if we have a Homophobic anti-gay Evangelistic Christian Republican Congressman, who is caught having secret gay sex, can we still call him Homophobic & anti-gay?
Sure,* she *owns a gun. The elite are allowed to. The hoi polloi are not allowed one.
Your claim was “your nonsensical and clearly false claims”. The only claim I cant make you believe is that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors , before putting Prop H on the ballot, somehow failed to confer with their Lawyer, one DA Harris.
Have you ever sat in on a City or County Commissioners meeting? I have, hundreds of times. There is always a City Attorney or the DA sitting there, weighing in on any legal question, and also giving advice whenever any law, bill or measure would be illegal. Every. Single. Meeting. Do you deny Harris was DA? So, somehow, you find it “nonsensical” that she was conferred with on this law- when every other law was given legal approval. So, no, I am not gonna dig up the minutes of that SF San Francisco Board of Supervisors meeting as even if I posted it, you would say it is meaningless.
Are you saying I didnt see her on TV? How do I prove that?
How would I prove that? A signed notarized statement from seven reliable witnesses?
You are pretty much calling me a liar here.
Let’s just replace the issues of guns and homosexuality with, say, candy to illustrate how poor this comparison is.
Person 1:
- Says that candy is evil, and that no one should eat candy
- But, secretly eats candy.
Person 2:
- Says that people have the right to candy, but thinks that the sale of candy ought to be regulated more stringently than today.
- But, publicly eats candy.
I literally fail to see how the two are comparable. Plus, there’s simply the definitional issue of “homophobic” necessarily means “anti-gay,” so I fail to see how anyone can argue that someone can be homophobic and not anti-gay.
May I just ask, what is it about this topic that causes you to lose your mind and make such poorly thought out arguments? I don’t see you act this way on other things that come up on the board. Some of your posts on banking matters are so carefully crafted, precise, and insightful – but here we just see a string of unverified accusations, playing fast and loose with facts, outright refusal to cite simple matters, and like here, just a really sloppy analogy. I’m just not following how in one debate you can be as careful as a university professor, and in other, it’s like sixth grade debate club.
I wonder what capacity magazine(s) Kamala owns.
Certainly it is a valid cite. But the Wiki page is very likely more current.
Ah, so no bill are ever amended later on, eh? No laws are ever changed by a court ruling?
They submitted evidence that it was impossible in the lower court, which then ruled against it, which is why it got to the CA Supreme court, which ruled that even if impossible, it would not make any difference.
I dont debate people who insult me.
This isn’t about you personally, who as I said has come up with many contributions to this board that I found very interesting. It’s about the posts in this thread. Plus, the idea that questioning what you have posted amount to an attack on your integrity. I don’t get it.
Dude. I hate Harris and think she’s terrible. But these arguments you’re making are really poor.
Take for example your belief that she signed off or even weighed in on Prop H. That’s not what the DA would do. The city attorney would do that, when determining if the matter should be placed on the ballot. There is a high bar to deny a referendum to be placed on the ballot, so apparently the city attorney and council believed that bar had not been met. Who knows. It doesn’t’ matter, because none of that process necessarily involves the DA.
Your argument about microstamping is also of poor quality. The law doesn’t required that the tech be sold by a retailer somewhere. It just says the tech has to be unencumbered by patent. This gambit about a bill being amended? That’s weak sauce. I linked to the actual law that is on the books now. It’s there in plain sight. I’m pretty familiar with CA gun laws and I’m comfortable saying you have it wrong.
The worst part is, none of this matters to the overall point. All of the poor argument and assertions don’t change the calculus or even address the underlying question. I see that as asking if it is hypocritical for Harris to own a gun while being generally anti gun. This is relevant because Harris is a candidate now, but a much better launching point for this is probably Bloomberg, who travels with armed security guards.
I can’t even.
First, this is a lot of telling an zero showing and frankly the story you’re telling doesn’t add up.
Second, even if this is 100% true, and I don’t accept that it is without a cite, the District Attorney and the City Attorney are separate people. So even if one of these people said that Prop H was legal you still have not established that that person was Kamala Harris.
How do you prove someone was in a television ad? Find some evidence that this ad existed.
