Attorney General Harris -- another gun control hypocrite

[pablo_marmol]

The horrifying ineptitude and dishonesty of so many gun restriction supporters has left me with the sense that nothing should surprise me anymore. That said, this article by Chuck Michel - well cited - found me following one face-palm with another.......with another.......and another:

California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a candidate actively campaigning for the Senate seat that is opening up with Barbara Boxer’s retirement, recently made the news when she tried to shame members of Congress for refusing to enact unconstitutional and counterproductive gun-control laws. “They should have closed the chambers of Congress on the House and the Senate side, and said all you members go in there, only you, and spread out the autopsy photographs of [the school children who were killed during the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting] and [required] them to look at those photographs. And then vote your conscience,” Harris said at Politicon, a political convention held in Los Angeles. Wow! That’s some pretty extreme rhetoric. But is the pot calling the kettle black here?

Harris is the highest level law enforcement officer in California, and the head of the Department of Justice (DOJ). DOJ is responsible for maintaining criminal records, mental illness records, records of those who have become ineligible to possess firearms, and all of the databases used to perform background checks on gun buyers, to register firearms, and to take firearms away from people who are prohibited from possessing them but who still have firearms registered in their name. Those records, and the related databases, are a hot mess. As the California State Auditor has confirmed not once but twice, Harris herself is responsible for maintaining those systems. And she has repeatedly dropped the ball. Under her leadership, DOJ has failed to properly implement, manage, and administer California’s gun laws and associated databases and records.

<snip>

III. BILLIONS IN MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT MONEY GOES UNSPENT

Mental health treatment is the first line of defense in preventing mass shootings. Recent statistics by the U.S. Department of Health indicate that approximately 11 million U.S. adults, or 4.8 percent of the population, were diagnosed with serious mental illnesses in 2009.16 Critical incidents involving the mentally ill, such as the school shootings in Newtown, Isla Vista and others, underscore the seriousness of detecting and treating mental illnesses. Even President Obama has claimed that increased funding for mental health would reduce violent crimes committed with firearms. But Harris, who has the power to prompt action on this issue, has stood on the sidelines while billions of dollars in funds collected and specifically earmarked for mental health treatment in California remains unspent. Meanwhile, mental health treatment programs throughout the state are chronically underfunded.

http://213ajq29v6vk19b76q3534cx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Special-Feature-K-Harris.pdf

Discuss.

[safeinOhio]

1. Does this mean

you will be voting for the republican to replace Boxer?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Gun control, mental health, rampage killings, hypocrisy. None of these matter.

Only trying to bait the poster into make a hide/ban-able comment matters.

[TeddyR]

3. It means that any thinking Democrat

Would NOT vote for Harris in the Democratic primary. Of course, if she is the nominee then Democrats should support her, despite her ineptitude on this particular issue.

[Puha Ekapi]

4. I will NOT be voting for Harris in...

...either the primary or the general. But of course, I don't live in California

[branford]

5. I don't live in California, but I totally reject the binary nature of your question.

Democrat or not, if I believe a candidate is unqualified or otherwise awful, I need not vote for him or her at all. That certainly does not mean I must vote for the Republican candidate.

Besides voting against Harris in the Senate primary, a Democrat could simply choose to stay home rather than vote in the election or write-in the name of someone else.

Simply, every candidate must earn my vote, and not take mine or anyone else's for granted. I'm a lifelong registered Democrat and generally vote the party line because I like and agree with our candidates. However, the onus is always on the candidate to demonstrate their value to me. When our Party and candidates fail to do so and simply expect Democrats to act like dutiful automatons, we have situations like Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, a two-time statewide loser who went on vacation rather than campaign against Scott Brown.

[pablo_marmol]

7. ^^^ This NT

[virginia mountainman]

8. Very VERY, true...

and Very well said!

[pablo_marmol]

6. Your filth doesn't really merit a response, but.........

Mrs. Unicorn expressed my feelings better than I would have.

Kisses.

