Kamala Harris owns a gun. Are you surprised or mad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not surprised nor mad.

Does she stockpile guns? Did she purchase them legally? Did she have proper training? Does she store them responsibly? Does she have crazy machine gun like weapons that no civilian ever needs?

The details matter. She also supports reasonable, responsible gun legislation, so I'm not the least bit bothered as a non-gun owner.

“Stockpile.” WTF does that mean? More than one? More than three? How many kinds?

“Machine gun like weapons.” There is no such thing. A firearm is a machine gun or it is not.

“Civilian.” Kamala Harris is a civilian. The police are civilians.

“Needs.” A good life is defined by fulfilling wants, not just needs. Who are you to decide what others need?

Kindergartners do a whole unit of differentiating wants and needs. Maybe stop by your nearest elementary school and ask for some info. Maybe I need to point out that you should be unarmed.

A gun that is more than is required for hunting or protection is certainly a want not a need. As a society, we do get to decide that some wants do not get to be fulfilled. That’s usually how laws work. The opinions of the majority of Americans regarding whether anyone who wants an assault rifle should get one is fairly clear. Polls consistently show that most people support some degree of limitation. This might be stricter permit laws or not being able to purchase certain ammunition. Unfortunately, it is impossible to make the wishes of the majority law due to weak lawmakers dependent on NRA dollars. This isn’t something to be proud of. This is a sign that our government is broken.

I grew up in a house with lots of guns. I learned to shoot when I was 12. I think all my relatives had (locked) display cases of old guns. My uncle made guns. All of these relatives support stricter gun laws. Most people who own guns are not rabid gun freaks. Those are just the people like this pp with the loudest voices saying the weirdest things.

What is sufficent for protection?

The most capable and reliable firearm you can afford.

Normal people understand that this is ridiculous. What if I can afford a militia of trained snipers with AK-47s and SMAWs. And I really want a militia!! And this is Amurica, and it’s my right to have my militia!

The limit of what is legal should not be determined by what someone wants or what they can afford. Anyone with reasonable ethical foundations knows this. Again, this is why we should have gun laws so people with common sense (not you) can make decisions for people who have none (you).

Your parents should be ashamed for not loving you enough to teach you basic ethics.

[Anonymous]

Kamala and Walz are both gun owners and crack shots!

Trump has anus eyes.

You decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have any problem with handguns or hunting rifles stored safely and managed responsibly. I think most sane people would agree. The unique issue in our country is the worship of firearms and the ability for ordinary citizens to own machine guns.

Just how many people do you think have these? Sale has been banned for decades.

The PP means semi-automatic long guns with extended clips. Mass shooters just looooovvveee extended clips. If you want to kill a lot of people, quickly, extended clips are a must-have. But Mass shooters can always count on Republicans for support, so all is well and nothing changes. MAGA!

Thoughts-n-Prayers,
-Democrat gun owner.

Semi-automatic long guns almost universally use “magazines,” not “clips,” which typically hold 5 to at most 8 rounds.

You really need to get informed before ranting.

Pedantic nitpicking isn't the devastating counterargument you seem to think it is.

Wait a minute — you mean knowing the difference between a magazine and a clip is NOT the kind of information that will change people’s minds about gun legislation??

Certainly not. Because the level of absolute ontological ignorance about firearms, in addition to the delusional magical thinking, displayed by the average proponent of so-called “gun control” is such that nothing could dissuade them from their incoherent, fantasy-based convictions that their personal fear of inanimate injections, driven by their own deeply feared, barely-suppressed rage and anger, should govern the rights of other people to take reasonable, common-sense steps to protect themselves from criminal psychopaths and enjoy the sporting activities they prefer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have any problem with handguns or hunting rifles stored safely and managed responsibly. I think most sane people would agree. The unique issue in our country is the worship of firearms and the ability for ordinary citizens to own machine guns.

Just how many people do you think have these? Sale has been banned for decades.

The PP means semi-automatic long guns with extended clips. Mass shooters just looooovvveee extended clips. If you want to kill a lot of people, quickly, extended clips are a must-have. But Mass shooters can always count on Republicans for support, so all is well and nothing changes. MAGA!

Thoughts-n-Prayers,
-Democrat gun owner.

