Bernie Sanders Calls For Totalitarian Gun Confiscation

[headhuntersix]

http://wethevigilant.com/2016/01/23/bernie-sanders-calls-for-totalitarian-gun-confiscation/

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (a pro-gun state, for the record) recently said on the 1/17 edition of NBC’s “Meet The Press” that “we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America.”

Calling for a ban on all firearms “used to kill people” and “not for hunting” implies a ban on all guns, period.

[headhuntersix]

This should just about eliminate this commie piece of shit from any serious contention in the general election. I guess he's just another shitbag that can't fathom what "shall not be infringed" means.

[240 is Back]

this will rally the SHIT out of liberal voters in iowa and NH.

Later, he'll "clarify" things and say he didn't mean this or that, and nobody will notice it.

Same way trump can shit on POWs, but as long as something newer and shiny appears the next day, nobody gives a shit.  Bernie is anti-establishment, and that's all people want in 2016.   They forget we are the #1 nation in the world, the last great superpower, because we did things a certain way.  Sure, we need to curb spending ala cruz... but I don't get how people really think "doing things completely opposite" will make us that much greater... if you're #1, you tweak, you don't overhaul.  Trump calling our allie names.. that shit doesn't keep us #1.

[tonymctones]

this will rally the SHIT out of liberal voters in iowa and NH.

Later, he'll "clarify" things and say he didn't mean this or that, and nobody will notice it.

Same way trump can shit on POWs, but as long as something newer and shiny appears the next day, nobody gives a shit.  Bernie is anti-establishment, and that's all people want in 2016.   They forget we are the #1 nation in the world, the last great superpower, because we did things a certain way.  Sure, we need to curb spending ala cruz... but I don't get how people really think "doing things completely opposite" will make us that much greater... if you're #1, you tweak, you don't overhaul.  Trump calling our allie names.. that shit doesn't keep us #1.

Ra ra ra liberals, republicans suck

[240 is Back]

Ra ra ra liberals, republicans suck

see, that's just weird to post that.

I characterized bernie as a standard politician, willing to lie to rally base for early wins to undermine clinton.

you consider that 'rah rah'-ing dems in some way?  that's just poor reading comprehension.

I shit on dems all day here.  Most just can't realize Trump does fall into the Dem category

[Las Vegas]

http://wethevigilant.com/2016/01/23/bernie-sanders-calls-for-totalitarian-gun-confiscation/

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (a pro-gun state, for the record) recently said on the 1/17 edition of NBC’s “Meet The Press” that “we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America.”

Calling for a ban on all firearms “used to kill people” and “not for hunting” implies a ban on all guns, period.

The article says Sanders has a "pro-gun voting record".

[The True Adonis]

http://wethevigilant.com/2016/01/23/bernie-sanders-calls-for-totalitarian-gun-confiscation/

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (a pro-gun state, for the record) recently said on the 1/17 edition of NBC’s “Meet The Press” that “we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America.”

Calling for a ban on all firearms “used to kill people” and “not for hunting” implies a ban on all guns, period.

I like the number one comment on that article. 

   Mark // January 24, 2016 at 8:17 pm // Reply   

I find it baffling that people can be so blatantly stupid. Really, I’m genuinely surprised the guy who wrote this article has gone this long without drowning in a bowl of cereal. He’s pretty much making things up. This is the kind of crap that makes gun-owners look like cultist nutjobs.

“Calling for a ban on all firearms “used to kill people” and “not for hunting” implies a ban on all guns, period.” Actually, Guy who can’t even read his own sentence, the specification in itself implies the exact opposite.

Hell, you cite in your own garbage article that liberals complain about his “pro-gun” voting record, which is rooted in the fact that he has NEVER wanted to ban all guns. In recent debates he’s argued with other candidates that banning ALL guns doesn’t make sense. As you also noted yourself, his state is pro-gun. Your sentiment carries as much weight as saying that “‘I’m eating donuts’ implies a ban on all firearms, period.”

How is this guy so inept as to draw such a baseless conclusion out of thin air? What’s worse is that the “writer” points out of lot of these things out, so it’s not like he’s unaware, he just has the deductive reasoning abilities of a landfill.

“…failed to mention that Americans purchased 170 million new guns since 1991 and the crime rate has since dropped 51%.” Why would he? Merely mentioning two things in one sentence does not make them related. A lot of people bought milk during that time, but we’re not about to sit here and pretend it’s thwarting crime without a single factual link, are we? But more importantly, the crime rate has been steadily going down for decades (since the early 70’s). You can’t look at something that’s already happening, then hop in the middle of its progression and say “that was because of me.” The inclusion of this as ‘proof’ is not only baseless, it’s moronic.

Then you got all these idiots discussing the article like it is fact and not some idiot-monologue. And before you start furiously typing with the nothing but the weight of your tears, I am a gun owner, so you can save all the “anti-gun” one-liners.

[Straw Man]

I like the number one comment on that article.  

   Mark // January 24, 2016 at 8:17 pm // Reply   

I find it baffling that people can be so blatantly stupid. Really, I’m genuinely surprised the guy who wrote this article has gone this long without drowning in a bowl of cereal. He’s pretty much making things up. This is the kind of crap that makes gun-owners look like cultist nutjobs.

“Calling for a ban on all firearms “used to kill people” and “not for hunting” implies a ban on all guns, period.” Actually, Guy who can’t even read his own sentence, the specification in itself implies the exact opposite.

Hell, you cite in your own garbage article that liberals complain about his “pro-gun” voting record, which is rooted in the fact that he has NEVER wanted to ban all guns. In recent debates he’s argued with other candidates that banning ALL guns doesn’t make sense. As you also noted yourself, his state is pro-gun. Your sentiment carries as much weight as saying that “‘I’m eating donuts’ implies a ban on all firearms, period.”

