“If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” she said, laughing. “I probably should not have said that. My staff will deal with that later.”
Harris: ‘If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot’ during event with Oprah
2 years ago by jordanlund to c/politics
Myxomatosis 174 points 2 years ago
“She needs to tone down her violent rhetoric.”
anticolonialist -8 points 2 years ago
Carrying and knowing how to use it are 2 different things. Without constant practice and being able to perform under pressure it's just an idiot with a gun.
Knoxvomica 1 point 2 years ago
Wait how did you get that take from the person you're responding to?
subignition 67 points 2 years ago
One weird trick to get gun control laws Republicans don't want you to know!
JusticeForPorygon 71 points 2 years ago
To my understanding it worked with the Black Panthers
lepinkainen 9 points 2 years ago
This is why EVERY queer person should carry a gun, openly if it’s legal in your region
BigPotato 4 points 2 years ago
Tell that to the Veteran legally open carrying in Texas who was shot by an asshole who felt threatened. The asshole was pardoned.
For completeness, the asshole was also in the Army but that's mostly unrelated to his racism and murder of a fellow Servicemember.
littlewonder 2 points 2 years ago
For once, the Democrats have figured out how to game the Republicans into gun regulations: by being vocal about firearm ownership on the left.
Last time the Republicans passed gun reform, it was during their god-emperor Reagan's presidency, when Black Panthers had the nerve to arm themselves in public while forgetting to be white.
Harris should promote open carry for immigrant brown people. Maybe then we can finally get universal background checks, red flag laws, etc.--all popular with the public and a majority of gun owners.
iltoroargento 66 points 2 years ago
I mean, this is a pretty logical and understandable consequence of the right's call for political violence. I was pretty surprised the Pelosi intruder was able to do so much, tbh.
Edit: But, yes, people are dumb and disingenuous and will say that they should be able to kill an intruder on their property without question and then turn around and say that Harris' detail should not be allowed to do so.
jordanlund 72 points 2 years ago
Pelosi's attacker got as far as he did because Pelosi's protection was with her, and she wasn't home, which let Paul take the brunt of the attack.
TransplantedSconie 18 points 2 years ago
One would think they would leave at least one agent with him.
jordanlund 12 points 2 years ago
You'd think, right? Well NOW he does, I bet...
iltoroargento 13 points 2 years ago
Oh yeah. It still surprised me, though.
snausagesinablanket 36 points 2 years ago
are kinda dumb.
Basically anyone in the GOP.
FuglyDuck 9 points 2 years ago
And the gun control single issue voters- at least a few.
I don’t think most people realize just how un-hesitant a secret service on protection detail will be to shoot an unknown intruder.
Like. That’s not a Harris thing. That’s just their job. Which is why the guy that saw a rifle more or less just started blasting. (Maybe not “just”… I assume they assessed range and stuff. A pistol at 200 yards is almost useless even if you do hit what you’re aiming at.)
TopRamenBinLaden 2 points 2 years ago
There is this video where a guy shoots a target with a pistol from 200 yards, freehand, somehow(I timestamed it). It shows that 9mm carries a pretty good amount of penetration power at that range still, surprisingly.
FuglyDuck 1 point 2 years ago
The keltec is not a pistol, it’s a rifle. I’m guessing he has a ten inch barrel? Which gives a lot more velocity for a given cartridge, unless you’re fairly under pressure to start with.
He doesn’t show what a 9mm pistol can do at 200 yards of to balistics gel. Neither does he show the slugs hitting the target.
Which, you can make pistols do a bit better- one simple way is to go to +p cartridges or going to heavier rounds.
Do they carry enough energy to hurt? Sure.
Are they effective? No.
Also not shown is how many takes he took to make this video (and I’m guessing he took way more shots to get those hits than we see. Even if he is a perfect shooter, windage is variable, no one is a perfect shooter.)
snausagesinablanket 1 point 2 years ago path: 0 12460723 12460791 12462069 12480814, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
qjkxbmwvz 109 points 2 years ago
Reminds me of that West Wing episode where he "accidentally" makes an offensive gun analogy comment; Harris doesn't really alienate any supporters here, and she appeals to the undecided gun crowd voters. As a bonus, she's "telling it like it is" for folks who are self-described as being "fed up with PC culture."
billiam0202 60 points 2 years ago
It was then, too.
