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)
crandc said:
Republican controlled states are responding to surge of interest with Harris at top of ticket by enacting regulations making it harder to conduct voter registration drives.
Click to expand...

Well, Tom Fitton says there's a problem ....

 
They use MAGA as their slogan because MAWCMA doesn't flow right
 
More than 40 former Department of Justice officials from both parties signed endorsement of Harris.
 
MickZagger said:
I’m convinced that it’s because they live in an information bubble that is based out of fear. Trump thrives on the fear and encourages to them that the news they listen to is ‘fake’.

I mean if you turn on AM radio, even in a market like Portland it is diluted with right wing radio shows that incite fear, talk about how Sleepy Joe wants trans kids to compete in the wrong gender sports and a whole myriad of social things that really have no impact on peoples day to day life.

All the media markets ie podcasts, radio shows, blogs, twitter etc are just saturated with fear based talking heads trying to cash in on this stuff.

I just listened to Lars Larson the other day go on a rant about how Kamala Harris is low IQ. He beats that into his followers heads and they believe it, while the people who actually have a clue know that she’s exponentially smarter than Trump and it’s not close.

Republican Party has been on a fear based platform for years (they’re taking our guns!). Now with all the different outlets, opinions and mouth breathers it’s been amped up even more. Trump put accelerant on that fire and now we’re where we are at.

These people don’t believe any actual scientific facts, because they’re told America is going to hell in a hand basket and the main stream media can’t be trusted.

On the plus side, many fiscal conservatives have dropped the party since Trump came about and the party is populated with degenerates.

The country is split between Trader Joe’s types and Walmart shoppers.

just my take.
Click to expand...
Democrats do everything they they can to feed into this as well. The cries for an "assault weapon ban" being just one example of their ignorance/deception.
 
Last edited:
Strenuus said:
It should never take this long or have this many tragedies to have sensible gun laws. It's infuriating.
Click to expand...
The "assault weapons ban" has nothing to do with sensible gun laws.

Assault weapons (automatic) are already banned (except with a rigorous background check and signing up for an expensive permit that allows the ATF to randomly search any and all of your personal property and belongings) and are virtually never used in any crime.

The "Assault weapon ban" is literally a law to make most commonly used hunting rifles and possibly handguns guns illegal. Literally a law to "take our guns".

I'd be interested in knowing what sensible gun law you'd suggest that wouldn't violate the 2nd amendment.

*Edit* Ideally, which would also reduce crime, or at least prevent some mass shootings
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
The "assault weapons ban" has nothing to do with sensible gun laws.

Assault weapons (automatic) are already banned (except with a rigorous background check and signing up for an expensive permit that allows the ATF to randomly search any and all of your personal property and belongings) and are virtually never used in any crime.

The "Assault weapon ban" is literally a law to make most commonly used hunting rifles guns illegal. Literally a law to "take our guns".

I'd be interested in knowing what sensible gun law you'd suggest that wouldn't violate the 2nd amendment.

*Edit* Ideally, which would also reduce crime, or at least prevent some mass shootings
Click to expand...

You do realize I wasn't arguing with you, yes? I was actually agreeing lol
 
Strenuus said:
You do realize I wasn't arguing with you, yes? I was actually agreeing lol
Click to expand...
It's okay. I wasn't necessarily arguing either. I didn't take your comment as an argument, more as an opportunity to expand on the point a bit.

The offer is open to everyone. Violence in this country, including gun violence, is a problem we need to address. And it won't be addressed effectively if we don't have the discussion.
 
Phatguysrule said:
The "Assault weapon ban" is literally a law to make most commonly used hunting rifles and possibly handguns guns illegal. Literally a law to "take our guns".
Click to expand...

No. It's not.

I agree with you on a lot, and I would agree if you said there were some gun-control lobbyists or legislators what want to include hunting rifles and handguns, but what you are posting here isn't a thing.

I live in a very right-wing, gun-happy, hunting-happy community, and no one is concerned that an assault weapon ban is going to keep them from hunting or having a handgun in their dresser drawer. They are concerned that an assault weapon ban will take some of their fun shooting-range weapons away and will be the first step to stricter gun laws that would eventually affect hunting rifles and handguns.

They are even more concerned about background checks and laws that would keep keep them from being able to purchase a gun because they had some history of violence in their background, which, it seems a lot of them do.
 
PCmor7 said:
No. It's not.

I agree with you on a lot, and I would agree if you said there were some gun-control lobbyists or legislators what want to include hunting rifles and handguns, but what you are posting here isn't a thing.

