# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/141 "2019-04-14T05:11:57Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > She _did_? Are you sure? Because Senator Feinstein and Mayor Newsom said it wasnt legal. And _every_ Judge said it wasnt legal- rare unanimous decisions. So either Harris is stupid or she deliberately let a bad law get on just to harass gun owners. You pick. Since she has done other stuff just to harass gun owners, I know what my pick is. …I don’t give a fuck what Feinstein or Newsom think. Your assertion was that Harris knew that the law was illegal. Now your claim has changed. I’m not going to pick. That’s your job. Are you withdrawing your claim she “knew it was illegal?” ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/142 "2019-04-14T05:16:15Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > No, not necessarily. Just because you think something should be illegal doesn’t mean that if you do it while it **isn’t** illegal, you must be a hypocrite. > > It’s perfectly possible to endorse, in a logically consistent manner, the idea that society as a whole would be better off without allowing private handgun ownership, while at the same time maintaining that as long as private handgun ownership **is** allowed, you personally would rather have one than not. > … 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. > **[The Weird Science of Homophobes Who Turn Out to Be Gay](https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-weird-science-of-homophobes-who-turn-out-to-be-gay)** > > There is some research suggesting a link between being closeted and being anti-gay. But while the notion feeds many jokes, it also obscures very real homophobia. \*Recently, there has been former Ohio state Rep. Wesley Goodman, who resigned late last week after it came out that he had had sex with a man in his office. In March, former Oklahoma state Sen. Ralph Shortey resigned after being hit with child prostitution charges for allegedly soliciting sex from a 17-year-old boy. Shortey has reportedly decided this week to plead guilty to a child sex trafficking charge. Both Goodman and Shortey are married men who were clear political opponents of the LGBT community while in office. After Shortey was arrested, the Associated Press noted that he “routinely” voted for anti-LGBT bills, quoting the director of the LGBT advocacy organization Freedom Oklahoma who said, “He was never vitriolic about it, but he would make the bad votes.” More strident was Goodman who, as the Columbus Dispatch reported, “consistently touted his faith and conservative values,” with a Twitter bio that read: “Christian. American. Conservative. Republican…The LGBT community will never tire of bringing up the long history of Republican gay sex scandals every time new—and increasingly unsurprising—allegations emerge, precisely because they seem to be so predictable in hindsight."\* > **[Opinion | The Flagrant Sexual Hypocrisy of Conservative Men (Published 2017)](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/sunday/conservative-men-abortion-hypocrisy.html)** > > Tim Murphy’s “pro-life in the streets, pro-choice in the sheets” stance is just the latest example. > **[20 Republican Politicians Brought Down By Big Gay Sex Scandals](https://www.logotv.com/news/lpa6sk/19-republican-politicians-gay-sex)** > > She doth protest too much. \*\*Hypocrites. \*\* … Nope. That is exactly the definition of hypocritical. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/143 "2019-04-14T05:18:33Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …I don’t give a fuck what Feinstein or Newsom think. Your assertion was that Harris knew that the law was illegal. Now your claim has changed. I’m not going to pick. That’s your job. Are you withdrawing your claim she “knew it was illegal?” And you dont care what twelve judges said either, eh? :rolleyes: Nope, she knew it was. That’s my opinion. Or she was totally ignorant of the law. You pick. There’s no possible “She knew the law but still thought it was legal”. ---
**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:** [April 14, 2019, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/144 "2019-04-14T05:20:52Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > [San Francisco Proposition H (2005) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Proposition_H_(2005)) Thank you for posting a (broken) link to a page that doesn’t even mention Kamala Harris again. That’s not actually as strong an argument as you think it is. Try harder. ---
**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:** [April 14, 2019, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/145 "2019-04-14T05:23:30Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And you dont care what twelve judges said either, eh? :rolleyes: > > Nope, she knew it was. That’s my opinion. Or she was totally ignorant of the law. You pick. There’s no possible “She knew the law but still thought it was legal”. This demonstrates your lack of imagination and little else. No one else is restricted to these two choices. There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. ---
**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:** [April 14, 2019, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/146 "2019-04-14T05:41:12Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And then of course I saw harris on TV on a yes on H ad, giving a soundbite about how handgun violence is bad. Are you saying I didnt see her? Are you sure you get the concept of, “Show. Don’t tell.”? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/147 "2019-04-14T05:49:27Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Thereby as DA of SF, Harris had to pass on that Prop getting on the ballot. This is where you’re losing me. What is her role in the process? If she as the right to block a voters’ initiative, what are the standards? Shouldn’t she let the courts decide Constitutional questions? I’m not from California, so I’m seriously just asking. