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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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]
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?
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.
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, 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.