Here’s an example…
Claim: Madonna was in a Rock the Vote ad in 1990.
Evidence: Here’s a link.
I’m not calling you a liar. I’m asking you to provide a reason to believe you.
One more thing. No one, not once, in this thread has ever questioned that Kamala Harris was DA.
You do know there is no City Council for SF, that it is the *City and County *of SF, with no City council but just a Board of Supervisors? Yes, they also have a City attorney, but the DA sits in on the meetings, I have saw it.
Perhaps yes, as Bone mentioned, neither had the authority to keep Prop H off the ballot. But they certainly weighed in.
Oh, you mean a national Television ad movement, broadcast on every major channel, coast to coast? Not something on a local UHF channel, broadcast in one small area?
Yeah. :dubious::dubious:
That’s not necessarily true either. An ordinance can be put on the ballot by referendum which would be reviewed by the city attorney and then approved by the board. The mayor can put a measure on the ballot, or four supervisors (out of 11) can place a matter on the ballot. For those last two options, it’s not a requirement that the DA would be involved in any way. Prop H was put on the ballot by the last method - four supervisors placed it there.
This is consistent as this item doesn’t show as being discussed at the BoS meeting minutes. Here’s the historical record of the minutes: https://sfgov.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx There were three meetings of the BoS in Dec-04. None of them talk about this measure.
Bullshit.
On a scale of 1-10, what is your confidence in this statement?
On a scale of 1-10, what is your confidence in your statement that Harris “carries” a gun?
The Wikipedia cite for the actual bill.
If you have any evidence that the law was changed, feel free to provide it. Your opinions carry just as much weight as your feelings.
If the law does not make something voluntary, it is, thus, required. That’s pretty much the definition of the law. It’s clear when the very next sentence states that the DA may also do something else. Your opinion is that they could find that microstamping is viable and just…not enforce the law. That’s like a bar being told, “At 2 AM, you must stop serving alcohol and close for the night,” and just keeping the party going anyway until six in the morning, because reasons.
And how would we know the technology is unencumbered by patent? Maybe we should have a legal team ensure that, in fact, no federal patent laws will be violated should gun manufacturers follow California law - the supremacy clause and all that. Hell, we could call in something like the state’s legal department, aptly named the Department of Justice. I dunno, just spitballing here.
And yet, there are actually studies about the use and effectiveness of microstamping technology, and how it can be improved, going back 15 years. I’ll wait for similar studies regarding dragon scales and unicorn blood.
100%. How much weight that carried, i dont know.
I dont know many, many cites quote her as owning a gun, only a coupe says she carries one. She is allowed to carry one in CA. I dont think she has said one way or the other. In Wash DC? I’d say doubtful, in CA, likely.
Kamala Harris Doesn’t Hate Guns, She Carries One: She Just Doesn’t Want You To Have One
However, she said"
*Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), a 2020 Democratic presidential contender, said Thursday that she owns a gun for personal safety reasons, adding that she believes in some changes to gun laws.
“I am a gun owner and I own a gun for probably the reason that a lot of people do, for personal safety,” she told reporters in Iowa.*
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/438514-kamala-harris-i-am-a-gun-owner-for-personal-protection
So if she “owns a gun for personal safety reasons” having that gun in a locked safe at home while she is outside her home doesnt give her any personal safety, now does it?
But she hasnt actually said one way or the other. So, it’s s strong maybe.
She has fought against allowing Californians to have a CCW:
Fight Against Concealed Carry–During her time as California Attorney General, Harris fought against citizens’ ability to secure a concealed carry permit. She did this most obviously in her fight to preserve the “good cause” requirement in California’s concealed carry law. That requirement means a citizen who has no criminal record, and therefore no reason to be denied a concealed permit, must still convince the state that he or she has “good cause” for carrying a gun for self-defense. On February 13, 2014, Breitbart News reported that a three judge panel from the Ninth Circuit struck down the “good cause” requirement. AG Harris responded by pressuring the court to rehear the case en banc, which the court did. As a result, they overturned the earlier decision and upheld the “good cause” requirement, giving the state final say in who can or cannot get a concealed carry license.