The Republicans as portrayed in The West Wing were far more sane than even the GOP at the time. Remember, the show first aired shortly after the GOP impeached Clinton for a blowjob because they couldn't find any evidence of impropriety in the Whitewater deal.
InverseParallax 22 points 2 years ago
Yeah but Republicans weren't all properly cartoonishly evil at that point, we had senators like McCain and others, and if you started to talk about how the nazis were actually just misunderstood they'd kick your ass out of the party.
mosiacmango 19 points 2 years ago
I can't even make myself rewatch it because the "scandals" that are at the core of most episodes are so mundane and plebian it just descends into a farce.
Hell, even the many scenes when they treat the Whitehouse as a kind of civic holy ground just don't work now. I just can't buy it after 4 years of that lunatic sitting behind the resolute desk.
billiam0202 15 points 2 years ago
Time has changed the show from "an idealized depiction of a Democratic White House" to "an idealized depiction of a functioning government not hampered by an irrational party comprised of insane ideologues and traitors."
the_crotch 11 points 2 years ago
He wasn't impeached for a blowjob. He was impeached for perjuring himself while the defendant in a sexual harassment inquiry. The blowjob is just the thing he lied about.
gravitas_deficiency 10 points 2 years ago
path: 0 12461066 12461517 12462041 12467191, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 0
Confused_Emus 19 points 2 years ago
Compared to how DC runs these days, West Wing is up there with Harry Potter on the Fantasy scale.
MirthfulAlembic 20 points 2 years ago
Your bonus point is depressingly significant. The number of people I've heard say something like, "I don't like x, y, z about Trump, but I like that he speaks his mind and tells it like it is in his opinion" drives me crazy. When did it become admirable to be an unfiltered boor?
Rekorse 0 points 2 years ago
Its a false expectation. They think thats what smart successful people do. The big problem with trusting your impulses immediately, is you will only consider your own perspective. Its very hard to change your own perspective unless thats what you are already trying to do.
vanontom 7 points 2 years ago
Agreed. I thought it was one of the best things out of her mouth at the event (which was surprisingly well done, worth a watch). I think people want to see more honest, unprepared remarks from her (she's been really staying on message). But I doubt there will be many more events like this with hosts like Oprah, who is quite skilled at producing these moments.
generichate1546 2 points 2 years ago
I mean she's the fucking sitting VP, I can guarantee the Secret Service is going to end anyone well before she's even disturbed.
ATDA 91 points 2 years ago
When I think about it
Instead of a debate let's go to a range and do a little target shooting.
Watching Trump fumble around, hit nothing, getting smoked by a woman.
Sounds like a lot of fucking fun to watch.
Oh wait we already saw that lolololol.
jordanlund 62 points 2 years ago
As a convicted felon, Trump can't have a gun. ;)
Strawberry 7 points 2 years ago
oh shit, what's he gonna do for his vote casting photoshoot in Florida
jordanlund 2 points 2 years ago
"Felon in possession!"
Rivalarrival 4 points 2 years ago
Seems like the gun ranges are coming to him. Everywhere he goes seems to become one.
HelixDab2 5 points 2 years ago
...Then pit both of them against someone that goes to a monthly IDPA or USPSA match.
(My point is, if you want to be able to use a gun when you're under a lot of pressure to perform well, you gotta practice under pressure too.)
Thebeardedsinglemalt 4 points 2 years ago
And one did it while still wearing his work Id badge on a lanyard.
Pyr_Pressure 42 points 2 years ago
And then you get shot when it turns out to be the police raiding your home unannounced because they got the address wrong again.
taiyang 40 points 2 years ago
I like this for some reason. Maybe even more if she slipped and said "fuckin' shot" maybe because it's Oprah.
Weird that the whole "I probably shouldn't say that" is a very Trump like thing to say, but those types of comments have a lot of power with people so more power to her.
lennybird 13 points 2 years ago
It was an authentic moment and people love that. I watched it live and was like dayum.
