of denial from the NRA crowd are all the evidence I need. This was 100% the right thing
to say
Maybe he’ll change his mind. The alternative candidate is about as reprehensible as one could imagine.
My apologies to the mod. On reread I am afraid my response may be edging back to where we have been warned not to go, though I intend no gun control debate, just fun with facts.
Sorry.
Which I find hilarious, as her opponent is forever untruthful.
I don’t think there’s an actual reason to not think it’s both you know?
I mean, we have the evidence of public acknowledgement of gun ownership back to 2019 as cited (we even have a thread here about it) - and the reasons stated for it remain the same. Whether or not posters then or now agree with the reasoning is another thread, but it’s at least consistent.
So I find it likely honest, and while there are many who disagree, and debate the reasons for the opinion, I still think that the majority of Americans still believe that self-defense is overall, a good thing.
Now, bringing it up on Oprah is, IMHO a political choice, rather than the “Ooops, I shouldn’t have said that” Harris immediately expressed. Sure, it’s possible it was, but that’s not how I read Harris. If anything, it’s (IMHO IMHO IMHO) both a politically calculated reminder that may play well with the undecided in the critical swing states (see my prior post) AND try to defang future criticisms of flip-flopping on the issue, which the opposition has been trying to make a big deal of for some time.
It -may- also be signs of long term political planning.
It seems to me (and please, don’t put much faith in my crystal ball) that in the nearish future, Trump is going to pass on from his age, health, or sheer apoplexy if he looses (Dear FSM, may it be so).
When that happens, most/much of MAGA is going to be stuck in it’s culture war, but hopefully splintered by the many persons who want to claim Trump’s crown. So what happens to those who still voted (R) but really didn’t like the drama?
If MAGA, post-Trump continues to double down, but without the unity of purpose that makes them effective, are they willing to join the noticeable (on this board even) group of former Republican voters who now vote for Democrats because of Trump?
Seems like a decent gamble. Harris, like Biden, is pretty centrist in (D) circles, and Walz has reasonable progressive credentials while his own gun ownership and hunting cred could be seen as reassuring.
Especially when the broad tent of the Democratic party has it’s own fracture points, as seen over the “Undecideds” who threaten to break (cutting the nose to spite the face) with Harris over Israel/Hamas.
So, a not unusual tactic of tacking back to center for Harris, and Democrats as a whole.
Just my two bits.
Bolding mine. So true.
Harris might be stricter on gun control. As a gun owner, that’s fine with me. Especially considering the alternative - Banning Democracy.
That’s when they were running on that issue. It was in their campaign literature. You don’t think she’s changed her mind, do you?
This is false. She supported a ban in 2005. Harris's Previous Support for a Ban on Handguns Highlights Gun-Control Movement's Aims | National Review
That’s because they didn’t have the votes in Congress. They weren’t going to push such a draconian licensing/ban law unless they were sure it would pass. When the public really found out what they wanted they would shit. A lot of voters aren’t paying attention to this stuff.
In which thread, in which forum have I posted pro-Trump statements? If they’re there it is very few, if any.
You should recall that I went on the warpath against Trump after his executive order on pieces of plastic. A law that eventually was found unconstitutional.
I guess the point is (and perhaps you agree) that Trump is so bad for the country that Harris should be elected even if you don’t agree with her on every position (e.g., guns)
This has already been touched upon in this thread, but it’s a matter of record that Harris wants to ban (so-called) “assault weapons.” Cue to 6:55 in this September 13 interview.
Readers added context: The above mentioned “pieces of plastic” are bump stocks.
He was blathering how while he was President the 2nd Amendment was sage and then in a very short period of time he went after pieces of plastic that citizens bought legally.
IMO, pushing back against Trump for trying to ban bump stocks in the wake of a mass shooting involving them, isn’t exactly a noble position.
Nothing is more noble than resistance to tyranny.
Trumps executive actions reversed decades of the BATFE stating such devices were legal. Trump confiscated citizens property without just compensation by demanding such devices be destroyed, turned in to the government, or one would become a federal felon.
That law was found to be unconstitutional by our nations highest court. Many of you constantly declare how Trump has violated the U.S. Constitution.
Well Trump did try to overthrow the government. That’s problematic to many of us. And might actually violate the U.S. Constitution.
while I agree with the sentiment, we’re going to have to disagree to agree that any restriction on firearms by anyone anywhere in the US of A is constitutional or noble.
Or indeed tyranny.