I’m not sure why you felt the need to add this, but it’s not appropriate for this forum. If you want to take shots at another poster, do it in the Pit.
[/moderating]
I for one applaud the OP for trying to fill Bricker’s “libz iz hypocritz” shoes.
Who are these posters? Can you show us the posts? These people sound really awful. Do they exist?
We care for that same reason we give a Republican Evangelical Public Homophobe a hard time if he is found having gay sex. Is there anything bad about having gay sex? Nope. But there is a problem if you preach that gay sex is bad, but you’re having it in secret. Just like Harris preaches we dont need a handgun for personal protection- but she does.
I will going out that a “assault weapon ban” is indeed a “gun ban”.
As your post followed that of Bones by about an hour, you should have refrained from personal attacks. Any further will get you a Warning.
[ /Moderating ]
Half this thread has been discussing the dearth of cites for this claim. Do you have anything where she claims no one needs a handgun but her?
In fact, it looks like the context of her remarks was that she believes that the debate on gun laws and safety should not come down to a binary “guns for everyone” or “guns for noone” discussion.
The irony that Harris is saying that people can responsibly own guns is of course lost on the people who most vociferously argue that people can responsibly own guns.
Well, at least Peter will be safe.
ISWYDT. Repent.
The silly thing is, even if her position were that no one should have guns, the fact is that people can have guns today, which makes it more dangerous for her as a public figure, presidential candidate, etc. If she were running for office in the UK, she would probably decide she didn’t need a gun, since they are much more rare there. So, she’s facing reality in the world as it is, which has a lot of guns in America, rather than as she (hypothetically) would like it.
Of course, that’s apparently not her position.
Strained analogy: It could be the position of the United States that there should be no nuclear weapons. The United States could work to try and get treaties negotiated and get other countries to get rid of their weapons. However, in the world as it is, other countries do have these weapons, so the US can’t unilaterally disarm.
So, even if it were her position to ban all guns, she wouldn’t be hypocritical by having one for protection, given that other people have guns.
And, even if it’s true that having a gun in your home is more dangerous on average, it’s obviously not going to be more dangerous for every specific case.
And, the assault weapons ban is, of course, a gun ban on certain weapons, but it’s disingenuous to say someone who wants the AWB wants to “ban guns”. When the FDA bans some drug, no one would say the FDA has banned drugs, unless they want to be really misunderstood. I look forward to the English lesson coming, no doubt, but we all understand what I’m talking about.
This whole thread is so annoying. The OP was really a sarcastic rant and should have been moved directly into the Pit anyway.
That’s my opinion based upon her history. But that wasnt the issue that cites were needed for it was the fact that Harris approved the SF handgun ban while she was DA there.
‘Fact’ huh? Are you sure that’s the right word? Also, didn’t you withdraw this claim?
Again, what history? Your privision of “cites” showing she approved the handgun ban in SF stemmed from your exact assertion here, of her “guns for me, not for thee” stance. Given that was your only “proof” and has been thoroughly debunked, do you have anything more than your feelings?
No, I just decided to stop arguing it.
My proof hasnt been debunked. Her face was on TV supporting the Prop. Unlike Feinstein, who went on record as saying Prop H was useless, Harris didnt speak out. But the fact remains she was DA of SF county when the law was proposed, put on the ballot on passed. Where is her record saying it was UnConstitutional then? Since is was so clearly unconstitutional that two court ruled unanimously and Even Feinstein and Gavin said it wouldn’t pass the courts. Why didnt Harris speak out then, if you are so sure she was against Prop H?
But she did ban all new models of handguns while AG of CA. That’s on the record.
Also:
*Harris is a cosponsor of fellow California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons Ban of 2019,” which bans 205 guns by name and targets the most popular rifle platform in the United States.
She’s also a cosponsor of Feinstein’s bill to support red flag gun confiscation laws, as well as a bill from Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., to ban “large capacity” magazines.*
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.
From your own cite:
Sounds almost entirely OPPOSITE of your claims.
As for this: lack of condemnation is not a sign of support. I don’t know whether she was against it or not, and you have yet to remotely prove your point.
It seems like you withdrew your claim.
DrDeth, is Chisquirrel correct that Harris just did what was constitutionally and legally required under a law passed in 2007? If that’s the case then, “But she did ban all new models of handguns while AG of CA. That’s on the record” is, well, disingenuous at best, and not really debating in good faith.
This is going well.