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/148 "2019-04-14T06:16:13Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And you dont care what twelve judges said either, eh? :rolleyes: …nope. What 12 judges have said says nothing to Harris’s state of mind. > [@](#): > > Nope, she knew it was. That’s my opinion. You are entitled to expressing your opinion. But you’ve been expressing your opinion as objective fact. > [@](#): > > Or she was totally ignorant of the law. You pick. There’s no possible “She knew the law but still thought it was legal”. So I’ve just googled “Kamala Harris” and Proposition H and I can’t find anything at all (apart from being DA at the time) that links her to the proposition. I’ve just realized that this entire discussion is based on assertions you have made. So the ball is back in your court. How does the ballot system work in San Francisco? What role did the DA play in this? The proposition didn’t even take effect. I mean its obvious that you aren’t an “objective narrator” here. So why should we trust the way you have chosen to frame the story? ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/149 "2019-04-14T06:37:22Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > I think she has more than the typical number of dangerous people who might wish to do her harm as a result of her law enforcement career. Probably this. I expect she’s received many death threats, but like most gun owners, she’s never been in an actual deadly altercation or combat situation, so she misunderstands how a personal weapon affects the safety of the people in her home. And until the gun kills somebody, it’s undetermined whether it’s more of a threat to the owner, the occupants, or the imaginary intruder. It’s usually the owner or occupants, but human psychology is a huge barrier to imagining that our own errors or incompetence will grievously harm us or our loved ones. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/150 "2019-04-14T06:40:34Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Thank you for posting a (broken) link to a page that doesn’t even mention Kamala Harris again. That’s not actually as strong an argument as you think it is. > > Try harder. It wasnt supposed to mention Harris. It was about Prop H. :rolleyes: So, before I waste more time on your little cite game, do you deny that Harris was DA of SF when Prop H was put on the ballot? That is what I have been citing. Can you cite otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/151 "2019-04-14T06:41:56Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Are you sure you get the concept of, “Show. Don’t tell.”? Are you saying i didnt see that? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/152 "2019-04-14T06:47:11Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > This is where you’re losing me. What is her role in the process? If she as the right to block a voters’ initiative, what are the standards? Shouldn’t she let the courts decide Constitutional questions? > > I’m not from California, so I’m seriously just asking. 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. ---
**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:** [April 14, 2019, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/153 "2019-04-14T06:49:44Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > So, before I waste more time on your little cite game, do you deny that Harris was DA of SF when Prop H was put on the ballot? I don’t deny that. I am well aware of her law enforcement career. ---
**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:** [April 14, 2019, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/154 "2019-04-14T06:50:59Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Are you saying i didnt see that? No I am not. Not even a little bit. ---
**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:** [April 14, 2019, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/155 "2019-04-14T06:53:24Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The DA or the AG have to sign off whether or not a Prop is legal. Show. Don’t tell. Show us that Kamala Harris signed off on this proposition. Surely there’s a record of this somewhere. Show it to us. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/156 "2019-04-14T06:59:22Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > … > > You are entitled to expressing your opinion. But you’ve been expressing your opinion as objective fact. > > So I’ve just googled “Kamala Harris” and Proposition H and I can’t find anything at all (apart from being DA at the time) that links her to the proposition. … And that is all that is needed, thank you for proving my point. She was AG when she did this:"\*Microstamping On May 17, 2013, the state attorney general began enforcing a new law requiring that semi-automatic pistols incorporate microstamping.[46] 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.[47] 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.[48] 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\*. You are welcome to look up **Gun laws in California** on Wiki where this is quoted from. Here are cites that say Harris is Pro Gun control: > **[The Washington Post - Breaking news and latest headlines, U.S. news, world...