The State of the Democratic Party II

[USS Monitor]

Breaking this off from the Trump thread

utter nonsense

No it's not. The SKS debacle and the recent ban on previously legal items that people like Telconi now have to give up or face prison time over disagree entirely. Kamala Harris has long since supported such things and that's one of many things she would rightfully be smeared with.

Uh... I missed where this convo started, but people who own something from before it was banned should be allowed to keep their stuff. Like if you have ivory from before the ivory trade was closed down, it shouldn't be an issue to keep those items. Same principle with old guns if the gun laws change.

[Genivaria]

Breaking this off from the Trump thread



No it's not. The SKS debacle and the recent ban on previously legal items that people like Telconi now have to give up or face prison time over disagree entirely. Kamala Harris has long since supported such things and that's one of many things she would rightfully be smeared with.

Uh... I missed where this convo started, but people who own something from before it was banned should be allowed to keep their stuff. Like if you have ivory from before the ivory trade was closed down, it shouldn't be an issue to keep those items. Same principle with old guns if the gun laws change.

Isn't that commonly calling 'Grand-fathering'?

[Berdan]

I dont think Warren's interested in running and Sanders just got a ton of power among dems in the senate and his point was solidly made, so I think he will stay put. I'd say Biden, Kennedy III, or one of the others are more likely.

[Thermodolia]

Breaking this off from the Trump thread



No it's not. The SKS debacle and the recent ban on previously legal items that people like Telconi now have to give up or face prison time over disagree entirely. Kamala Harris has long since supported such things and that's one of many things she would rightfully be smeared with.

Uh... I missed where this convo started, but people who own something from before it was banned should be allowed to keep their stuff. Like if you have ivory from before the ivory trade was closed down, it shouldn't be an issue to keep those items. Same principle with old guns if the gun laws change.

Yes I agree but apparently Kamala Harris doesn’t. Which is one of the many reasons why she’s not going to be a benefit to the democrats

[Farnhamia]

Breaking this off from the Trump thread



No it's not. The SKS debacle and the recent ban on previously legal items that people like Telconi now have to give up or face prison time over disagree entirely. Kamala Harris has long since supported such things and that's one of many things she would rightfully be smeared with.

Uh... I missed where this convo started, but people who own something from before it was banned should be allowed to keep their stuff. Like if you have ivory from before the ivory trade was closed down, it shouldn't be an issue to keep those items. Same principle with old guns if the gun laws change.

It was a discussion in the MAGAthread of Kamala Harris as a viable candidate against the Donald in 2020. I grumped and made them bring it here. It seems to be veering into a discussion of gun control.

I agree that gun confiscation is a bad idea because it's unworkable. There is, however, a difference between ivory and guns. The elephant's already dead. A previously legal gun is still a dangerous weapon.

[Berdan]

Uh... I missed where this convo started, but people who own something from before it was banned should be allowed to keep their stuff. Like if you have ivory from before the ivory trade was closed down, it shouldn't be an issue to keep those items. Same principle with old guns if the gun laws change.

It was a discussion in the MAGAthread of Kamala Harris as a viable candidate against the Donald in 2020. I grumped and made them bring it here. It seems to be veering into a discussion of gun control.

I agree that gun confiscation is a bad idea because it's unworkable. There is, however, a difference between ivory and guns. The elephant's already dead. A previously legal gun is still a dangerous weapon.

That being said precedent is a big thing in our legal system, and historically when things like alcohol were banned people who stocked up got to keep it.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Breaking this off from the Trump thread



No it's not. The SKS debacle and the recent ban on previously legal items that people like Telconi now have to give up or face prison time over disagree entirely. Kamala Harris has long since supported such things and that's one of many things she would rightfully be smeared with.

Uh... I missed where this convo started, but people who own something from before it was banned should be allowed to keep their stuff. Like if you have ivory from before the ivory trade was closed down, it shouldn't be an issue to keep those items. Same principle with old guns if the gun laws change.

We were talking about Kamala Harris and the many various reasons she would get smashed in the general. Someone brought up her atrocious record on guns and things went from there.

To the best of my knowledge California has at least twice done something like that. Back in the early 2000's when they first started really passing strict laws they told owners of SKS rifles that their guns needed to be registered but they could still be owned. People weren't overly happy but it wasn't too bad so lots of people complied, not much later the state gov issued a notice that their guns were then found to violate the law and had to be turned over after they learned where lots of them were. Then in just the past few years California passed even stricter laws that specifically outlaws guns built to comply with California's previous laws and gives owners of said items no way to keep them.

