Kamala Harris called out for owning a handgun

"Kamala Harris owns a handgun. That's disqualifying for a 2020 Democrat in my book.

"Harris, a former DA, apparently thinks it's fine to own a handgun for personal safety. That's a position held by the NRA, not progressive Democrats.....

"The best defense against a 'bad guy with a gun,' the NRA falsely argues, is 'a good guy with a gun.' ....

"She played to the heartland gathering by suggesting it is wise to own a handgun for protection simply because you're afraid. Such thinking presumably extends to people riding the subway or walking home at night, or driving a car among road-raged motorists. It is exactly the bogus argument that gun opponents are seeking to deflect.

"Federal statistics for 2015, for example, show women are far more likely to be shot to death by an intimate partner than killed by a stranger using any means. An earlier study found that women living in a home with guns are three times as likely to be killed at home....

"Harris has wisely called for banning assault weapons and requiring universal background checks for gun purchasers. However, she seems to misunderstand the nuances of the gun control argument — particularly among elected officials and candidates for high office, whose actions speak loudly."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...table-2020-democratic-race-column/3567371002/

She's probably trying to pander to gun owners. It's good that she supports ubc's and another awb. However, handguns are the greater evil. They are easy to conceal and thus well-suited for criminal purposes. The presence of a handgun in the home is associated with a significantly increased risk of being murdered.

 

Such is simply too bad. The united state supreme court ruled in Heller that handguns are protected for private ownership by the second amendment of the united state constitution, because they are in common use for legal purposes. They further ruled that regardless of how commonly used they may be for criminal purposes, that does nothing to change their constitutional protections.

According to the full so-called "study" by Arthur Kellermann, not simply cherry picked quotations from it, the supposed increase was only observed in those who were already predisposed towards engaging in violent and illegal activities, such as domestic violence, drug abuse, drug dealing, and other similar criminal acts.

 

Tons of registered Democrats own guns.
Lots of Independents own guns.
Don't know why you would think that would "disqualify" a candidate - especially an ex-DA, given how often they are threatened.

 

I think he meant that it would be disqualifying in the minds of Democratic primary voters, although they seem tolerant of quite a bit of hypocrisy.

 

"Kamala Harris called out for owning a handgun"

the left is not against hand guns, we are against machine guns and assault weapons being so easy to buy

how many on the right are for banning machine guns, but own a hand gun... the logic of this thread is that they are all hypocrites

when battery power improves I will also be against high powered laser guns that can cut threw people like butter... but I will still support hand guns and rifles

 

No it wouldn't. Millions of registered Democrats own guns.
The number of people who feel ALL guns should be banned is quite low - under 10%.

 

Sigh...I said Democratic primary voters. I realize many Democrats and liberals own guns and some even hunt (at least in the South), but they are a tiny percentage of the wingnuts slobbering over the current list of crazies.

 

Machine guns are by no means easy to buy. The price alone deters most from even considering going through the lengthy process. As for so called assualt weapons, they are no more easier to buy that any other widely bought firearm.

Handguns are used in mass shootings more than so called assault weapons and have killed more people. So why go after them instead of handguns?

 

Our Second Amendment is express; we should have no security problems in our free States.

 

Donald Trump seems to disagree - he's the one who signed the bump-stock ban, not Obama. In fact, Obama signed zero restrictions on guns.

 

Precisely. If the MSM and the DNC and Hollywood elites are to go by then the average Dem Party voter is rabidly anti-gun while also being rabidly pro-legalization of Marijuana and while being rabid feminists. Well Harris is on record as having stated that she did drugs while prosecuting drug users and now it's revealed that she is a gun owner, and it has already been established by one of her former lovers that she slept her way up the political ladder. But since leftists are very flexible when it comes to the ethics and honor and integrity of their own politicians . . . none of that should prevent them from promoting her to the max.

 

What objection can there be to a Posse Comitatus app. for law enforcement? Gun lovers could be required to participate when lawfully necessary.

 

Dude - the "average" Democrat is not "rabid anti-gun". Less than ten percent of the entire population is anti-gun. There are about 60% of Americans who want stricter controls like longer waiting periods.

And no ****ing way some Republican is going to lecture me on ethics after the moronic lier and womanizer you just elected to office. No ****ing way in hell.

 

If the MSM and the DNC and Hollywood elites are to go by . . . so does your response mean that one need to define the word IF?

As to the other bit of screed, let's go with the following rebuttal:

 

and I support machine guns being hard to buy, don't you? and I bet you still support hand guns being easy to buy.... is that hypocritical... no -- and that is my point

 

You can take my phased plasma rifle in the 40 W range from my cold, dead fingers.

https://terminator.fandom.com/wiki/Westinghouse_M-27_Phased_Plasma_Pulse_Rifle

 

No actually. If you're a law abiding citizen, you shouldn't have to go through such a process.

How easy it is to buy a handgun, according to you?

 

I support returning gun rights to felons once they've successfully completed their sentences. Voting too.

If that scares you, don't let them out.

 

yes, so do I.. cause I think owning a gun is a right, not a privilege

 

And you support arbitrary and capricious infringements against that right (such as intentionally making it difficult to acquire an automatic or a handgun).... why exactly?

 

you support everyone being able to easily buy a machine gun?.... why exactly?

and no, I think a handgun should be like buying a pack of smokes, ID only, order from Amazon.com if you want

do you think you should be able to buy a machine gun on Amazon.com?

 

As I support the free exercise of all similar rights. Like voting or assembly or speech or right to counsel or against cruel and unusual punishment or to bond or trial by jury or against unreasonable search and seizure or to due process of law

 

I support freedom of speech too, but not the right to make death threats

 

You're comparing apples and wood.

Death threat: Specifically articulable actions, with commensurate culpable mental state, made against both the peace and dignity of the state and against a specific person IS NOT simple possession of a tool in common use for lawful purpose which I have an explicitly enumerated right to.

See how that works?

I support making criminal actual behavior that is violative of the rights of others. I do not support curtailing the rights of all or many or few because of what someone MIGHT do at some point. Rather, the rights of the person who has committed the actual offense, after BARD evidence, trial etc, shall be taken or curtailed and only to the extent absolutely necessary. Yes, at times this will mean execution or life incarceration. But only to THAT person who it was proven BARD after trial by jury and counsel etc ACTUALLY did the thing.
Not everyone preemptively.

 

just like some speech is restricted, so is some guns

you can't say bomb on a plane as an example

even if you mean the word as "that show was a total bomb", because of the panic it may cause, even if not intentional