Hilarious/scary nonsense from Sen. Harris

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeb Stuart said:
Her mention of "Sporting issues" is nothing but a diversion to her main cause of Banning all firearms. She is playing you and the rest of the field. Seems she is doing a good job at it as well.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Those who haven't recognized this true objective are testimony to your assertion that the antis are doing a pretty good job of the shell game. Right now it's mostly about the evil "AR" but how long (probably measured in seconds) will it take them, once the black rifle ban is in place, to jump on handguns, since those are how the huge majority of gun crimes are committed? It's the slippery slope, and several D candidates have stated that their end goal is far more that just an "assault rifle" ban.

Unfortunately, as someone mentioned, a lot of the blue states have voted themselves into the edge of oblivion, now a bunch of them are packing up and moving to the still-free states, and often bringing their voting habits with them. Didn't learn a thing.
 
The whole "sporting purpose" notion comes from statutory language. Nobody who wants to ban AR's gives a fig about "sporting purposes" - if they did, then popular sports like 3 Gun would show that, yes, of course, AR's are used for sporting purposes. About ten thousand times more often than they are used for criminal purposes. It's just magic legal language - declare that some foreign-made firearm has "no sporting purpose" and the options to ban its importation without further congressional action open up.
 
ATLDave said:
How many AR's do you think would be made in the US today if Chinese imports had been allowed to flow freely from the 1990's through today? How many Americans would have jobs making ARs?
Click to expand...

I don't feel educated on that topic specifically or economics in general to make a guess. That's also beside the point of the original comment.
 
I apologize for my lack of clarity and precision on that topic, psy'. It appears a number of other posters were able to fill in the gaps on my admittedly imprecise, shorthand description of the particular dynamic to which I was referring, but I realize it's not fair to rely upon a charitable reader at all times.
 
''She is not playing us.''

Yes they ALL want EVERYTHING. Well, except for THEIR beloved personal security, police, and military and it's been stated so many times before. There's nothing to discuss.

They foam at the mouth at just a wiff of being able to enact a ban such as Australia. They pass out in ecstasy, as if high on drugs, thinking ''us too'' when remembering London England banned even knives.

They and this specifically meaning HER, wants everything but your slingshot. And only excludes that so as to have something to fund raise on, later.

''She is not playing us.'' Well, not me, or the well seasoned true 2A advocate (insert your name, :thumbup:here)
 
DoubleMag said:
They foam at the mouth at just a wiff of being able to enact a ban such as Australia.

They and this specifically meaning HER, wants everything but your slingshot.
Click to expand...
Some of the candidates, such as Eric Swalwell, are "true believers" in gun control. Others, such as Harris and O'Rourke, are 100% opportunists. You can tell by reading the fine print of their gun proposals. (O'Rourke would grandfather existing AR's, and Harris mostly just restates current law.) What they're saying is designed to stir up the primary electorate (which is admittedly antigun) but leave them wiggle room on guns for the general election. Anyway, gun control isn't going anywhere on the federal level because the antigun forces can't get 60 votes in the Senate. Knowing this, all the talk about guns (on both sides) is just electoral posturing.

The place to worry is on the state level. Especially in places like Virginia, which is on the cusp of having antigun majorities in the legislature.
 
More the anti-gun crowd pushes for gun ban, more the pro-gun voters will vote for pro-gun/2A law makers.

IMO, 2020 election may be the DO or DIE election for gun rights for decades to come as future federal district/circuit courts and SCOTUS nominations will be deciding factor for court case wins.

If you want to keep your gun rights, vote for law makers who support 2A in 2020 and every other election thereafter.
 
There is no such thing as a "Pro-Gun" politician, some may be less anti-gun than others, but all told they are all anti-gun to some extent.
 
There are many lists of pro/anti gun law makers:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rades-for-politicians/?utm_term=.b29529a24a35

https://www.businessinsider.com/nra...-congressional-candidates-house-senate-2018-2

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/19/566731477/chart-how-have-your-members-of-congress-voted-on-gun-bills

If more pro-gun/2A law makers are voted into city/county/state/federal levels to the point of majority, I could bet more pro-gun/2A bills will be written and passed.

If we want to "DO SOMETHING" about gun rights, the best thing we can do is keeping voting in pro-gun/2A law makers and voting out anti-gun/2A law makers.
 
Last edited:
AlexanderA said:
This. Kamala Harris is a smart cookie. She knows perfectly well that her gun proposals are "nothingburgers" -- for example, imported AR's, if they even exist, are not a factor. But these proposals sound good to the uninitiated (but antigun) primary voters. This leaves her room to backtrack and "clarify" for the general election. If you carefully parse her gun proposals you realize that there's much less there than initially meets the eye.
Click to expand...

