Politics The Kamala Harris Thread

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
coconut tree as a verbal twitch?
 
Phatguysrule said:
Kamala Harris specifically said in her speech a few days ago that she wants to "ban assault weapons".
Click to expand...
I was thinking about what you said about the ban affecting hunting rifles and guns. That would never fly but I haven't seen a specific proposal that defines assault weapons in a way that would also affect hunting rifles or guns.
 
PCmor7 said:
I think we all would be behind this. The problem is one of the two major political ideologies in the country right now wants there to be more guns that are easier to obtain and accessible to everyone while simultaneously increasing the wealth gap, destabilizing strong public education and opportunities for further education, fighting affordable healthcare (including mental and emotional diagnosis, treatment and destigmatization just because the Democrats beat them to it) and sewing all kinds of social division.

Obviously, there's a correlation between violence and our mediocre happiness index and poverty level. Happy people with stable lives aren't going to risk that by getting into stupid fights.

There are other steps that could be taken beyond banning guns, too. We keep hearing how it's people killing people, not guns killing people, but the U.S. right won't even come to the table to talk about insurance, gun safes, background checks, better firearm education and testing for those that want to own firearms and regulations of certain types of guns or modifications. And that's mostly driven by legislators in the pockets of the NRA and gun lobby, which now has extended just by the tenor of American politics where neither side can take the same position on an issue to the entire Republican Party.

And I'm a gun owner.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not arguing in support of any right wing ideologies. Since they turned the NRA from a legitimately fantastic safety organization into a nut factory I've had no interest in any gun culture.

I'm simply discussing the things we could do even in the current environment.

For example, we could actually create funding for a branch of the ATF to handle universal gun safety and self defense training including concealed carry, then we could offer reciprocity across the whole country. Or the ATF could oversee local testing and classes if that were preferred.

I don't think any Republicans would be opposed to that. In fact they'd probably be all over it. We could even offer tax credits to people who take the classes every year.

We could eliminate background checks at point of sale in exchange for a universal policy that all dangerous felons would be prohibited from access to firearms and would have a firearms restriction on their ID. This would make it a felony for any person (including sales clerks) to give a restricted person access to a firearm.

All gun transfers in the country (including loans between family members) would require showing a valid unrestricted ID (drivers license or state ID).

We already have a database of felons (and dangerous people). We'd just need them all to get updated ID with the restrictions. Every state has this capability today with current equipment and policies.

AKlX4P4.jpeg


Now there is no longer a push for a database of gun owners. Just an easily accessible, encoded database of dangerous people. Why would anybody oppose this?

Anybody who provides guns to these people are prosecuted, given a felony (along with whatever fines and jail time comes along with it), and added to the list.

No normal people want psychos running around with guns. This allows everyone to help be a part of the solution.

If a politician were to support these kinds of changes while advocating that the real solution to violent crime was to improve access to education and healthcare they'd find very little pushback.

And let's be real, the Democrats have had multiple opportunities to get universal healthcare or at least a public option in place over the last 15 years and have refused to do it.

They aren't as bad as Republicans but they aren't actually getting good things done either.

They have had opportunities and failed miserably.

I'm going to vote for the democrat in the upcoming election, but I almost feel as though the Republicans are actual clowns who behave so horrendously so that we'll be grateful to have a right wing democrat as an option to vote for.
 
Last edited:
crandc said:
There are plenty of responsible gun owners who, for example, don't think domestic abusers or people on terrorist watch list or people adjudicated to have such severe mental illness they can't care for themselves to have access to unlimited firearms.
These restrictions were lifted by Trump administration. One of very first acts.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's true.

And I'm not advocating for any of those people to have access to guns. Even though with 400 million guns in the country, and the freedom to manufacture that we have in this country, they will have access to them if they have enough motivation.

We can do a better job of restricting them with other means though.

Ideally by empowering everyone to help prevent them from accessing guns rather than just at the point of sale.
 
Kano John said:
I was thinking about what you said about the ban affecting hunting rifles and guns. That would never fly but I haven't seen a specific proposal that defines assault weapons in a way that would also affect hunting rifles or guns.
Click to expand...
And my point is this. How could you possibly ban the features of an AR-15 without banning semi-automatic hunting rifles?

They are exactly the same as a semi-automatic hunting rifle.

I guess that's maybe where we should start. These people don't understand that AR-15 is no more dangerous than nearly every hunting rifle in the country. It's no more dangerous than most handguns sold today.

They either don't understand that or they are being dishonest in their implication.

*Edit*
And then we have to consider that fully automatic weapons are easier to make than semi-automatic weapons.

If we were to ban all semi-automatic weapons there would be huge demand on the black market for weapons that can fire quickly without having to reload or re-cock. The black market would be primed for automatic weapons. Why would they ever even make semi-auto if they aren't legal?