[safeinOhio]

9. Come on now there lots of reasons to vote for her other than gunz

On January 3, 2011, Kamala D. Harris was sworn in as the 32nd Attorney General of the State of California. On November 4, 2014 she was re-elected to a second term in office. She is the first woman, the first African American, and the first South Asian to hold the office in the history of California.

As chief law enforcement officer for the state, Attorney General Harris has focused on combating transnational gangs that are trafficking guns, drugs, and human beings throughout California. She has fought to reduce truancy among California’s elementary school students and ensure that every California child can exercise their constitutional right to an education. Attorney General Harris has worked to increase the adoption of technology and data-driven policing to assist law enforcement in the efficient investigation and prosecution of crime, and has traveled to every region of California to expand partnerships with local law enforcement. And she established the California Department of Justice Division of Recidivism Reduction and Re-entry to reduce crime by getting offenders back on track to productive, law-abiding lives.

As chief lawyer for the people of California, Attorney General Harris has led a bold response to the state’s foreclosure crisis. She expanded prosecutions of mortgage-related fraud and crime by establishing a multidivisional Mortgage Fraud Strike Force. On behalf of California homeowners, she secured more than $18 billion from the nation’s banks as part of the recent National Mortgage Settlement, including $12 billion in principal reductions. To restore transparency and fairness to the mortgage and foreclosure system, she wrote the nation’s most comprehensive package of foreclosure reforms—the California Homeowner Bill of Rights—and fought successfully for its passage through the California Legislature and saw it signed into law.

[safeinOhio]

10. Seems no Republican stands a chance against Harris, but there is a Dem running.

Only she has a problem with Native Americans

Harris’ biggest potential threat comes from another Democrat, 10-term Rep. Loretta Sanchez from Orange County. However, Sanchez got off to a bumpy start last spring, apologizing in May after a videotape surfaced showing her making a whooping cry in reference to Native Americans that brought a cascade of reprimands from fellow Democrats. She also lags Harris in fundraising.

[pablo_marmol]

16. "Come on now there lots of reasons to vote for her other than gunz."

Did I suggest otherwise? No -- I did not. Nice job doubling-down on your sliming.

[safeinOhio]

11. 4 reason to vote for Harris

1. Kamala has worked to make sure every Californian is treated equally and afforded equal rights. She joined Governor Jerry Brown in refusing to defend Proposition 8. In a statement on the Proposition 8 arguments before the Supreme Court, Kamala states that she "declines to defend Proposition 8 because it violates the Constitution...The time has come for this right to be afforded every citizen." After the Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 8 lacked the legal standing necessary to challenge the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and let stand a District Court ruling that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, Kamala happily officiated Kris Perry and Sandy Stier's wedding, a Berkeley couple who were two of the four plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case that overturned Proposition 8.

2. Once named the “female Barack Obama,” Kamala ran for Attorney General of California in 2010 on a progressive platform. She openly opposes the death penalty, refusing to pursue capital punishment during her eight year tenure as San Francisco District Attorney, and as Attorney General, she said that she would review each case individually.

3. Kamala intends to continue pushing for criminal justice reform despite the attendant political risks. When asked about advocating a criminal justice policy, either being ‘soft on crime’ or ‘hard on crime,” Kamala responded saying that instead of being ‘soft’ or ‘hard on crime,’ it’s important to be ‘smart on crime,’ which means that it’s not just being tough on serious crimes, but also being tough on the underlying causes of crime.

4. PowerPAC.org and PowerPAC+ have been Kamala supporters since 2010. In our efforts to support Kamala, PowerPAC.org produced a political ad outlining Kamala’s promise to protect the most vulnerable working class neighborhoods by holding California polluters accountable to their environmental crimes. In 2012, Kamala filed misdemeanor criminal charges against Chevron for violations of labor, health and safety standards that contributed to a fire at its Richmond refinery.