I've done a shit ton of research and writing on the topic of firearm regulation. I grew up with them as well. I am absolutely for very strict firearm regulation... However: I think it's time democrats pivot on this to root causes: education, Healthcare, and societal stressors. The electorate just isn't there yet, and it will probably take another 2 decades at least before the boomers die off and any movement can be made.
taiyang 6 points 2 years ago
I'm not even sure if the electorate is in a place to address issues in education and healthcare, haha. But unfortunately I agree; I think Dems are right because it's clear other nations don't have this problem (even with their same unhappy societies) but making only incremental gains with gun control shows that it can't be done right now.
But I wouldn't necessarily go with root causes as first priority. If they could fix election issues like gerrymandering and the electrical college, urban centers would have a fair say and might push harder on gun regulation when voices are heard on equal level. If I had a majority, that's what I'd hit first to make the rest easier.
lennybird 5 points 2 years ago
Wholly agree! Campaign Finance / Election Reform is my #1 issue and I've been advocating for this to be the single issue vote we all get behind. It truly is the root of nearly every other issue and complaint we have.
Reyali 2 points 2 years ago
Unfortunately that doesn’t serve the democrats as a whole, so it isn’t prioritized by the party favorites.
(Note: I am NOT both-sidesing here. I always have and will again vote D this election because they are the most sane option that actually has some human interests at heart. I just accept that they are not all altruistic and are also motivated to keep status quo in some ways that don’t align to my personal preferences for my elected officials. They are still the right choice.)
Rekorse -1 points 2 years ago
Apparently we will have to wait for a few additional generations to die off as ones like yours keep saying infinitely wise things like "why ban guns, just solve all mental problems nation wide".
The entire world knows this fact: the root cause of Americas gun problems is the sheer amount of them and how easy it is for ANYONE to obtain one.
But you know what, I'm open to be proven wrong. Why don't you show me which nation has shown its possible to resolve mental health issues across their whole population. How about studies that show most shooters are mentally I'll? Or recently fired? Or poor?
Kinda interesting how even the poorest people in America have guns huh?
lennybird 2 points 2 years ago
Look I don't disagree necessarily. I work in a hospital and my wife is the first response to tragedies like this as well. In the hospital we must simultaneously treat both root cause and symptoms. Firearms are a symptom of a deeper problem that, like shock or hemorrhagic bleeding, exacerbate whatever the original problem is. That being said, if we can reduce the number of people who slip through the cracks of society we can improve our outcomes just the same.
No doubt on the surface, cutting supply and taking firearms off the streets is likely the simpler route at addressing the symptom; that is, the average lethal effectiveness of a deranged person when they do slip through the cracks. But I'm trying to be pragmatic and avoid putting the cart before the horse because unfortunately there really is limited support for this and no budging in polling; and ultimately, Democrats tying themselves to this jeopordizes key parts of the electorate in order to win elections int he first place. So ultimately, I'd rather table this issue and soften the perception from centrists and conservatives in order to stop fascism. Then, we can utilize this as a launching point to address root causes: "Okay, you want to keep your 2nd Amendment... I get that. So let's compromise, let you keep that, and we work on universal healthcare, guaranteed therapy, reduction in work week hours, K-College publicly-funded education, etc."
Until the position of where the electorate is at moves, then we are simply stuck on this. If Sandy Hook and Uvalde didn't do it, then nothing will for some time. So conversely, let me know when there is legitimate shift in the electorate and perhaps then we can tackle this. Though I suspect that only comes with the passing of boomers. (and yes, we keep saying this. Unless you're 100-years-old, we're the same people still waiting for the same generation to die off...)
Rekorse -3 points 2 years ago
So you say that people like me make it harder to get democrats elected right? Tell me which is supposed to lead which, the party lead the people or the people lead the party?
There is no consensus opinion, which is why its avoided as its a lose-lose topic. Its a hardball as they say.
I would argue people like you, holding the compromising position you have, are what prevents the democratic party from taking this issue seriously. Politicians avoid ambiguous positions almost to a fault, so you adding to that is hurting the situation.
shalafi 25 points 2 years ago
Yes, if you come in my home forcefully, I'll do my best to kill you. That is a line one does not cross, especially not with my wife and children in the house. Bullshit outside is a call to 911, see what happens.