Semi-automatic long guns almost universally use “magazines,” not “clips,” which typically hold 5 to at most 8 rounds.

You really need to get informed before ranting.

Pedantic nitpicking isn't the devastating counterargument you seem to think it is.

Wait a minute — you mean knowing the difference between a magazine and a clip is NOT the kind of information that will change people’s minds about gun legislation??

Certainly not. Because the level of absolute ontological ignorance about firearms, in addition to the delusional magical thinking, displayed by the average proponent of so-called “gun control” is such that nothing could dissuade them from their incoherent, fantasy-based convictions that their personal fear of inanimate injections, driven by their own deeply feared, barely-suppressed rage and anger, should govern the rights of other people to take reasonable, common-sense steps to protect themselves from criminal psychopaths and enjoy the sporting activities they prefer.

Your gun collection is what’s making you a likely victim. Guns are the most valuable thing in your home to a criminal.

No other civilized country lets children be repeatedly slaughtered at school. You’re a sick person. And no amount of vocabulary quizzes is going to convince people otherwise.

Congratulations on being a tool for the NRA and gun manufacturers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not surprised nor mad.

Does she stockpile guns? Did she purchase them legally? Did she have proper training? Does she store them responsibly? Does she have crazy machine gun like weapons that no civilian ever needs?

The details matter. She also supports reasonable, responsible gun legislation, so I'm not the least bit bothered as a non-gun owner.

“Stockpile.” WTF does that mean? More than one? More than three? How many kinds?

“Machine gun like weapons.” There is no such thing. A firearm is a machine gun or it is not.

“Civilian.” Kamala Harris is a civilian. The police are civilians.

“Needs.” A good life is defined by fulfilling wants, not just needs. Who are you to decide what others need?

Kindergartners do a whole unit of differentiating wants and needs. Maybe stop by your nearest elementary school and ask for some info. Maybe I need to point out that you should be unarmed.

A gun that is more than is required for hunting or protection is certainly a want not a need. As a society, we do get to decide that some wants do not get to be fulfilled. That’s usually how laws work. The opinions of the majority of Americans regarding whether anyone who wants an assault rifle should get one is fairly clear. Polls consistently show that most people support some degree of limitation. This might be stricter permit laws or not being able to purchase certain ammunition. Unfortunately, it is impossible to make the wishes of the majority law due to weak lawmakers dependent on NRA dollars. This isn’t something to be proud of. This is a sign that our government is broken.

I grew up in a house with lots of guns. I learned to shoot when I was 12. I think all my relatives had (locked) display cases of old guns. My uncle made guns. All of these relatives support stricter gun laws. Most people who own guns are not rabid gun freaks. Those are just the people like this pp with the loudest voices saying the weirdest things.

What is sufficent for protection?

The most capable and reliable firearm you can afford.

Normal people understand that this is ridiculous. What if I can afford a militia of trained snipers with AK-47s and SMAWs. And I really want a militia!! And this is Amurica, and it’s my right to have my militia!

The limit of what is legal should not be determined by what someone wants or what they can afford. Anyone with reasonable ethical foundations knows this. Again, this is why we should have gun laws so people with common sense (not you) can make decisions for people who have none (you).

Your parents should be ashamed for not loving you enough to teach you basic ethics.

I didn't ask about ethics, I asked about what is sufficent for protection. Your response has more to do with a militia, and since militias are allowed under both state and federal constitutions, and SCOTUS has decried that some guns can be banned specifically because they aren't useful for a militia (United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)), which arguably runs contrary to your point, coupled with the fact that in the USA you can own military aircraft, tanks, and artillary with very few restrictions, and have historically been able to do so (as in privateers, privately owned cannon etc)

How many rounds is sufficent to carry for defense? 1? 6? 10? 30? 5000? You certainly can make arguments for each. Is a rifle better for defensive purposes than a pistol? How about a shotgun? It entirely depends on the circumstances. Each type of firearm is better for certain scenarios.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have any problem with handguns or hunting rifles stored safely and managed responsibly. I think most sane people would agree. The unique issue in our country is the worship of firearms and the ability for ordinary citizens to own machine guns.

Just how many people do you think have these? Sale has been banned for decades.

