Should? Why?
before Obama the last senator elected president was JFK. The trend for 50+ years is to elect someone from outside DC such as Carter, Bush Jr, Clinton, Trump, Reagan.
Unless this is an attempt to pull a You’re No Jack Kennedy, not really seeing how it makes a ton of sense to say we don’t want a JFK type or an Obama type; we want someone like, uh, George Bush Jr, or maybe Richard Nixon.
They’re using their title to add gravitas to their next election.
Senator so and so is running for President.
Voters should consider what they’ve accomplished. What legislation have they sponsored or worked on? How active were they on their committee assignment? What’s their Senate voting record?
But, in real life many voters never inform themselves. They just accept the title in front of the name.
Is it worth bothering to point out again that this is incorrect, given that you apparently didn’t remember any of the other times it was pointed out?
Ok, she *did *want to ban all handguns in the areas under which she had control, and she hasn’t announced any other position.
Can you show me that she doesn’t?
And no, it was never disproved. She supported a handgun ban in SF when she was DA, and has instituted a partial ban as AG of CA.
The GOP and the NRA will come out with her actions and statements showing she was in favor of such a ban.
She will then have the choice of saying she still is, or a flip-flop. Neither will help.
Here’s where we discussed this before:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=866326&highlight=harris+handguns&page=4
and you pointed out: “There’s still a big difference between banning guns in San Francisco and banning them everywhere.” which is true. But it didnt disprove that harris wanted to ban handguns.
And can you show me that you don’t support using Irish babies as a food source?
You’re the one making the claim, here, so you’re the one who needs the evidence. And the actual evidence is that she wanted to ban all handguns in San Francisco, and some handguns in California. Neither of those comes anywhere close to “all handguns”.
How does that reference make any sense whatsoever? Did she ban handguns in SF ironically?
As opposed to the guy who’s currently in the White House–a guy whose feet were bone dry because he’d NEVER held political office and, in fact, knew very little about the Constitution or how the government worked? Yeah, not so sure that’s going to work against her.
Here’s her stance on gun control as of August 29, 2017, according to OnTheIssues:
No guns to felons or seriously mentally ill folks? Radicalism! :rolleyes: You can bet, though, that the GOP will paint her as “wanting to take away all our guns!” because her voting record gave her only a 7% rating by the NRA, but more because it worked so well when they tried it on Obama. Oh, wait, he won anyway.
I was trying to point out the absurdity in DrDeth asking us to prove a negative. How do we know that she doesn’t want to ban handguns everywhere in the whole world? The correct answer is “what makes you think she does?”. Just as I have no actual reason to think that DrDeth wants to eat babies, so too does he have no actual reason to think that Harris wants to ban guns everywhere.
Frankly, any discussion of what the NRA is going to say about a Democratic candidate is absurdum infinitum anyway. A Democratic candidate could run on a platform of the US government sending a free AK-47 to every man, woman and child in the US (white citizens only!) on a weekly basis, and the NRA would still run ads against them.
Harris has acted consistent with someone who wants to ban handguns. She supported the effort in SF, in direct contradiction of state preemption law. As AG, she was responsible for adding magical microstamping non existent technology to the requirements to get on the CA not unsafe roster.
As far as anyone who cares about gun rights is concerned, she is a gun banner. If you are sympathetic to that view, then she’s probably fine. To me, I’d rather have Trump. I’d also rather have the office vacant. I’d also rather have a platypus as president.
The good thing is I think she has no chance at all, so the more attention she gets the better. I hope the dems nominate her. Watching her get crushed would be entertaining. Of course, I thought Clinton would win so my predictions are totally valuable.
This makes me so, so sad. Trump is moving America steps further in the direction of misogyny, racial hatred, a polluted environment, and much more. Maybe Harris would move the country a bit in the direction of more gun control. Stopping the latter shouldn’t be more important than stopping the former. It’s hard for me to imagine what sort of moral compass could guide a decent person to such a conclusion.
She wanted to ban all handguns in SF. She ruled it was legal and Constitutional. Has she mollified or changed her stance?
Since the current discussion has nothing to do with satire, Ireland or Swift I can confidently say you did a rather lame job of pointing out someone else’s absurdity.
His position isn’t remotely absurd even if it’s a little overreacting. Harris used two different jobs to push for gun control, one of which was a pretty sweeping ban. The rather pedantic “debunking” of his position isn’t very impressive and will utterly fail if that is the route Harris uses to defend herself from these charges.
You’re cute, though. So you got that going for you, anyway.
I know right? I thought she’d get 330+ electoral votes. I lost a few beers on that one.
Dont feel too bad, so did almost everyone else.
Now, if you thought* Kerry *was gonna win…
Including Trump.
Do you think that continuing to state something false will make it true?
In debate she celebrated her record at confiscating guns in the hands of those who had no legal right to them and support measures “to prevent dangerous people from obtaining guns, enhance background checks laws and renew the assault weapons ban.” (understood that the latter won’t play well in many circles). She explicitly believes that " it’s a false choice to suggest you are either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away."
-
Before Heller several cities were testing the theory that it was constitutional to ban handguns in their localities. SF was one of them and there it did not get past state constitution level. Heller has made that moot. Agree or disagree with their ruling SCOTUS has spoken and thoughts about banning handguns held before Heller are now informed by new facts. There is NO risk that handguns will be banned, no possibility of slipping down any slope to there no matter how much lard greases the hill.
-
Gun rights will simply NOT be the deciding factor for any significant number of swingable votes. Whatever we each may think of the so-called “smart gun safety laws” that pretty much every Democrat running will endorse, it is baked in and the risk will be more to the candidate who less strongly supports them than to one who panders to those who can be swayed by false claims of what someone really thinks. Yeah those whose votes are primarily determined by fears regarding gun rights will falsely call her a “gun grabber” … but those who in today’s world are most concerned about preserving gun rights are solidly in the GOP camp already and turnout of many others on the other side would be negatively impacted more by being insufficiently in favor of stricter gun regs.