I’d rather rub fiber glass in my eyes.
Knock it off. Both of these coments are out of line. The first as insulting and the second as an accusation of lying.
Loathe though I am to moderate in a thread I’m participating in, I missed this earlier. This ends my participation.
[/moderating]
Remember that San Francisco is sorta unique in being the City AND County of SF. The County Board of Supervisors is also the City council.
But yes, i concur with all your post.
Ok, Now Kamela comes out of the closet:
*During a town hall hosted by CNN Monday night, Harris, D-Calif, said that if a bill from Congress did not make it to her desk, she would unilaterally mandate background checks for customers purchasing a firearm from any dealer who sells more than five guns a year.
KAMALA HARRIS PLEDGES EXECUTIVE ORDER ON GUN CONTROL IF CONGRESS DOESN’T ACT IN HER FIRST 100 DAYS
Dealers who violate the law, she said, would have their licenses revoked. The other executive orders would prohibit fugitives from purchasing a firearm or weapon, as well as close the loophole that allows some domestic abusers to purchase a firearm if their victim is an unwedded partner.*
Now, at first glance, that’s not crazy talk. Let’s make anyone who sells more than five guns a year a 'dealer" who has to do background checks. I got no issue with that. In fact, I kinda like it, gets rid of the ‘strawman" loophole. I do have a issue with a executive order for it, however. (The law doesnt define who is a gun "dealer’ who has to get a FFL, so a bright line of over five sales is reasonable)
But Harris was DA, a AG even, so "Dealers who violate the law, she said, would have their licenses revoked." means she hasnt actually read the law. *Dealers *who have a *license *must do a background check on all gun sales. Already if you fail to do so there are criminal and civil penalties. If you dont have a license, then they can’t take it away.
Then there’s this “The other executive orders would prohibit fugitives from purchasing a firearm or weapon…” which is already against the law.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download
Now of course some will have doubts about Faux news, so:
That seems more posturing than anything else.
Let me be the first to solemnly swear I have no doubts about Fox News.
So, essentially, she isn’t going to grab any guns or do anything other than attempt to enforce the laws already on the books. Isn’t that what gun nuts are always clamoring about, anyway?
A Executive order is not a attempt to enforce the laws already on the books.
She doesn’t have the power to “grab guns” via an emergency declaration.
Laughing my ass off here…
Well, let’s see. There was whatsername in Arizona, then the Republican baseball team. I don’t know exactly how many players were on that team, probably 20-25? So that’s like about 3-5% of Congress that have been attacked by gun-wielding assailants in the last few years. I think it’s safe to say that’s dramatically higher than the frequency of such attacks in the general population.
What exactly do you think an executive order is?
The meaning of “execute” the law has evolved.
When was the last time a Senator was attacked by a gun-weilding assailant? The 60’s? Better yet, has a female Senator ever been attacked by a gun-weilding assailant?
So a female Representative has a vastly different risk than a female Senator? That’s the turf you want to defend?
Yeah, it’s been awhile since Senator Kennedy was shot. We can all relax.
BTW, has anyone established she wants to carry her gun around with her, or is it just at home in case of intruders?
Well there was this guy:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/20/coast-guard-officer-domestic-terror-1176806
And this group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/us/militia-border-new-mexico.html
The inflammatory rhetoric of Trump and the right wing is creating these threats in real time.
When was the last time a female Senator and former AG from California named Kamala Harris was attacked with a gun? Obviously, until we know this, we can’t evaluate whether she faces more danger than non-Kamala-Harris-named CA former AG Senators. 
In this case,* exactly as she claimed*- It’s going outside the laws, with a Executive Order, bypassing Congress.
what do you think it is?
We must also take into account that although Harris could be described as “law abiding” up to this point, we don’t really know what that even means. Further, every criminal was law abiding until s/he committed hir first crime. Why, some here seem to think that Harris might even be the supposedly non-existent “good guy with a gun.”
I think, that, on the whole obsessing over Harris having a gun is a waste of time . As a connected politician, she’d have one if she wanted it no matter what the law says. A good many congresscritters used to circumvent the law by having themselves deputized as US marshals until the AG put a stop to it 20 or so years ago. I’m sure Harris could manage something similar, if the law weren’t already in her favor.
What we got here is liberal hypocrisy! Right here, in River City!