Marge and Lisa like him.
I don’t get the joke. Harris is doing something that (I presume) is perfectly legal. Very few Democrats* have taken the position that keeping a legal handgun in your residence for personal protection is, or should be, illegal.
*I am unaware of any, but I won’t say “none” because there could be an outlier or two.
Mainly, we’re pointing and laughing because of a few very vocally anti-gun members here, who are also big time Democrats, who routinely slander gun owners as perverts and murderers-in-waiting. I, personally, don’t care whether she owns one gun, a thousand guns, or no gun at all. Any of those choices are her right as a citizen of this country.
Aw, now my feelings are hurt. Both of them. 
That could be true and I’ve just missed it. But the “anti-gun” sentiment I’ve seen around here is more aligned with “let’s have sensible gun laws,” not “let’s ban personal possession of handguns.”
So this is actually a childish pitting of a small amount of unnamed posters?
You’ve definitely missed it. For example, this was posted yesterday:
The Democratic Party is a big tent, and that some Democratic members and elected officials happen to own guns is not a dealbreaker for me. I happen to be in the minority even among Democrats, I would like guns to be banned, confiscated, and melted down. But I’m not going to let the good be the enemy of the perfect, so if one Democratic candidate is a gun owner, is for sensible gun controls, and is reasonably aligned with my views, I’m perfectly willing to vote for him or her.
You sure showed us. Pwned, y’all!
From your post, I suspect you will find any gun controls to be sensible. But Harris (and most California Democrats) promotes stupid gun controls that infringe Constitutional rights without reducing violent crime.
And, again, the laws are not applied to everyone. Peace officers may own firearms which I may not? My niece is a local police officer now, but she in no way has training nor experience which I do not. Harris, as a peace officer, Senator, or just being well-connected, apparently has rights I can not exercise because I am not allowed either open carry or concealed carry of a firearm.
And then there is the post just before your reply!
Speaking as someone who likes to “point and laugh” at SDMB gunslingers, I can attest that you are wrong about me and many other rational Dopers. I’ve thought of getting a gun myself for self-protection.
We don’t point and laugh at you because you own guns. We point and laugh because of your complete lack of logic (e.g. as in this very thread), at the contortions you go through to pretend gunslinging (even without a background check) is a “natural right”, at your need to defend cowardly cops or scum like Zimmerman, and at your pompous but misplaced faith in your own self-righteousness.
Hope this helps.
We’re going to disagree about what is Constitutional. I interpret the 2nd as saying that you may own a gun WHILE YOU ARE A MEMBER OF AN ORGANIZED MILITIA, which in these times means the National Guard.
I mean, so what? Some Democrats want to cut down drastically on the number of privately-owned firearms in the country. Some don’t. Some want to cut down on them, but while they’re legal, also want to own one.
There are a variety of different takes on firearms. There’s no Trump figure among Democrats who enforces groupthink. We can disagree.
This is a super lame attempt at pwnage, the kind of thing I coulda smacked down in junior high.
Caveat, I didn’t read the article. But from the description, she owns a firearm for personal protection. She didn’t say she carries it with her outside of her home. So, I’m not sure she has any rights you don’t have.
Silly tom. It’s a matter of applied linguistics, don’t’cha know? In the pro-gun culture, to be a ‘gun-grabber’ doesn’t have its literal English meaning, but rather it means that one favors restrictions on guns (e.g. background checks for sales at gun shows) that don’t currently exist.
If someone (like me!) were to actually favor confiscation of some types of firearms, they’d have to come up with a new term to describe them, to differentiate that person from the people they already call ‘gun grabbers.’ 
I’m an advocate of some pretty stringent gun control measures, but even I have no opposition to keeping a handgun in your home in case your deadbolts and window locks just don’t do the job. I think it’s a hell of a bad idea unless you live in a very dangerous neighborhood, but it’s each person’s choice.
Ah, nutpicking then.
There’s some stuff to unpack here.
First, of course cops have laws that apply to them differently. They’re tasked with enforcing the state’s monopoly on violence. There’s nothing at all remarkable about that.
As for Harris, though, what specific rights do you think she has that you do not? Are you allowed open carry in the same places she is, for example?
If you wanted to pit begbert2, why didn’t you just pit begbert2 instead of this weird half assed non-pitting of people who might post like him?
This isn’t a Pitting, at all, chief. This is Elections.
No, I understand you and the other gun control mavens perfectly well after having read your opinions here many times. I will leave it at that since I don’t want to derail this into gun control thread #1,000, 000 where no new points will be made and no minds will be changed