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/)** > > Breaking news, live coverage, investigations, analysis, video, photos and opinions from The Washington Post. Subscribe for the latest on U.S. and international news, politics, business, technology, climate change, health and wellness, sports,... [https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/01/29/kamala-harris-has-an-extreme-idea-to-get-gun-control-legislation-passed/23655730/](https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/01/29/kamala-harris-has-an-extreme-idea-to-get-gun-control-legislation-passed/23655730/) [https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2017/8/18/kamala-harris-tries-to-export-california-gun-control-to-the-nation/](https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2017/8/18/kamala-harris-tries-to-export-california-gun-control-to-the-nation/) > **[Kamala Harris's Views on Gun Control: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know](https://heavy.com/news/2019/01/kamala-harris-gun-control/)** > > Kamala Harris is a strong advocate for gun control and believes in imposing restrictions on the right to bear arms. [https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Special-Feature-K-Harris.pdf](https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Special-Feature-K-Harris.pdf) So, even if you dont accept that Harris was in favor of a SF law banning all handguns, there is ample proof- her very own words- she is strongly in favor of gun control- except of course for herself. We call that being a hypocrite. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/157 "2019-04-14T07:00:30Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > I don’t deny that. I am well aware of her law enforcement career. Then we are done. You concede my point, thank you. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/158 "2019-04-14T07:02:02Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Show. Don’t tell. > > Show us that Kamala Harris signed off on this proposition. Surely there’s a record of this somewhere. Show it to us. Sorry, you dont accept any other cite I gave and even made me cite that Harris was DA of SF when Prop F was put on the ballot. If you want to know about CA law, look it up yourself. I am tired of playing your silly 'cite" game. Show me your cites. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2019, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/159 "2019-04-14T07:11:20Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And that is all that is needed, thank you for proving my point. …LOL. Are you seriously “declaring victory?” At this stage I don’t even know what your point is. I mean: > [@](#): > > She was AG when she did this:"\*Microstamping > On May 17, 2013, the state attorney general began enforcing a new law requiring that semi-automatic pistols incorporate microstamping.[46] 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.[47] 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.[48] > > 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\*. > > You are welcome to look up **Gun laws in California** on Wiki where this is quoted from. > > Here are cites that say Harris is Pro Gun control: > > [https://www.washingtonpost.com/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/) > [https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/01/29/kamala-harris-has-an-extreme-idea-to-get-gun-control-legislation-passed/23655730/](https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/01/29/kamala-harris-has-an-extreme-idea-to-get-gun-control-legislation-passed/23655730/) > [https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2017/8/18/kamala-harris-tries-to-export-california-gun-control-to-the-nation/](https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2017/8/18/kamala-harris-tries-to-export-california-gun-control-to-the-nation/) > [Kamala Harris's Views on Gun Control: 5 Fast Facts](https://heavy.com/news/2019/01/kamala-harris-gun-control/) > [https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Special-Feature-K-Harris.pdf](https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Special-Feature-K-Harris.pdf) > > So, even if you dont accept that Harris was in favor of a SF law banning all handguns, there is ample proof- her very own words- she is strongly in favor of gun control- except of course for herself. We call that being a hypocrite. What does any of this have to do with Harris’s state of mind in 2005? You know, the questions I’ve been asking you about? And how does “being in favour of microstamping”, a sensible gun-control measure, paint Harris as a hypocrite? Is she in favour of micro-stamping everybody’s guns except the guns that she owns? Can you prove that? Do you even understand what the word “hypocrite” means? Do you not understand that being in favour of “gun control” does not necessarily mean you are in favour of banning guns in their entirety? ---
**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:** [April 14, 2019, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465/160 "2019-04-14T07:17:14Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Sorry, you dont accept any other cite I gave and even made me cite that Harris was DA of SF when Prop F was put on the ballot. If you want to know about CA law, look it up yourself. I am tired of playing your silly 'cite" game. > > Show me your cites. I didn’t ‘make’ you cite that Harris was DA of SF. That was never in dispute and no one asked for that information. You have asserted several times that Kamala Harris signed off of Prop H in order for it to be on the ballot. Several posters have asked about this process. Instead of backing that up you pretend that people are asking if she was DA when the proposition was put on the ballot and citing that she was DA and that the proposition was put on the ballot. This is not what I and several other posters are asking for. We know that Kamala Harris was DA of San Francisco. We know that Prop H was on the ballot. What we don’t know is that Kamala Harris acting as DA of San Francisco had anything to do with Prop H getting on the ballot. Do you have a cite for that? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kamala-owns-a-gun-for-personal-safety/832465.md?page=9)