# Kamala owns a gun "for personal safety" **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 12, 2019, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465 "2019-04-12T22:54:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/301 "2019-05-01T05:52:13Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > 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? They aren’t “scare” quotes, it’s an actual quote. The reason she gave for owning a gun was “for personal safety” and the quotes are to indicate that those are the precise words she used. And my day would have been just fine if you hadn’t brought up theories about what Kamala uses to masturbate. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/302 "2019-05-01T06:31:47Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > It is not a hijack to insist that you back back up your nonsensical and clearly false claims. Which are? Look, I saw her on TV supporting Prop H. She did indeed unilaterally ban hundreds of new handgun models with a impossible microstamping- and I have multiple cites. Her anti-gun stance is well known and she admits it- for which I have multiple cites. About the only thing I can’t show is that she signed off on Prop H, but since you guys dont know how SF politics works, and i do, there’s nothing I can say that will convince you. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/303 "2019-05-01T06:39:58Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > Didn’t your teacher tell you not to use Wikipedia as a definitive cite? > > Let’s actually use the wording … > > 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. That’s what Wiki and other cites maintained. So, you are very sure that the law wasnt modified later or perhaps a court decision? But again, they are not ABLE to. CA Microstamping is impossible. Even the courts conceded this. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/304 "2019-05-01T08:53:27Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Which are? Look, I saw her on TV supporting Prop H. She did indeed unilaterally ban hundreds of new handgun models with a impossible microstamping- and I have multiple cites. Her anti-gun stance is well known and she admits it- for which I have multiple cites. > > About the only thing I can’t show is that she signed off on Prop H, but since you guys dont know how SF politics works, and i do, there’s nothing I can say that will convince you. In other words, you don’t have a cite for the actual thing you are claiming, without which you’re left with a lot of superfluous tangents tied together with insinuation and hysterical ranting, but if that’s not good enough for us it’s because we’re the unreasonable ones. Got it. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/305 "2019-05-01T10:30:49Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > That’s what Wiki and other cites maintained. So, you are very sure that the law wasnt modified later or perhaps a court decision? > > But again, they are not ABLE to. CA Microstamping is impossible. Even the courts conceded this. I thought the courts concede that it’s impossible to microstamp in two places? Also, **Chisquirrel** seems to show that she had to allow this to go through by law – care to comment? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/306 "2019-05-01T10:31:55Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Her anti-gun stance is well known and she admits it- for which I have multiple cites. It’s sort of weird to call her anti-gun because, you know, she owns a gun. Your comments here brought to mind the religious police of Saudi Arabia and Iran, who chase down people they label apostates just because of insufficient religious zeal. Perhaps you should start using the term “gun heretics” for the strong majority of Americans who want universal background checks but don’t want to eliminate the Second Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/307 "2019-05-01T12:28:58Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > 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. You’ve made this claim in various forms - that there was some requirement that Harris certify the tech was available - but this isn’t true. The certification was discretionary. I doubt that changes anyone’s overall calculus, but it’s not accurate to say she was bound by law, or that it was a requirement, or anything that implies it wasn’t a choice on her part. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/308 "2019-05-01T13:53:20Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > It’s sort of weird to call her anti-gun because, you know, she owns a gun. > > Your comments here brought to mind the religious police of Saudi Arabia and Iran, who chase down people they label apostates just because of insufficient religious zeal. Perhaps you should start using the term “gun heretics” for the strong majority of Americans who want universal background checks but don’t want to eliminate the Second Amendment. Or it could just be that she is anti-gun except for “the right people.” ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/309 "2019-05-01T14:32:28Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Or it could just be that she is anti-gun except for “the right people.” Well, it’s important to choose the interpretation of events that portrays her in the most evil and hypocritical light. I bet when she’s alone she dons a fake mustache just so she can twirl it. