No.
I think she has more than the typical number of dangerous people who might wish to do her harm as a result of her law enforcement career.
A little. More than the GOp. Generally the dems are in favor of *mild *gun control. Background checks, assault weapon bans, etc.
But Harris is about as anti-gun as holds major office. She said that gun laws that were unconstitutional were perfectly OK. She was in favor of a total handgun ban. She put into practice a sneak gun law that bans all new handgun models.
And thinks she just might be that “good guy with a gun”?
Maybe. She says that she owns a gun for personal safety. Is that the same as thinking she might be a “good guy with a gun”? Why would you ask me what she thinks? How would I know?
She was the AG. Never a cop. Now, yea, that is a “Peace officer”, sure.
No, she wasn’t.
She unambiguously was a law enforcement officer. California has a law that defines the term.
However, that’s not really the point. She put people in jail. A lot of people… and some of those people are dangerous. Some of those dangerous people aren’t in jail anymore. She has different personal safety issues than the average Joe. That’s the point.
You know, I’m really tired of your bullshit where you claim to have the final word about what’s Constitutional and what’s not.
It’s especially ridiculous, given the number of things whose status vis-a-vis the Constitution have changed so far in this young century. Constitutionality is something particularly fluid these days. Claims like the ones you make about Constitutionality are like claiming to be able to nail Jello to a wall.
Plus right wing violence is on the rise, and an outspoken black woman from California is going to be a major target.
I can’t blame her for owning a gun.
FWIW I do believe the stats and do not believe gun ownership enhances personal safety. And I think that others are free to disagree and to own handguns.
She or another candidate is allowed to make decisions regarding her personal life that I would not make.
And just because on average, according to studies like posted in this thread, having a gun doesn’t increase personal safety. That doesn’t mean that having a gun NEVER increases personal safety.
I’m sure that in some cases depending on the training and competence of the gun owner, and the possible threats to that gun owner, that sometimes it does make sense to have a gun.
…if she lived in New Zealand, then what she is doing would be a crime. It is illegal to own a gun here if the purpose of that gun is for self defense.
But she lives in the United-fucking-States-of-America.
And owning a gun for the purpose of self-defense is enshrined in your constitution.
Did you not know this? Are you not familiar with the Second Amendment?
That an American citizen owns a gun for the purpose of self-defense is the most unsurprising thing I’ve heard on the internet in my entire life.
So this “various dopers” argument you make in your OP just doesn’t cut it. Its a strawman. Various dopers have various complex and nuanced views on gun control. But your OP is not particularly complex and it most certainly isn’t nuanced. Not many people in America argue for “no guns EVAH!” and that certainly isn’t what most dopers here would argue, but that is what your OP implies.
Many (if not most) democrats argue for sensible gun control and if Harris knows how to use her gun, follows best practice gun safety guidelines and she is complying with all applicable state and federal laws: then how is that in conflict with the position that “various dopers” hold?
Of course I know this. I’m not arguing, and have never suggested, that what she is doing is / should be illegal. It’s perfectly legal. That’s not the point.
DigitalC (and others) had absolutely no difficulty at all grasping the conflict. You might want to start with his post #10.
Once the site’s search function is working again, I’ll dig up some examples of the type of argument I was referring to.
no this is a “what about them” argument because a lot of anti gun posters have supported her and I think shes made a few gun control statements herself
But when the alleged leader of the free world advocates or ignores violence against those who oppose him and his its necessary ……
…its not about “the legality.” Its about your incredulity.
I happen to think yoga is “dumb.” But if I found out that Mitt Romney practiced yoga I wouldn’t leap to the position that this was something controversial that needed to be discussed.
Perhaps you should have done that before starting the thread.
As I’ve already pointed out, you seem to be the only one having trouble grasping the conflict. That indicates to me that my OP was plenty clear.
As is what you seemingly want to accomplish with this thread, HD. I’ve defended you in the past, but this is just pathetic. A woman who spent a good portion of her life putting bad guys in prison recognizes that not all of them are still incarcerated, and a few may hold a grudge against her for their imprisonment. I don’t see anything particularly wrong with her decision, nor do I find it hypocritical, dumb, dishonest, are any other adjective you’re trying to portray her as.
There are at least 3 guns in my house currently, and all legal. And yet I support common sense gun reform. Do you find me a hypocrite?
Somewhat off-topic, but being a Senator and presidential candidate, is Kamala still at a point where her self-defense lies in her hands and not in bodyguards of some sort?
I dont have any claims at all, first or last. But the Supreme Court does and they ruled that law Unconstitutional. And so thereby it *was *, like it or no.