I live in a very right-wing, gun-happy, hunting-happy community, and no one is concerned that an assault weapon ban is going to keep them from hunting or having a handgun in their dresser drawer. They are concerned that an assault weapon ban will take some of their fun shooting-range weapons away and will be the first step to stricter gun laws that would eventually affect hunting rifles and handguns.

They are even more concerned about background checks and laws that would keep keep them from being able to purchase a gun because they had some history of violence in their background, which, it seems a lot of them do.
Click to expand...
Can you give me an example of an "assault weapon ban" law which will change anything but will not impact semi automatic hunting rifles or handguns?
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
Can you give me an example of an "assault weapon ban" law which will change anything but will not impact semi automatic hunting rifles or handguns?
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of any current "assault weapons ban" legislation at the State or National level. Can you direct me to any current proposals so that I can read up?
 
Kano John said:
I'm not aware of any current "assault weapons ban" legislation at the State or National level. Can you direct me to any current proposals so that I can read up?
Click to expand...
Kamala Harris specifically said in her speech a few days ago that she wants to "ban assault weapons".
 
Phatguysrule said:
It's okay. I wasn't necessarily arguing either. I didn't take your comment as an argument, more as an opportunity to expand on the point a bit.

The offer is open to everyone. Violence in this country, including gun violence, is a problem we need to address. And it won't be addressed effectively if we don't have the discussion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the discussion does need to happen. But sensible laws dont happen as long as NRA keeps misrepresenting the 2A. Thats where the struggle is coming in on that side.

If the NRA was a serious organization, they would be just as appalled about the mass shootings. But they arent. That, in my opinion, is worse than "BAN EVERYTHING."

the 2A can work. Its there for a reason (antiquated or not), but there needs to be good-faith talks about limiting access, background checks FEDERALLY (Imo... states cant be trusted).
 
Strenuus said:
Yeah, the discussion does need to happen. But sensible laws dont happen as long as NRA keeps misrepresenting the 2A. Thats where the struggle is coming in on that side.

If the NRA was a serious organization, they would be just as appalled about the mass shootings. But they arent. That, in my opinion, is worse than "BAN EVERYTHING."

the 2A can work. Its there for a reason (antiquated or not), but there needs to be good-faith talks about limiting access, background checks FEDERALLY (Imo... states cant be trusted).
Click to expand...
The NRA isn't a consideration in the 2nd amendment though. The NRA can go away tomorrow and the 2nd amendment will still mean what it means.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
 
Phatguysrule said:
The NRA isn't a consideration in the 2nd amendment though. The NRA can go away tomorrow and the 2nd amendment will still mean what it means.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
Click to expand...
You left out "a well regulated militia". It was about a popular militia, not every nut having a personal armada.
 
crandc said:
You left out "a well regulated militia". It was about a popular militia, not every nut having a personal armada.
Click to expand...
Good point. That just describes the purpose for the right and the type of arms they intended the population have a right to.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"Militia" is unorganized infantry. At the time it was written "well regulated" meant to be high functioning and capable. Reliable.

Most militia in those days were very unreliable. To the point that regular military did not like to count on them.

The intent was that every American have the right to own transport and practice with arms equivalent to the infantry soldier of the time.

They didn't specifically list weapons because they knew that the weapons would change. They would evolve. They would improve with time.

This was very specifically written to ensure that the American population be armed and well practiced with equivalent weaponry of the typical infantry soldier of the same time. So that they could defend themselves and their country as capably and reliably as possible.

This is the intent of the founding fathers. We can change this. But it will require a constitutional amendment (most likely via constitutional convention). And the vast majority of states are opposed to these kinds of restrictions.

*Edit* However, The Constitution does allow us to restrict the rights of people who have broken the law. So I think you're correct. "Nuts" (people who have proven to be unsafe or dangerous) should be prevented from owning or even possessing firearms of any kind.

But I also believe that the ratio of restricted people should be low. Probably no more than 1% of the population in any region.

We can reduce the frequency and severity of violence in our country. I maintain the most effective way to do this is via access to education and minimizing the motivations to obtain such weaponry by increasing access (ideally universally) to services such as health care and a robust social safety net.
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
We can reduce the frequency and severity of violence in our country. I maintain the most effective way to do this is via access to education and minimizing the motivations to obtain such weaponry by increasing access (ideally universally) to services such as health care and a robust social safety net.
Click to expand...

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.
 
This Kamala Harris ad brought tears to my eyes. I'm considering voting for her now.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top