San Lumens claim that California confiscating guns is "utter nonsense" has no basis in reality.

[Telconi]

Breaking this off from the Trump thread

utter nonsense

No it's not. The SKS debacle and the recent ban on previously legal items that people like Telconi now have to give up or face prison time over disagree entirely. Kamala Harris has long since supported such things and that's one of many things she would rightfully be smeared with.

I'm sure, given that it's utter nonsense. San Lumen could point me to which department is going to cut me a check for the property confiscated or rendered inoperable as a result.

[USS Monitor]

I dont think Warren's interested in running and Sanders just got a ton of power among dems in the senate and his point was solidly made, so I think he will stay put. I'd say Biden, Kennedy III, or one of the others are more likely.

Whut? I think it's pretty obvious that Sanders is thinking of running again. He's not subtle about it.

With Warren... I don't think she desperately wants to be president, but she might run anyway because she's one of the most credible prospects, and people won't shut up about it.

[Corrian]

What is this power that Sanders supposedly got?

Also, Kamala Harris seems pretty shit, and not just because of the "I would get rid of the 2nd Amendment" talk she had.

[San Lumen]

What is this power that Sanders supposedly got?

Also, Kamala Harris seems pretty shit, and not just because of the "I would get rid of the 2nd Amendment" talk she had.

Im sorry but she never that. She would have a strong chance of winning in my view.

[Corrian]

What is this power that Sanders supposedly got?

Also, Kamala Harris seems pretty shit, and not just because of the "I would get rid of the 2nd Amendment" talk she had.

Im sorry but she never that. She would have a strong chance of winning in my view.

I don't care if she even has a chance. That doesn't make her not one of the worst picks we could possibly have for 2020.

[MERIZoC]

I dont think Warren's interested in running and Sanders just got a ton of power among dems in the senate and his point was solidly made, so I think he will stay put. I'd say Biden, Kennedy III, or one of the others are more likely.

If I was a betting man I would guess the kid that nobody had heard of before last week is not a major contender for the presidency

[San Lumen]

Im sorry but she never that. She would have a strong chance of winning in my view.

I don't care if she even has a chance. That doesn't make her not one of the worst picks we could possibly have for 2020.

So who would be your ideal pick? Bernie Sanders?

[Wahlid]

I don't care if she even has a chance. That doesn't make her not one of the worst picks we could possibly have for 2020.

So who would be your ideal pick? Bernie Sanders?

I for one would vote for either against Trump. What about Kamala Harris do you believe counters her potential negatives of being overly pro-gun control and possibly being a biracial Californian? And why do you seemingly believe Bernie would be a worse candidate?

[Ngelmish]

I don't know much about the LA mayor. Would he be a good pick?

I quite like Garcetti and, in a smaller field, might be willing to back him, but he's probably the most blatantly technocratic potential nominee in the wings and technocrats may not be rehabilitated even by Trump's incompetence fast enough for 2020 to be the year to pitch it.

I dont think Warren's interested in running and Sanders just got a ton of power among dems in the senate and his point was solidly made, so I think he will stay put. I'd say Biden, Kennedy III, or one of the others are more likely.

Whut? I think it's pretty obvious that Sanders is thinking of running again. He's not subtle about it.

With Warren... I don't think she desperately wants to be president, but she might run anyway because she's one of the most credible prospects, and people won't shut up about it.

Anyone who doesn't know that Sanders wants to run again isn't paying attention. Obviously what's making him hesitate this time is a combination of strategy (it does him no good to declare now that just guarantees that he loses) and uncertainty that he could capture lightning in a bottle twice. I think he'll ultimately fall on the side of running, but it's still a toss-up. As for Warren, it's harder to tell with her. I think she could be persuaded that she has an obligation to run, I don't get the impression that she viscerally wants to. And 9 times out of 10, that lack of desire will tip the scale against a bid.

What is this power that Sanders supposedly got?

Also, Kamala Harris seems pretty shit, and not just because of the "I would get rid of the 2nd Amendment" talk she had.

Schumer's made him a part of senate leadership, he owns the progressive brand and is using that to shape public discourse in a way that other nationally ambitious Democrats respond to, generally by accepting his framing.