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/310 "2019-05-01T14:43:42Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > About the only thing I can’t show is that she signed off on Prop H, but since you guys dont know how SF politics works, and i do, there’s nothing I can say that will convince you. Now you’re almost getting it. There’s nothing you can _tell_ us to convince us. However, you could _show_ us a cite and that would be convincing. That’s how this works. Show. Don’t tell. Increasingly hysterical exhortations for us to believe you are not as convincing as you think they are. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/311 "2019-05-01T14:49:32Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > About the only thing I can’t show is that she signed off on Prop H, but since you guys dont know how SF politics works, and i do, there’s nothing I can say that will convince you. Furthermore, you also haven’t shown us that her face appeared on TV in support of Prop H. You’ve told us a few times. You pulled the, “Are you calling me a liar,” defense when someone asked about it, but you haven’t shown us a god damned thing. I’m willing to believe that this is true, but at this point I’m not willing to believe it without a cite. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/312 "2019-05-01T16:08:49Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Well, it’s important to choose the interpretation of events that portrays her in the most evil and hypocritical light. I bet when she’s alone she dons a fake mustache just so she can twirl it. Gun control in this country has always been about “the right people.” Once, that was often determined by skin color. Now, it is determined by economic class. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/313 "2019-05-01T16:44:30Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Gun control in this country has always been about “the right people.” Once, that was often determined by skin color. Now, it is determined by economic class. Truly, our country has endured more than 400 years of rampant discrimination against gun owners. You should keep spreading that message that African Americans and the poor should learn from the extreme hardships of GOA/NRA members. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/314 "2019-05-01T18:56:50Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > That’s what Wiki and other cites maintained. So, you are very sure that the law wasnt modified later or perhaps a court decision? > > But again, they are not ABLE to. CA Microstamping is impossible. Even the courts conceded this. You’re serious? The actual language of the bill is not a valid cite? Yes, I’m certain the language, provided BY THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE ITSELF, is correct. You are attempting to pass off incorrect paraphrasing and questioning the actual source. For reference, the court never said microstamping is impossible. They said, even “IF” it is impossible, it still does not give them the ability to completely overturn the legislature. If you want to debate actual words, laws, and decisions, feel free. Until then, it’s pretty blatantly obvious you don’t intend to argue in good faith, and I feel no need to continue to correct your falsehoods. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/315 "2019-05-01T19:03:23Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You’ve made this claim in various forms - that there was some requirement that Harris certify the tech was available - but this isn’t true. The certification was discretionary. > > I doubt that changes anyone’s overall calculus, but it’s not accurate to say she was bound by law, or that it was a requirement, or anything that implies it wasn’t a choice on her part. Cite required. Nothing in the bill itself sounds at all voluntary, except should a “method of equal or greater reliability and effectiveness in identifying the specific serial number of a firearm from spent cartridge casings” may also be approved by the Attorney General. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/316 "2019-05-01T19:14:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Truly, our country has endured more than 400 years of rampant discrimination against gun owners. You should keep spreading that message that African Americans and the poor should learn from the extreme hardships of GOA/NRA members. Gosh, that is a transparent and willful misinterpretation of what I said. Positively Trumpian in its clumsy dishonesty. But here’s the same idea in simple little words for you: Blacks and other minorities had their right to bear arms suppressed along with their other rights. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/317 "2019-05-01T19:31:34Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > Cite required. Nothing in the bill itself sounds at all voluntary, except should a “method of equal or greater reliability and effectiveness in identifying the specific serial number of a firearm from spent cartridge casings” may also be approved by the Attorney General. You have your burden of proof wrong. You asserted that Harris was required to certify. That’s false. Here’s your claims on this topic (my bold in each): > [@Chisquirrel](#): > > 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.