I wrote an OP/ED piece and submitted it to a couple of publications for consideration. Has a snowballs chance on a July 4th Florida beach of being published, but wrote it anyway. Here is how I parsed CNN's report:
This is from the CNN website. Honest. It's unedited, just cut and paste. I'll take it apart point by point and demonstrate why many news organizations are either clueless or dishonest.



“(CNN)Sen. Kamala Harris on Wednesday will announce that, if she is elected president, she will ban the importation of all AR-15 style assault weapons by executive action if Congress fails to act in the first 100 days of her administration. Harris will make the announcement at a campaign stop in New Hampshire, according to a senior campaign official.

Harris' proposal is the latest in a series of gun-related executive actions she has promised to take if she wins the Democratic nomination and defeats Donald Trump in 2020. Previously, Harris had said she'd use presidential executive action to mandate near-universal background checks, revoke licenses of gun dealers who break the law, limit fugitives with outstanding arrest warrants from buying guns and close the so-called "boyfriend loophole."

The issue of gun violence has jettisoned into the national spotlight in recent years as a result of high-profile mass shootings like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012 that left more than 20 dead, and more recently, at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in 2018, which left 17 dead. Democrats have pushed for stricter gun laws in the wake of these shootings. Those pushes have been met with fierce opposition from most Republican lawmakers who do not support expanding regulations on firearms.

Harris' new proposal "would ban AR-15-style assault weapon imports because they are not 'suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.' Additionally, the Harris proposal would have the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives suspend all assault weapons imports until the agency studies and determines admissibility under the "sporting purpose" test, said the Harris official.”

  1. AR-15's aren't imported, they're made in the USA. They are the civilian equivalent of the Army's M-16. Invented by Armalite and given the AR designation meaning Armalite Rifle, the patents were sold to Colt who has trademark exclusivity on the model name but the patents have expired on the design, so lots of companies can make them, only Colt can call their rifle an AR-15. I'm unaware of any manufacturer making AR's overseas, hence, to the best of my knowledge, they're NOT IMPORTED. AR-Style, on the other hand, can mean almost anything.

  2. There are b/r checks in place for any firearm purchase made in the United States from a licensed gun dealer. This is true at a brick and mortar store, an online purchase (gun is shipped by an online seller to a brick and mortar licensed dealer who then sells the gun to the retail buyer under the laws of the state in which the buyer lives), or at a gun show.

  3. A licensed dealer who breaks the law is currently not only subject to losing said license but will be prosecuted like any other lawbreaker. Oh, and it's a felony, so he not only can't ever have a gun license again but can't even own a gun.

  4. Fugitives already are prohibited from buying guns. Question 11c on the federal gun form 4473 is “Are you a fugitive from justice” and it's one of the things that is checked for during a b/r check. A bit of history, the 4473 form must be filled out before purchasing a gun. Making a false statement on the form is a punishable felony. This has been true since the form was invented as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

  5. The boyfriend loophole is a misnomer. What they are referring to is called a straw or strawman purchase. Just as a straw man is erected by a farmer to scare the crows away from his field as a stand in for himself, a straw purchaser is someone legally able to buy a gun from a licensed dealer who is acting as a stand in to do the b/r check and paperwork for someone who isn't legal. This is already illegal and the first question on the 4473 is “Are you the actual transferee/buyer...”. In other words, “You aren't buying this for someone else who is not eligible are you?”

  6. “The issue of gun violence has jettisoned into the national spotlight...” Jettisoned? Really? Do you have a clue what that word means?.
jet·ti·son (verb past tense: jettisoned)

1. to throw or drop (something) from an aircraft or ship.

"six aircraft jettisoned their loads in the sea"

2. abandon or discard (someone or something that is no longer wanted).


Jumped, sprang or any of a bunch of words that means the issue has leaped (another possibility) but jettison means to throw away. You're trying to appear erudite and only coming across as ignorant.

  1. I'd love to know the parameters of a “sporting purpose test.” The weapons in question are most certainly suitable for sporting purposes. Any not fully automatic firearm is eminently suited for target shooting, both paper and metallic. They can be used for hunting as long as the appropriate caliber bullet is chosen for the game to be hunted. Beyond sporting uses they're eminently suited for home and personal defense.


Remember, unlike a lot of things the government licenses, like cars and boats, arms are the only thing people can possess that is spelled out specifically in the Constitution. People have a right to own weapons in order to defend their persons and property. The Declaration of Independence posits that everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If a person has the right to life and liberty and the police aren't duty bound (this is established legal precedent) to protect a person's life to which he has a right, who has the duty and responsibility to protect that life if not the person himself? And how is he empowered to protect his life? By the right of the second amendment to possess a gun. The Constitution is the document that offers protections for those posited rights. The Second Amendment seeks to specifically allow the individual citizen the ability to protect their life from threats of violence as well as protections for their liberty against a tyrannical government.

