I find it strange that you’re making a distinction between a Senator being attacked and a representative being attacked (which has happened to members of both parties). Anyway, what do you think of my explanations in posts 181 and 182 as to why her understanding of the statistics might not be wrong, since she’s different than the average person (the average person is indeed in more danger by having a gun at home, right?).
Also, I’d love your collusion explanation, whenever you have it put together.
She’s a senator, not a representative. Why would that be strange?
I think the Kellerman study has various flaws, but one of the things I hoped to see in this thread were arguments about how averages don’t necessarily invalidate one’s personal decision. Your post #182 was an excellent example of this. As for #181, your first, third, and fourth points strike me as reasonable, and #2, 5, and 6 strike me as far more speculative. I don’t think there’s much evidence to support the assertion that anti-gun / African-American / progressive politicians are in significantly more danger than pro-gun / non-African-American / non-progressive politicians. In addition to them, I’d also note that women are generally at less risk of violent crime than men, and wealthy people are generally at less risk of violent crime than poor people, both of which cut against Kamala’s perceived risk.
It’s still a work in progress, on my computer at home, but I haven’t forgotten about it.
That’s not what an executive order is. From the top of my head, executive orders give guidance to executive branch staff on how to carry out various actions as they relate to their job duties.
For example, a law could say, the IRS will do X. X can be broadly construed, so the President, via executive order, can clarify that he is directing the IRS to do X via means A, B, and C, but not D. [The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. Article Two of the United States Constitution gives the president broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive branch. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[2]"]And here is from the wiki:](In the United States, an executive order is a directive issued by the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government and has the force of law.[1)
A president probably has room to clarify what constitutes a dealer, but it would need to go through the rule making process rather than executive order if I recall correctly.
This hair splitting is absurd. What’s next, phases of the moon?
Because it’s too specific, as Bone points out. I think politicians make more sense as a class than Senators vs. Representatives, for this purpose. Is your point that there are fewer Senators, so it’s less likely they would be a target? They have better security?
I guess the question is, is her wealth or womanhood more of an outlier than her status as a Senator running for President, in terms of the relative dangers. I’d say that the latter cases (Senator, candidate) are more of an outlier and would have a larger affect on her personal risk.
Anyway, if you agree that many of my points are valid, doesn’t that undercut the whole purpose of this thread?
Here we go. Did my heart good to see them get their pee-pees smacked, I must say. It doesn’t sit well with me when our political and bureaucratic employees give themselves privileges unavailable to common slobs. Harris gets a pass because she is technically LE, I guess, but her job was never the same as a what a police officer does.
Wait, now she isn’t proposing to enforce the laws on the books?
Executive orders are for clarifying where the law is vague and how to execute those laws - so creating that bright “five gun” line is entirely within the purview of the office. Even the NRA agrees that unlicensed firearm dealers are criminals.
I agree with Bone in that I’d rather Harris clarify it via ATF regulation instead of another method, but to claim she’s “bypassing Congress” is junk. When prosecutors AND defense attorneys hate the wording of a law, because it’s so vague, clarification should not only be desired, but required. The current law is like a speed limit sign reading, “Whatever The Cop Feels Like Today”.
The rest of it is, essentially, “We’re going to FOCUS on how to enforce these laws to prevent unnecessary gun deaths.”
I non-sarcastically bow to your superior knowledge on this subject, but I thought that was the baseline assumption for this thread – that the statistics show that having a gun in the home increases your risk rather than decreases it.
I wish you had started with that (Let’s have a discussion about how individual circumstances can affect the decision to own a gun) rather than the way you did (What? Doesn’t she understand statistics?). I think the discussion would have been more productive.
That line from the OP was offered with a heavy dose of sarcasm, although I apparently failed to make that clear. My apologies.
There are, undoubtedly, a lot of ways the thread could have been started. Kamala was in the news with her recent comment, which is what had me thinking about the subject, so that’s what I started with, but I will try to keep your suggestions here in mind in the future.
Not necessarily; we had one running for State Representative back last year, and she admitted to having had 3(!) in her youth, but framed it all in some sort of Christian redemption story. She was batshit crazy across the board though (read this!) and got trounced by her Democratic opponent.
Which always struck me as kind of ironic, because the moderate incumbent she defeated in the primary probably would have won handily over the Democrat.
It’s interesting that those views were “widely criticized” according to your link. I’ll give you credit, you did find one person who objects to Senator Harris owning a handgun.
Who gives a shit if she has a gun. As a liberal-leaning independent I am (and always have been) agnostic on gun ownership and believe it is settled law thanks to Heller and McDonald. Many of my friends who are card carrying, Sanders supporting Democrats also would not give a shit as many of them also own guns. In the main, democrats want regulation of guns, not an outright ban. This has always been my impression and I always thought it was strange that the GOP have painted Democrats as gun grabbers because I never saw this as a priority. Background checks, assault weapon bans, gun show loophole closure, sure, but banning guns? Never.
Finally, wow, I never noticed how over the top angry Scumpup was until this thread; has this person been this fucking partisan and angry for a long time or is this a new thing? Guy is over the top and should really seek some therapy or take a vacation.
You all on the left should probably see a chiropractor for all of the twisting and turning you are during to attempt to reconcile past posts on this board with your current support for Harris owning guns.
I mean, we have heard for years that people own guns solely for the purpose of extending our penis size, or to feel like Clint Eastwood when any right thinking person knows that owning guns is far more dangerous to you and your family that any bad guy that we just have a juicy hard on hoping, praying that we get to kill.
But now when Harris owns guns, it is for the very responsible purpose of self protection. The rest of us owning guns will use them to commit suicide, commit crimes, or be taken by one of our kids, but not Harris. It is good to know that once I chance my voters registration from Republican to Democrats and maybe throw out a statement in support of abortion that my gun ownership may become responsible as well.
…you all “on the right” should stop making strawman arguments, attacking positions positions that people haven’t taken, and take a bit of time to read the thread so you can realize that you are arguing with yourself.
Cite for any of this? My impression is that we’re almost all fine with legitimate self-defense. We do get tired of all the balderdash and hyperbole from gun worshipers.
I’ll offer cites for this claim, even if you have no cite for yours. As an example of balderdash, use the quoted post above. As an example of hyperbole, consider the recent citation in another thread that gun toters believe they have saved 350,000 lives with their ‘DGUs.’
@ UltraVires — Does that 350,000 figure seem plausible to you?