“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.”

25 points
*

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. 🙄)

permalink
report
reply
10 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

These downvotes seem a little excessive. You’re making some good points about guns and how people should handle them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Where do you live that bears and gangs are both on the table, Anchorage?

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I literally trust noone who has ever said “I’m a responsible gun owner”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

America is so fucked. Both parties dont give af about the gun problem. Just one side cares a bit less than the other

permalink
report
reply
6 points

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Context is important, since the person saying this has a security detail and holds office where the threat of violence against them is real.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-25 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
14 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

According to SCOTUS, anything the President does could be immune to prosecution, including shooting someone, intruder or otherwise.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points
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/

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

permalink
report
reply
-16 points

She forgot the “a” in her statement. Any intruder in her house is gonna get a COVID vaccination.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 14K

    Posts

  • 412K

    Comments