[branford]

12. Most of the points are very general, and would apply to many Democrats.

In any event, the OP's criticism of Harris dealt with what amounts to professional incompetence, including improperly maintaining criminal and mental health records and failing to spending money actually allocated for treatment of mental illness. These are issues of professional ineptitude and negligence, rather than gun control, as careful record keeping and mental health treatment are generally supported by both gun control and gun rights advocates.

You cannot wish away these serious issues with relatively mundane talking points that likely apply to virtually all Democrats seeking the Democratic Senate nomination. Similarly, your prior accusation that Democrats who don't support Harris effectively support Republicans is insulting, offensive, and hardly likely to convince anyone of Harris' individual merits or qualifications to be Senator from CA.

I would also note that blanket and unquestioning opposition to the death penalty and a tactical refusal to be "hard on crime" is certainly not a position supported by all or necessarily most Californians, Democrat or otherwise. For instance, even President Obama and former AG Holder, opponents of the death penalty, sought it against Tsarnaev after the Boston Marathon Bombing, as it was available and appropriate (and even a liberal MA jury agreed).

Simply, instead of professing the wonders of how Harris might have once been called the "female Barack Obama," officiated at a same-sex wedding, or published a political ad about the working class, either substantively deny the allegations in the OP or explain why in an era where most Democrats are concerned about mass shootings and demand effective background checks, we should excuse or ignore Harris' inability to perform the requisite duties of her elected position of California AG, i.e., properly maintaining criminal and mental health records and utilizing all funds allocated for treatment of mental illness, as per President Obama, all absolutely essential to mitigate the scourge of the criminal misuse of firearms.

[safeinOhio]

13. I'd like to know more

about the source of OPs post.

[branford]

14. As I indicated, I'm not a resident of California,

nor involved the its senate primary. Nevertheless, the OP's allegations were disturbing and deserve further research, particularly since they involve matters where gun rights and gun control proponents may find common cause.

In any event, you are certainly free to like and support Harris or anyone else. My issues were your first suggesting that not supporting her was the equivalent to voting for a Republican, and then later offering some potentially good points about her while ignoring the OP's actual allegations.

If you had simply and politely stated that you were unaware of the potential issues with Harris from the OP, believe they may be untrue or exaggerated and warrant further research, and that even if true, her other liberal accomplishments outweigh these problems, and that you therefore believe she should prevail in the Democratic primary and senate election, you would have received little, if any, push-back.

Tact, diplomacy, and most importantly, respect for fellow Democrats (even those who support gun rights) goes a very long way.

[safeinOhio]

15. I agree it was a little off.

OP didn't offer any other choices. After looking into it, it seems not to matter a whole lot as Harris looks like a shoe in.

[pablo_marmol]

18. "OP didn't offer any other choices."

How utterly pathetic. The only possible interpretation of my OP was that I was suggesting that I would vote GOP, or that others should? Seriously?!

I mean, it's not like every Democrat on this board who supports the RKBA hasn't - at one time or another, or consistently expressed exasperation regarding the political cost of gun restriction dishonesty and hypocrisy. Clearly, your interpretation is the only reasonable one!

The fact that KH is a shoe-in is completely MOOT. Gun owners have long memories -- and citizens of other states will once again be reminded that Democrats aren't to be respected or trusted w/regard to the gun violence issue.

"I agree it was a little off."

A "little" off eh? LMFAO! I guess that's as close as a person like yourself comes to a retraction and apology! I've bookmarked this thread as a great example of how filthy-ugly some can get when it comes to this contentious issue.

[pablo_marmol]

17. ^^ Two points:

1) Your response to a thoughtful, intelligent and honest post is a one line non-sequiter? Well, at least you're consistently thoughtless!

2) A person of integrity would like to know more about the source of the OP's post if, and only if they had thoroughly checked the (abundant) citations in the article and found them lacking. A person such as yourself, on the other hand, would "like to know more about the source of the OP's post" in order to haplessly "debunk" the material by employing the genetic fallacy.

[Eleanors38]

19. Well, I've been voting for gun-control hypocrites for years.