The PP means semi-automatic long guns with extended clips. Mass shooters just looooovvveee extended clips. If you want to kill a lot of people, quickly, extended clips are a must-have. But Mass shooters can always count on Republicans for support, so all is well and nothing changes. MAGA!

Thoughts-n-Prayers,
-Democrat gun owner.

Semi-automatic long guns almost universally use “magazines,” not “clips,” which typically hold 5 to at most 8 rounds.

You really need to get informed before ranting.

Pedantic nitpicking isn't the devastating counterargument you seem to think it is.

Wait a minute — you mean knowing the difference between a magazine and a clip is NOT the kind of information that will change people’s minds about gun legislation??

Certainly not. Because the level of absolute ontological ignorance about firearms, in addition to the delusional magical thinking, displayed by the average proponent of so-called “gun control” is such that nothing could dissuade them from their incoherent, fantasy-based convictions that their personal fear of inanimate injections, driven by their own deeply feared, barely-suppressed rage and anger, should govern the rights of other people to take reasonable, common-sense steps to protect themselves from criminal psychopaths and enjoy the sporting activities they prefer.

Well stated and sadly oh so true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have any problem with handguns or hunting rifles stored safely and managed responsibly. I think most sane people would agree. The unique issue in our country is the worship of firearms and the ability for ordinary citizens to own machine guns.

Just how many people do you think have these? Sale has been banned for decades.

The PP means semi-automatic long guns with extended clips. Mass shooters just looooovvveee extended clips. If you want to kill a lot of people, quickly, extended clips are a must-have. But Mass shooters can always count on Republicans for support, so all is well and nothing changes. MAGA!

Thoughts-n-Prayers,
-Democrat gun owner.

Semi-automatic long guns almost universally use “magazines,” not “clips,” which typically hold 5 to at most 8 rounds.

You really need to get informed before ranting.

Pedantic nitpicking isn't the devastating counterargument you seem to think it is.

Wait a minute — you mean knowing the difference between a magazine and a clip is NOT the kind of information that will change people’s minds about gun legislation??

Certainly not. Because the level of absolute ontological ignorance about firearms, in addition to the delusional magical thinking, displayed by the average proponent of so-called “gun control” is such that nothing could dissuade them from their incoherent, fantasy-based convictions that their personal fear of inanimate injections, driven by their own deeply feared, barely-suppressed rage and anger, should govern the rights of other people to take reasonable, common-sense steps to protect themselves from criminal psychopaths and enjoy the sporting activities they prefer.

Your gun collection is what’s making you a likely victim. Guns are the most valuable thing in your home to a criminal.

No other civilized country lets children be repeatedly slaughtered at school. You’re a sick person. And no amount of vocabulary quizzes is going to convince people otherwise.

Congratulations on being a tool for the NRA and gun manufacturers.

DP

Understanding the technoligies and terminology is important if you are going to propose restrictions on firearms.

Take for example saying you need to ban "clips", means you aren't banning most modern pistol and rifle designs such as Glocks and AR15s. Rather you are banning world war 1 and 2 weapon designs.

Saying you need to ban "automatics" is pointless because automatic weapons made after 1986 are banned for the public. You could then see how saying you want to ban either of these things comes off as ill informed and would lead to ineffective policies. You can't have a fruitful discussion, let alone propose useful legislation.

[Anonymous]

No play-date at her house; that’s for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No play-date at her house; that’s for sure.

This is what is scary. I assume that freak lives somewhere in the DMV, and I and most of my friends have assumed no one like that would be living in our nice neighborhoods. So we haven’t been as careful as we should about asking our kids’ friends’ parents about guns. I also just don’t trust someone like this to have common sense about basic safety and morality in other ways. Do they make kids wear seatbelts? Do they let them watch porn? If their only criteria for right and wrong is based on what someone WANTS to do, there’s no telling what they’re up to. Not all the crazies live on compounds in Idaho. They walk among us. It’s terrifying.

[Anonymous]

Waltz owns automatics. He doesn’t even hide it.

He is a disgusting monster!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:from Seattle Times:

Trump also owns guns, though the New York Police Department sought to revoke his concealed carry permit after he was convicted of 34 felonies in May.

So under federal law does he get to keep his guns until he is sentenced?