Sure, maybe it's some drunk or kid at the wrong home. That's why you take a breath and identify the target and situation. If you're too fucking panicky to do that, give up your weapons, you do not deserve them.
Gun laws are mostly counter-productive and racist, but I'd go for a simple "use of force" test before one's initial purchase. If you watch GunTubers, you'll get sane takes, often straight legal advice from lawyers. If you talk to individuals, Jesus, what these people think is lawful and moral... And if you can't be arsed to do your fucking homework before bringing death into the equation, you are not fit to own or handle a weapon.
And don't fuck with me on this unless you've suffered a home invasion. Ever had hoods break in and rob you at knife point on Christmas Eve? Ever had a bear wander in your home on Christmas Eve? (Wow, now that I say that out loud... weird. Maybe I should not stay home on the 24th. OK, the wolf hybrid cruised in one summer night, but I knew him. Still got me to draw. 🙄)
Rekorse -2 points 2 years ago
Being robbed doesnt give someone the right to kill someone. This is about personal morals, not tit for tat or get off my lawn bullshit. People have absurdly irrational fears that murderers are wandering the streets at night and picking random houses.
Stealing is a cash business, theres no benefit to stealing from occupied homes, and absolutely not for attacking or killing an occupant. Criminals know this, they are just as afraid of people in the house as the other way around, thats why they carry weapons.
The goal is that guns are harder to get, which makes them too expensive for random criminals to carry. Then homeowners can pull their old baseball bat out for home protection like we used to.
Also, if you have people breaking in trying to murder you, you have made some awful enemies then.
InverseParallax 11 points 2 years ago
I'm close on this.
I'm a responsible gun owner, but there are a LOT of crazy ammosexuals out there who aren't safe to let carry.
If someone tries to enter your house though, that's a red line.
TechLich 11 points 2 years ago
I feel like this a cultural thing because that sounds wild to me.
The penalty for burglary where I am is not death, nor am I a judge or executioner.
We've been broken into a lot and it's usually just some poor asshole who wants to steal things to buy meth. It's horrible and scary and feels like a massive violation but shooting someone in that scenario just feels like straight up murder.
FrostyTheDoo 12 points 2 years ago
When someone breaks into your home you don't have much of an opportunity to figure out why. Many times the reason is not to steal things and buy meth. Sometimes it's to hurt, rape, or kidnap someone. Why take that chance?
You might be picturing someone slowly walking up and executing a pleading, weaponless burglar in cold blood. In reality these things happen with mere seconds to make a decision about the safety of you and your family. Again, Why take the chance?
If you're breaking into a house, getting shot is a calculated risk you have chosen to take. If it happens, it's only your fault. You had the choice to not put yourself or anyone else in harm's way, and you chose the other option.
friend_of_satan 8 points 2 years ago
When someone breaks into your home you don't have much of an opportunity to figure out why.
My thoughts exactly. "In Cold Blood" by Truman Capote is a true story about burglars who came to steal and ended up murdering a whole family. Awful thing to experience. Great book though.
WoodScientist 7 points 2 years ago
The bigger problem is that people who buy guns for home defense are acting emotionally, not logically. The cold hard statistical truth is that if you own a firearm, it is most likely to be used by yourself or one of your family members to commit suicide, or to be the cause of a fatal accident, than it is to be used in self defense.
People have this deeply flawed belief about suicide that if someone wants to do it, they'll find a way. But that isn't how suicide actually works. Most actual suicides are spur-of-the moment things. And giving someone access, in their, home, to a quick and usually painless method of ending their own life serves to massively increase the risk of suicide. Everyone has bad days. Everyone who lives long enough and isn't a psychopath will experience deep sorrow. In a drunken sorrow on the night after a bad breakup or the death of a close relative? It doesn't take much for people to be vulnerable to the call of the void.
Yes, break-ins are scary. But the truth is, most thieves try NOT to break in when someone is home. And home invasions for rape, murder, or kidnapping are even rarer. There are a lot of scary things in this world, but you shouldn't let that fear control your behavior. Rabies is a damn terrible thing, but it would be incredibly irrational to avoid going on a hike just due the risk of encountering a rabid wild animal.