The framers of the Constitution and thus the founders of our country had just fought a war against a tyrannical government that also happened to have a state religion. They wanted all citizens to have an equal voice in government, both rural and urban. They wanted all citizens to be able to follow, or not, any religion they so chose. They wanted all citizens to be safe from their homes and persons being searched willy-nilly and to not have to be compelled to testify against themselves in a court of law. These are all the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Start abrogating one and they are all in jeopardy.
 
bds said:
There are many lists of pro/anti gun law makers:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rades-for-politicians/?utm_term=.b29529a24a35

https://www.businessinsider.com/nra...-congressional-candidates-house-senate-2018-2

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/19/566731477/chart-how-have-your-members-of-congress-voted-on-gun-bills

If more pro-gun/2A law makers are voted into city/county/state/federal levels to the point of majority, I could bet more pro-gun/2A bills will be written and passed.

If we want to "DO SOMETHING" about gun rights, the best thing we can do is keeping voting in pro-gun/2A law makers and voting out anti-gun/2A law makers.
Click to expand...

Politicians are like wind socks they are blown on political winds. If in one small area the wind blows pro-gun they will take on that tact up until the anti-gun money makes them change back to their true selves.
 
P5 Guy said:
Politicians are like wind socks they are blown on political winds. If in one small area the wind blows pro-gun they will take on that tact up until the anti-gun money makes them change back to their true selves.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree.

And if "political pressure" from gun owners keeps on increasing as indicated by new university study, law makers will vote pro-gun to stay elected - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...lated-information.849620/page-5#post-11118838

New Study of gun owners' trend - Gun owners' intensity turns "minority in American politics" into outsized force
  • New study done by University of Kansas shows growing political force by gun owners influencing slowed advancement for stiffer gun laws over the past four decades.
  • Study showed higher participation rates by gun owners for political action (contacting elected officials, signing petitions, contributing to campaigns, etc.) compared to non-gun owners.
  • Increasing number of gun owners voted in presidential elections from 1972 to 2016 while decreasing for non-gun owners.
  • Gun control advocates claim this trend is changing but even in light of mass shootings, their claim failed to be the case.
  • Study found high rate of activism was due to gun owners increasingly associating gun ownership with defending the core constitutional right to self defense.
  • Since 1980s, increasing majority of gun owners said they owned guns for protection because it's their right or because of the Second Amendment.
  • For many gun owners, owning a gun because they think it's an essential right guaranteed by the Second Amendment is core part of their political identity.
  • Director of GOA stated study confirms gun owners have higher level of political intensity than gun control activists which helped elect Trump in 2016 and picked up votes from pro-gun Democrats.
 
Gun owners/NRA have not got near enough cash to sway the way Bloomberg's shills do.
MomsDemand&EveryTown are in the front row of every 'TownHall' meeting, never will one see an NRA member, let alone will they get to speak.
 
P5 Guy said:
Gun owners/NRA have not got near enough cash to sway the way Bloomberg's shills do.
MomsDemand&EveryTown are in the front row of every 'TownHall' meeting, never will one see an NRA member, let alone will they get to speak.
Click to expand...
We will see who gets elected in 2020.

My bet is on Trump.

I am quite certain since 2008 through 2016, number of gun owners have increased significantly and many of these were new gun owners who may vote pro-gun in 2020 to keep their guns.

And voters who voted for Trump in 2016 will likely vote for Trump again in 2020.
 
There are a number of different kinds of gun-banners.

There's the cynical type that want to lead the sheep, telling them that they will be ever-so-much safer after all of those evil devices are destroyed.

There are the ones that aren't sure that their armed guards, walled compounds, armored limousines and bullet-proof glass are enough.

There are the revolutionaries that believe that the revolution can't succeed while the law-abiding are still armed.

There are the gentle souls that are afraid of the potential for violence that can come from any object that can be used as a weapon. See "sheep", above.

There are others, although most are merely variations on the ones mentioned above.

Which one(s) include Kamala Harris?
Does it matter?
 
bds said:
More the anti-gun crowd pushes for gun ban, more the pro-gun voters will vote for pro-gun/2A law makers.
Click to expand...
This is true, and is why the gun issue will be dropped like a hot potato once someone clinches the Democratic nomination. The Democrats are not stupid. They know that the election will be decided in a handful of Rust Belt and Sun Belt states -- states in which gun ownership is significant. Since the margins in those states will be close, they dare not alienate the bulk of those gun owners. Silence on the gun issue will let the election be decided on things like health care. Of course this won't affect single-issue gun voters, but the vast majority of gun owners are not single issue.
 
P5 Guy said:
Wishful thinking, and Trump is just a typical NYC moderate.
Click to expand...
Many still thought Trump was better than Hillary in 2016.

And I think Trump is still better than all the Democrat candidates for support of Second Amendment.