He wouldn't give back Top Secret documents; you think he'll give up guns? He doesn't believe in law and order. He never had to follow rules in his life, and he won't start now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Waltz owns automatics. He doesn’t even hide it.

He is a disgusting monster!

MAGA-weiner workin’ his psy-ops. Comedy gold!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have any problem with handguns or hunting rifles stored safely and managed responsibly. I think most sane people would agree. The unique issue in our country is the worship of firearms and the ability for ordinary citizens to own machine guns.

Just how many people do you think have these? Sale has been banned for decades.

The PP means semi-automatic long guns with extended clips. Mass shooters just looooovvveee extended clips. If you want to kill a lot of people, quickly, extended clips are a must-have. But Mass shooters can always count on Republicans for support, so all is well and nothing changes. MAGA!

Thoughts-n-Prayers,
-Democrat gun owner.

Semi-automatic long guns almost universally use “magazines,” not “clips,” which typically hold 5 to at most 8 rounds.

You really need to get informed before ranting.

Pedantic nitpicking isn't the devastating counterargument you seem to think it is.

Wait a minute — you mean knowing the difference between a magazine and a clip is NOT the kind of information that will change people’s minds about gun legislation??

Certainly not. Because the level of absolute ontological ignorance about firearms, in addition to the delusional magical thinking, displayed by the average proponent of so-called “gun control” is such that nothing could dissuade them from their incoherent, fantasy-based convictions that their personal fear of inanimate injections, driven by their own deeply feared, barely-suppressed rage and anger, should govern the rights of other people to take reasonable, common-sense steps to protect themselves from criminal psychopaths and enjoy the sporting activities they prefer.

Your gun collection is what’s making you a likely victim. Guns are the most valuable thing in your home to a criminal.

No other civilized country lets children be repeatedly slaughtered at school. You’re a sick person. And no amount of vocabulary quizzes is going to convince people otherwise.

Congratulations on being a tool for the NRA and gun manufacturers.

DP

Understanding the technoligies and terminology is important if you are going to propose restrictions on firearms.

Take for example saying you need to ban "clips", means you aren't banning most modern pistol and rifle designs such as Glocks and AR15s. Rather you are banning world war 1 and 2 weapon designs.

Saying you need to ban "automatics" is pointless because automatic weapons made after 1986 are banned for the public. You could then see how saying you want to ban either of these things comes off as ill informed and would lead to ineffective policies. You can't have a fruitful discussion, let alone propose useful legislation.

DP. Common sense can't get wrapped in semantics, it needs to focus on the functional. When someone says "automatic" it's stupid to say "well automatic weapons is only about rifles that use gas to automatically eject the casing derp herp derp" when there are many different mechanisms, like bump stocks and Glock switches and so on. Functionally, they fire a large amount of ammunition at a fast rate, only with a little less control than a machine gun with selectable fire. Likewise it doesn't really make a difference whether it's a stripper clip or a magazine when one is talking about a way to make a lot of ammunition quickly available to a gun.

Instead they should be looking at functional bans, like any gun capable of firing more than 50 rounds per minute by any means whatsoever (takes bump stocks and other mechanisms out of the mix) and any gun that has a capacity of 10 rounds or more, and any gun made after a military pattern. Why military pattern, you ask? Psychological. Mass shooters and others want the appearance of their gun to scare and intimidate others, which is why they choose AR-15s rather than a Remington with a wooden stock. Not much difference in lethality, it's all psychological.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous[b wrote:]Waltz owns automatics[/b]. He doesn’t even hide it.!

Is this true, or is this maga bullsh!t?

Walz is a hunter. I knew that. But do they make automatic/semi automatic guns for hunting? Because that seems like a bunch of BS to me. There would be nothing left of a deer that got shot with a semiautomatic gun. It would be liquified.

Can anyone provide a real fact based answer to whether he owns a semiautomatic gun?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]Waltz owns automatics[/b]. He doesn’t even hide it.!

Is this true, or is this maga bullsh!t?

Walz is a hunter. I knew that. But do they make automatic/semi automatic guns for hunting? Because that seems like a bunch of BS to me. There would be nothing left of a deer that got shot with a semiautomatic gun. It would be liquified.

Can anyone provide a real fact based answer to whether he owns a semiautomatic gun?

Who cares.