Also, and this is not directed at you particularly or individually, I love when it comes to candidates like Harris (for the record, I'd say she inspires overreactions for the most part, across the ideological spectrum), that suddenly many more posters are willing to examine her in light of whether or not she'd be good as president, not whether or not she has a big enough personality for it.

[Sovaal]

Uh... I missed where this convo started, but people who own something from before it was banned should be allowed to keep their stuff. Like if you have ivory from before the ivory trade was closed down, it shouldn't be an issue to keep those items. Same principle with old guns if the gun laws change.

We were talking about Kamala Harris and the many various reasons she would get smashed in the general. Someone brought up her atrocious record on guns and things went from there.

To the best of my knowledge California has at least twice done something like that. Back in the early 2000's when they first started really passing strict laws they told owners of SKS rifles that their guns needed to be registered but they could still be owned. People weren't overly happy but it wasn't too bad so lots of people complied, not much later the state gov issued a notice that their guns were then found to violate the law and had to be turned over after they learned where lots of them were. Then in just the past few years California passed even stricter laws that specifically outlaws guns built to comply with California's previous laws and gives owners of said items no way to keep them.

San Lumens claim that California confiscating guns is "utter nonsense" has no basis in reality.

So wait, is the SKS no longer Cali legal?

[Telconi]

We were talking about Kamala Harris and the many various reasons she would get smashed in the general. Someone brought up her atrocious record on guns and things went from there.

To the best of my knowledge California has at least twice done something like that. Back in the early 2000's when they first started really passing strict laws they told owners of SKS rifles that their guns needed to be registered but they could still be owned. People weren't overly happy but it wasn't too bad so lots of people complied, not much later the state gov issued a notice that their guns were then found to violate the law and had to be turned over after they learned where lots of them were. Then in just the past few years California passed even stricter laws that specifically outlaws guns built to comply with California's previous laws and gives owners of said items no way to keep them.

San Lumens claim that California confiscating guns is "utter nonsense" has no basis in reality.

So wait, is the SKS no longer Cali legal?

Some models are, it's complicated. Salient point is that the state has repeatedly used 'compromises' as stop gap measures until they betray the compromise.

[Sovaal]

So wait, is the SKS no longer Cali legal?

Some models are, it's complicated. Salient point is that the state has repeatedly used 'compromises' as stop gap measures until they betray the compromise.

‘Complicated’ seems to describe California gun laws period.

[The Rich Port]

Some models are, it's complicated. Salient point is that the state has repeatedly used 'compromises' as stop gap measures until they betray the compromise.

‘Complicated’ seems to describe California gun laws period.

Frankly, the bans are bullshit regardless of the model.

Fact of the matter is, there is a demand and a market for defense proliferation.

What they need is standardized, trackable control. Banning guns just opens the door for gun nut bootleggers and stupid-ass Bubba Bundinistas.

[Sovaal]

‘Complicated’ seems to describe California gun laws period.

Frankly, the bans are bullshit regardless of the model.

Fact of the matter is, there is a demand and a market for defense proliferation.

What they need is standardized, trackable control. Banning guns just opens the door for gun nut bootleggers and stupid-ass Bubba Bundinistas.

Good luck with that.

[The Rich Port]

Frankly, the bans are bullshit regardless of the model.

Fact of the matter is, there is a demand and a market for defense proliferation.

What they need is standardized, trackable control. Banning guns just opens the door for gun nut bootleggers and stupid-ass Bubba Bundinistas.

Good luck with that.

Well I'm not from California and I haven't started my liberal militia yet so that's y'all's problem for the moment.

[USS Monitor]

She would have a strong chance of winning in my view.

Why do you think so?

[San Lumen]

She would have a strong chance of winning in my view.

Why do you think so?

She's smart, competent, an inspiring leader and has experience as state attorney general. That latter part makes her unique. No President has ever served as a state Attorney General.

[Tau Sei]

I dont think Warren's interested in running and Sanders just got a ton of power among dems in the senate and his point was solidly made, so I think he will stay put. I'd say Biden, Kennedy III, or one of the others are more likely.

If I was a betting man I would guess the kid that nobody had heard of before last week is not a major contender for the presidency

Reminds me of a certain junior senator from Illinois, c. 2006... I'd sooner write off Kennedy just because he's boring. I don't see him galvanizing the masses like an Obama out of left field.