In the US at least, if you own a gun, it is far, far likelier that that weapon will be used to end your life or life of one of your family members than it will end be used in self defense.
This is why I do not own a firearm. Yes, home invasions are terrifying. But if you own a weapon for the sake of home defense, you are letting your emotions and fear control your life. The simple statistical fact is that, on the net, buying a gun lowers your average expected lifespan.
Nastybutler 21 points 2 years ago
Deranged MAGA nuts: Challenge accepted!
CharlesDarwin 3 points 2 years ago
We can be pretty sure they'd make martyr out of such individual(s), given how they treat the TERRORIST that is Ashli Babbitt.
The flailing dumb-dumb donnie even brought her up during the debate.
Worstdriver 17 points 2 years ago
Well, better than the time someone broke into the home of the Canadian Prime Minister (Jean Chretien at the time) and his wife held off the intruder with a soapstone carving...
CaptainSpaceman 16 points 2 years ago
Mine too, Madamme. Mine too
WoahWoah 8 points 2 years ago
I hate to say it, but in America right now, Harris leaning into a quasi-pro gun stance is probably the right move. Something like 75% of the country are against a hand gun ban (which is the type of gun used in like 97% of murders), over 70% say the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own guns, a large majority are against an all-rifle ban, and a simple majority are against an assault-rifle style ban.
Until the gun culture in America changes, and with presidential elections always being so close, moving away from the anti-gun position just makes obvious political sense, unfortunately.
MediaBiasFactChecker -9 points 2 years ago
path: 0 12460619, hotness: undefined, score: -9, children: 0
The Hill - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Hill:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
https://thehill.com/homenews/4889914-kamala-harris-gun-owner-oprah/
RizzRustbolt -11 points 2 years ago
Careful Kamala... your neo-lib is showing.
Worstdriver 7 points 2 years ago
How so? Explain please, cause I'm not understanding the connection. (Yes, I'm both non-American and an idiot)
MoogleMaestro 6 points 2 years ago
I mean, I don't think we need to worry about people getting shot during an unannounced in home break in.
We need to worry about people being shot randomly in the street for no reason, or guns being in the hands of people who are mentally deranged. Those are very different things imo.
HelixDab2 5 points 2 years ago
The "gun problem" is really an issue with shit like social services and safety nets, not guns per se.
If you talk to a criminal defense attorney and ask what the gov't could do that would see the biggest drop in gun crime, most of them will answer without hesitation: end the war on drugs. If you decriminalize and legalize drugs, you end fights over money and territory in a single fell swoop, because you don't see convenience stores shooting each other up, do you?
EtherWhack -18 points 2 years ago
She forgot the "a" in her statement. Any intruder in her house is gonna get a COVID vaccination.
zephorah -26 points 2 years ago
Kamala Harris is Vice President of the United States of America and the POTUS is mentally compromised. If she shoots anyone while under threat, which a break in would suggest, she’ll just get a nod and probably even keep her handgun.
If/when she is POTUS she’ll have immunity, per SCOTUS.
taiyang 23 points 2 years ago
You don't need to be POTUS to be found innocent in most states. Many have stand your ground rules, and many more at least have self defense rules.
Granted in her case, she has secret service so it's a moot point.
trafficnab 14 points 2 years ago
Shooting people isn't a constitutionally enumerated right of the office of the president
She'd have to order one of her executive employees to do it
Cryophilia 4 points 2 years ago
According to SCOTUS, anything the President does could be immune to prosecution, including shooting someone, intruder or otherwise.
BaroqueInMind 6 points 2 years ago
Not anything, it's only shit the SCOTUS deems as "an official act", so it can be open to interpretation based off the politics of the Supreme Court justices.
WoodScientist 3 points 2 years ago
What if the person breaking into Kamala's house is Clarence Thomas?
zephorah 0 points 2 years ago
I don’t think POTUS or VPOTUS, even pre SCOTUS insane decision on presidential immunity, would be prosecuted for standing ground or engaging would be castle law, even in a state without either. I don’t think any of those offices would be held to duty to retreat either, and rightly so.
politics
@lemmy.world
31411
34048
9507
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
politics
@lemmy.world
31411
34048
9507
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
save