It would be far more efficient for a black market weapons manufacturer to just manufacturing fully automatic machine guns.

In fact, if the guy who shot at Donald Trump had been using a semi-automatic 30-06, Trump is probably not alive today or at least I bet he'd be unable to run for president.
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
We could eliminate background checks at point of sale in exchange for a universal policy that all dangerous felons would be prohibited from access to firearms and would have a firearms restriction on their ID. This would make it a felony for any person (including sales clerks) to give a restricted person access to a firearm.

All gun transfers in the country (including loans between family members) would require showing a valid unrestricted ID (drivers license or state ID).

We already have a database of felons (and dangerous people). We'd just need them all to get updated ID with the restrictions. Every state has this capability today with current equipment and policies.
Click to expand...

How do you deal with cases where the person has just been declared dangerous and/or a felon? You can force them to get a new license, but they could just say they lost their old one, and then use that to buy guns.

barfo
 
beast crnjo said:
Hey, Joe Biden is 103 years old; Kamala is just stupid.
Click to expand...

It takes a certain level of stupidity to believe that Harris wouldn’t run circles around Donna on an intellectual level.

Don’t dodge the debate Donna!
 
barfo said:
How do you deal with cases where the person has just been declared dangerous and/or a felon? You can force them to get a new license, but they could just say they lost their old one, and then use that to buy guns.

barfo
Click to expand...
If they can't provide a current, valid (and unrestricted) ID then they can't buy the firearm. At point of sale they would be able to search the database for that ID number to verify that the ID is current, valid, and unrestricted.

Also, I (as a police officer) would probably take the person's ID and hole punch it over the restricted area. To invalidate that specific ID card. Or maybe just confiscate it altogether.
 
Phatguysrule said:
If they can't provide a current valid (and unrestricted) ID then they can't buy the firearm. At point of sale they would be able to log on to the database to verify that the ID is current and valid and unrestricted.
Click to expand...

Ah, so every gun purchaser would be checked against a database. OK.

Also, I (as a police officer) would probably take the person's ID and hole punch it over the restricted area. To invalidate that specific ID card. Or maybe just confiscate it altogether.
Click to expand...

That seems like putting the punishment cart before the due process horse.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Ah, so every gun purchaser would be checked against a database. OK.
Click to expand...

Not just gun purchasers. This could (and certainly would) be used for many other reasons as well. And not a database of gun owners. A database of people with valid identification. Which also determines if people are dangerous. And this database would be free. You wouldn't have to pay more money to have it checked. And it would be instant.

barfo said:
That seems like putting the punishment cart before the due process horse.

barfo
Click to expand...
What punishment? If they are found to be nonviolent, non-dangerous, and worthy of no restrictions then they'll have an updated ID mailed to them for free, or they can go pick it up at a local DMV.

There is no additional punishment beyond what already happens.
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
And my point is this. How could you possibly ban the features of an AR-15 without banning semi-automatic hunting rifles?

They are exactly the same as a semi-automatic hunting rifle.

I guess that's maybe where we should start. These people don't understand that AR-15 is no more dangerous than nearly every hunting rifle in the country. It's no more dangerous than most handguns sold today.

They either don't understand that or they are being dishonest in their implication.

*Edit*
And then we have to consider that fully automatic weapons are easier to make than semi-automatic weapons.

If we were to ban all semi-automatic weapons there would be huge demand on the black market for weapons that can fire quickly without having to reload or re-cock. The black market would be primed for automatic weapons. Why would they ever even make semi-auto if they aren't legal?

It would be far more efficient for a black market weapons manufacturer to just manufacturing fully automatic machine guns.

In fact, if the guy who shot at Donald Trump had been using a semi-automatic 30-06, Trump is probably not alive today or at least I bet he'd be unable to run for president.
Click to expand...

I think that the terminologies that are being used may not be fully understood. People who talk about banning semi-automatic weapons may be thinking of weapons that fire continuously like a fully automatic or machine gun type weapons. I agree that there needs to be much more education and discussion about the subject to find solutions to the tragic mass shootings this country has seen over the years.
 
Kano John said:
I think that the terminologies that are being used may not be fully understood. People who talk about banning semi-automatic weapons may be thinking of weapons that fire continuously like a fully automatic or machine gun type weapons. I agree that there needs to be much more education and discussion about the subject to find solutions to the tragic mass shootings this country has seen over the years.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that misunderstanding is probably likely.

So then, you have to take the next step and understand that fully automatic weapons are already banned. And virtually no crime is ever committed with those kind of weapons in this country.

So then what is the point of the talk of "assault weapons" bans?

This brings me back to my point, that they are either being dishonest or displaying their ignorance.