** > [@Chisquirrel](#): > > 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. Here’s the [full text of that provision of the law:](https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2007/pen/12125-12133.html) > [@](#): > > (7) 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. The Attorney > General may also approve a method of equal or greater reliability and > effectiveness in identifying the specific serial number of a firearm > from spent cartridge casings discharged by that firearm than that > which is set forth in this paragraph, to be thereafter required as > otherwise set forth by this paragraph where the Attorney General > certifies that this new method is also unencumbered by any patent > restrictions. Approval by the Attorney General shall include notice > of that fact via regulations adopted by the Attorney General for > purposes of implementing that method for purposes of this paragraph. > The microscopic array of characters required by this section shall > not be considered the name of the maker, model, manufacturer’s > number, or other mark of identification, including any distinguishing > number or mark assigned by the Department of Justice, within the > meaning of Sections 12090 and 12094. Which part do you think requires the DoJ to certify? That’s your assertion right? I see no evidence to support your claim. I mean, if the legislature passes a law that says that no new books written after 2018 are allowed to be printed unless they are bound with dragon scales and written in unicorn blood, but this law only takes effect after the CA EPA certifies that dragon scales and unicorn blood won’t impact the environment, I’d be pretty critical if the EPA then went ahead and made that certification. It would be true, so to speak, but I think it’d be a fair criticism to say that the person that makes that certification wanted to ban books. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/318 "2019-05-01T19:35:52Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Gosh, that is a transparent and willful misinterpretation of what I said. Positively Trumpian in its clumsy dishonesty. But here’s the same idea in simple little words for you: Blacks and other minorities had their right to bear arms suppressed along with their other rights. This is a warning for personal insults. Specifically, accusing another person of lying. I recommend toning down the overall hostility as well as it’s not appropriate for this forum. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/319 "2019-05-01T19:56:38Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You have your burden of proof wrong. You asserted that Harris was required to certify. That’s false. Here’s your claims on this topic (my bold in each): > > Here’s the [full text of that provision of the law:](https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2007/pen/12125-12133.html) > > Which part do you think requires the DoJ to certify? That’s your assertion right? I see no evidence to support your claim. > I mean, if the legislature passes a law that says that no new books written after 2018 are allowed to be printed unless they are bound with dragon scales and written in unicorn blood, but this law only takes effect after the CA EPA certifies that dragon scales and unicorn blood won’t impact the environment, I’d be pretty critical if the EPA then went ahead and made that certification. It would be true, so to speak, but I think it’d be a fair criticism to say that the person that makes that certification wanted to ban books. Which part makes it voluntary? The law says the DoJ certifies it’s able to be done, and then it must be done. Sure, Harris could have just ignored the law, but that’s generally not how we prefer our law enforcement officials to act, correct? The rest of your post is farcical, at best. Microstamping was patented twenty years ago. Dragon scales and unicorn blood, really? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/320 "2019-05-01T20:20:28Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > Which part makes it voluntary? The law says the DoJ certifies it’s able to be done, and then it must be done. Sure, Harris could have just ignored the law, but that’s generally not how we prefer our law enforcement officials to act, correct? We’re not talking about preference though. You made a claim that the law and the constitution required something. But your claim was false. I don’t need to show any part where the law says it’s voluntary, even though that’s obvious from the plain reading of the text. You must show certification was legally and constitutionally required. But you can’t, because it was not. The legislature knows how to make something mandatory. They could have said, _‘within 10 days of the technology becoming unencumbered by patent, the DoJ SHALL certify that fact and the law will take effect.’_ They didn’t do that though, which makes your claim false. > [@Chisquirrel](#): > > The rest of your post is farcical, at best. Microstamping was patented twenty years ago. Dragon scales and unicorn blood, really? In my lifetime, dragon scales and unicorn blood are only slightly less likely to be discovered as working, reliable microstamping technology. This is how I see it - [since Harris made her certification](https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/infobuls/2013-BOF-03.pdf), there have been ZERO new model semi auto handguns added to list of firearms legally able to be sold within CA. It’s a fair summation to say, that through Harris’s voluntary actions, all new model semi auto handguns were banned for sale by dealers in CA. I don’t think that specifically relates to her owning a firearm herself, unless she owns an off roster firearm. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465.md?page=17)