Elections have consequences.

Vote wisely, especially for future federal district/circuit courts and SCOTUS nominations.
 
Last edited:
P5 Guy said:
Wishful thinking, and Trump is just a typical NYC moderate.
Click to expand...
Typical NYC moderate??? Nonsense, IMO. Trump is far and away the most conservative president in decades in terms of what he is actually getting accomplished. And considering the all-out war that the media, the left, and the never-Trumpers (but I repeat myself there as there is no difference between the latter two) have waged using the DOJ, FBI, most media, and everything else at their disposal, he's probably the only person in politics that could have withstood the attack. I look forward to seeing some justice done for some of the deep state who attempted the coup.

And I'm glad to see that Trump's not allowing the UN to dictate our gun ownership rights that Obama tried to make subject to the UN dictates:

BARR: TRUMP DRIVES A STAKE THROUGH UN GUN CONTROL TREATY
12:00 PM 05/16/2019 | OPINION
Former Rep. Bob Barr | Contributor
Late last month, President Trump signed an executive memorandum officially notifying the United Nations that the United States was withdrawing its support for a United Nations-backed treaty former Secretary of State John Kerry signed in 2013.

With this action — “un-signing” a treaty document — Trump sent a clear, unambiguous, and long-overdue signal to the domestic and international gun control movement, that since 2001 had been pressing for a U.N. foothold to regulate firearms use and possession within our country: “Back off!”

Oh, the outcry from the left! New Jersey’s Bob Menendez, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wailed that in taking this “disturbing” action, Trump was “[jeopardizing] U.S. security.” Rachel Stohl, managing director for the Stimson Center in the nation’s capital, somehow concluded that the president’s action will “harm the American economy.” The common catchword by these and other globalists in describing the ATT that is now dead to the United States, was — as always for the gun control movement – “common sense.”

In fact, there was nothing “common sense” about this document and the ongoing process to make it the operative mechanism for international gun control.

Always seeking relevance and power since it was established in the immediate aftermath of WWII, the U.N. has worked for nearly two decades to shoehorn gun control into its “world peace” mission. In this, it has been strikingly successful, with some 130 countries signing the ATT and over 100 actually ratifying it and becoming thereby fully and legally bound by its terms. The U.N. even convinced the Obama Administration to sign onto it and submit it to the U.S. Senate for ratification, where it sat until Trump’s April 29 action pulling it back.

Despite the long-standing effort by ATT proponents to present the Treaty as a purely international instrument affecting only export and import of firearms, lurking within its broad parameters and underlying authorities is a catalog of gun control measures that each signing country (which had included the United States) commits to act consistent with. This list of what Menendez and Stohl (and others) describe as “common sense” measures includes, among others:

• Restricting civilian possession of firearms only to those “at the lowest risk of misusing them.”

• Limiting sales and other transfers of firearms only to commercial transactions at licensed “sales premises” (in other words, no transfers at gun shows).

• Only persons licensed and periodically re-licensed by the national government could possess firearms.

• All firearms must be registered with the national government

• All persons wishing to possess a firearm must pass a rigorous exam administered by the national government.

• All firearms must be stored in locked containers separate from ammunition, and “bolted to a heavy or immovable object.”

• Only a pre-determined number of firearms and rounds of ammunition may be possessed by a properly licensed civilian.

• Magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds.

• No firearm could be possessed before at least a seven-day waiting period.

• No civilian could own or possess a firearm for self-defense unless they first demonstrate a clear and convincing need.

• Individuals licensed to own firearms are subject to periodic and random inspections of their homes or businesses

• In order to be granted a license to possess a firearm, an individual must secure recommendations from “responsible members of society,” attesting to their “suitability to possess a small arm.”

These terms would not — unless the treaty was ratified by the Senate — be legal binding. However, the federal government’s commitment to act consistently with all explicit and underlying terms of the treaty would have provided easy opportunity for gun control advocates in any administration to take such steps and justify them by virtue of Kerry’s signature back in 2013.

At least with regard to the Arms Trade Treaty and its sneaky gun control agenda, Americans who understand and support the right to keep and bear arms, can heave a sigh of relief thanks to Trump’s action on April 29.

Bob Barr (@BobBarr) represented Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He currently serves as president and CEO of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Speedo66
  • Locked
Guess Who's a Gun Owner?
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Robert
Robert
SharpDog
  • Locked
Kamala Harris on Gun Control
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Walkalong
Walkalong
hso
  • Locked
Another article admonishing the press to learn firearms terms
Replies
4
Views
1K
rondog
R
G
  • Locked
Denver Post Editorial
Replies
18
Views
976
frogomatic
F
Z
  • Locked
Toy Gun Sold in U.S. Can Easily be Converted to the Real Thing
2 3 4 5
Replies
110
Views
7K
Roccobro
R
Back
Top