Either of which is going to cost them votes against Trump and completely goes against their portrayal of themselves as being more educated, trustworthy, and for the people.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Not just gun purchasers. This could be used for many other reasons as well. And not a database of gun owners. A database of people with valid identification. Which also determines if people are dangerous.
Click to expand...

I personally have no problem with this, but there's a rather large fraction of the citizenry who will strongly object, because they are convinced that government is evil and spying on them and plotting to take their guns and their SUVs and a fraction of their pay.

What punishment? If they are found to be nonviolent non-dangerous and worthy of no restrictions then they'll have an updated ID mailed to them for free, or they can go pick it up at a local DMV.

There is no additional punishment beyond what already happens.
Click to expand...

You are giving the police powers they don't currently have. Currently, a cop can't unilaterally decide that someone shouldn't be able to buy guns. Again, I don't object myself, but a lot of people will.

barfo
 
barfo said:
I personally have no problem with this, but there's a rather large fraction of the citizenry who will strongly object, because they are convinced that government is evil and spying on them and plotting to take their guns and their SUVs and a fraction of their pay.
Click to expand...
There are no new databases created here. There are no new restrictions here. Felons are already prohibited from buying firearms.

The people you're talking about tend to want felons and criminals punished more harshly and prevented from getting access to guns.

So while I agree with some of your statements here, I disagree with the overall premise.

barfo said:
You are giving the police powers they don't currently have. Currently, a cop can't unilaterally decide that someone shouldn't be able to buy guns. Again, I don't object myself, but a lot of people will.

barfo
Click to expand...
Yes, police can absolutely confiscate your ID if they believe it is fake or can be used in a harmful way in many states. Like Florida, for instance. I don't know every state's laws.

If they determine you to be too dangerous to buy guns they could absolutely take your ID or prevent you from even entering your own home temporarily if you're deemed a threat to somebody inside. Or that you entering may even lead to a problem. Even without arresting you.

Police absolutely have the power to temporarily remove your rights. 100%

*Edit* I would advocate for language to be added that specifies how and when this should happen.
 
Last edited:
beast crnjo said:
Funny how lefties are getting excited over a candidate being installed that got 0 delegate votes in 2020
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3wpj93QEzZY?feature=share
Click to expand...

Not as funny as getting excited over a guy who doesn't do press conferences to explain his non-existent or impractical platform, raped women, is a felon, tried to overthrow the government, turned his assassination attempt into a grift and wanders off talking about sharks and batteries.
 
PCmor7 said:
Not as funny as getting excited over a guy who doesn't do press conferences to explain his non-existent or impractical platform, raped women, is a felon, tried to overthrow the government, turned his assassination attempt into a grift and wanders off talking about sharks and batteries.
Click to expand...

still waiting on their health care reform..
 
My condition (being trans) has as recently as 2016 been labeled a mental illness, and is still targeted to be marked as such again. I’m sure a database of dangerous people won’t be used politically against marginalized people who often skew left of the parties in charge. (Daily reminder that gun control started to be a thing because of the black panthers who were communist and armed for their own safety)
 
Everything Beagle said:
My condition (being trans) has as recently as 2016 been labeled a mental illness, and is still targeted to be marked as such again. I’m sure a database of dangerous people won’t be used politically against marginalized people who often skew left of the parties in charge. (Daily reminder that gun control started to be a thing because of the black panthers who were communist and armed for their own safety)
Click to expand...
Unless you're legally marked as a felon or dangerous person you wouldn't be restricted.

I'm not talking about creating any new database. In fact, I'm opposed to it.

This database already exists or we'd never know who is a felon.

As I've mentioned before (though not specifically in this thread), I would also advocate that there be a court or process created to less expensively get people off of this list who are wrongly added to it. This would also include the no-fly lists that it seems many people have been wrongly added to. This would also help garner the support of Republicans and libertarians.

*Edit*
And, once again, Democrats could have codified protections multiple times in the last 15 to 20 years. They have chosen not to do so.
 
MickZagger said:
still waiting on their health care reform..
Click to expand...
The Affordable Care Act was a good first step - Especially that Insurance Companies can no longer exclude pre existing conditions. Still have a long way to go but I think lowering the Medicare age is a good next step. The Republican platform calls for reducing funding for Social Security as well as Medicare/Medicaid.
 
Everything Beagle said:
This is the most empty reassurance you could possibly give me.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what else you want me to say. I think Democrats should do a better job of protecting people who don't harm others in general. It should be codified in the Constitution. They had the presidency and congress multiple times in the last 20 years.

When Republicans had that power they used it. Democrats tend to make excuses.

I would not support a policy that would allow the kind of persecution you're referring to.

But any restriction could be expanded to impact anybody. Are you advocating for no restrictions at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top