How is this guy so inept as to draw such a baseless conclusion out of thin air? What’s worse is that the “writer” points out of lot of these things out, so it’s not like he’s unaware, he just has the deductive reasoning abilities of a landfill.

“…failed to mention that Americans purchased 170 million new guns since 1991 and the crime rate has since dropped 51%.” Why would he? Merely mentioning two things in one sentence does not make them related. A lot of people bought milk during that time, but we’re not about to sit here and pretend it’s thwarting crime without a single factual link, are we? But more importantly, the crime rate has been steadily going down for decades (since the early 70’s). You can’t look at something that’s already happening, then hop in the middle of its progression and say “that was because of me.” The inclusion of this as ‘proof’ is not only baseless, it’s moronic.

Then you got all these idiots discussing the article like it is fact and not some idiot-monologue. And before you start furiously typing with the nothing but the weight of your tears, I am a gun owner, so you can save all the “anti-gun” one-liners.

it's even worse than that

Bernie never actually said what this author has in quotation marks.

When you watch the video he says that he wants to re-look at some parts of the Assault Weapons legislation from 1988 (you know the one that Reagan was all for and helped to get passed) specifically talking about a prohibition on armor piercing ammunition designed to kill police officers.

I guess this author knows that his readers are a bunch of dipshits who won't even bother to watch the video he embedded with his article and decided to make up a quote about firearms used to kill people and then conflate that phony quote with banning all firearms.   He just completely fabricated a position and then assigned it to Sanders.

You can see Sanders actual comments starting around the one minute mark

[Kazan]

I don't give a fuck what he says, a ban on "assault weapons" is unconstitutional.

[Straw Man]

I don't give a fuck what he says, a ban on "assault weapons" is unconstitutional.

does the constitution mention assault weapons?

btw - I don't think Bernie even wants to ban those anyway. 

He talks about the parts of the 1988 legislation that he liked (ban on armor piercing bullets and child safety locks) and then says there are parts of that legislation that he didn't like

Right Wing Translation (not referring to you) = "Bernie Sanders Calls For Totalitarian Gun Confiscation"

[Kazan]

does the constitution mention assault weapons?

btw - I don't think Bernie even wants to ban those anyway.  

He talks about the parts of the 1988 legislation that he liked (ban on armor piercing bullets and child safety locks) and then says there are parts of that legislation that he didn't like

Right Wing Translation (not referring to you) = "Bernie Sanders Calls For Totalitarian Gun Confiscation"

No it does not, it says arms, is an assault weapon an arm that would be used by a militia? Yes, then it is unconstitutional. If you can find in the second amendment where it says except armor piercing rounds or child safety locks, then he has an argument, if not then yep you guessed it unconstitutional. You leftist always want to claim that the constitution is a living breathing document, then you have to take into account advancements in weapons, that is why it specifically says arms, not muskets.

[Straw Man]

No it does not, it says arms, is an assault weapon an arm that would be used by a militia? Yes, then it is unconstitutional. If you can find in the second amendment where it says except armor piercing rounds or child safety locks, then he has an argument, if not then yep you guessed it unconstitutional. You leftist always want to claim that the constitution is a living breathing document, then you have to take into account advancements in weapons, that is why it specifically says arms, not muskets.

not just any militia but a "well regulated militia"

sounds like they were all for regulations

the only arms they had back then were muskets and cannons so that's all they could have been referring to when they wrote it.

Are we assuming all weapons are "arms" or are you going to start drawing lines are what is and what is not an arm?

[Kazan]

not just any militia but a "well regulated militia"

sounds like they were all for regulations

the only arms they had back then were muskets and cannons so that's all they could have been referring to when they wrote it.

Are we assuming all weapons are "arms" or are you going to start drawing lines are what is and what is not an arm?

The SC has already rules that a sawed off shotgun is not a weapon that would be used by a militia, so yes we are. And just for your information, the majority of the cannons used during the revolution were privately owned. They didn't seem to have problem with citizens owning cannons........ Not to mention there was no standing army, so citizens were the army/militia.

[headhuntersix]

Well regulated means trained...as in you can fucking use your weapon. That's exactly what it means. It means you keep your fire arm in working condition and you train with it and use it. Who the hell has armor piercing rounds...that's just bullshit. Yeah Sanders has a good record on guns but its what keeps him in Vermont. They barely have gun laws. Nationwide..he can say anything he wants.

Nobody should have a gun who has a criminal background, who’s involved in domestic abuse situations. People should not have guns who are going to hurt other people, who are unstable. And second of all I believe that we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America, and we have a huge loophole now with gun shows that should be eliminated.”

That pretty much includes all guns. Also "hunting rifles"...I can take your friggen head off with a Remington 700 a lot better then I can with an AR.

[headhuntersix]

The SC has already rules that a sawed off shotgun is not a weapon that would be used by a militia, so yes we are. And just for your information, the majority of the cannons used during the revolution were privately owned. They didn't seem to have problem with citizens owning cannons........

And you can own a cannon...a mini gun...a barret .50 cal...a quad .50....a flame thrower. None have ever ever been used in a crime. I also think that a shot barreled shotgun is also regulated like a machine gun. Pay the money and you can have one.

[Straw Man]

The SC has already rules that a sawed off shotgun is not a weapon that would be used by a militia, so yes we are. And just for your information, the majority of the cannons used during the revolution were privately owned. They didn't seem to have problem with citizens owning cannons........ Not to mention there was no standing army, so citizens were the army/militia.

why couldn't a militia used a sawed off shotgun ?  Seems like liberal BS from the SC

couldn't a militia also use a nuclear or biological weapon.  I certainly think they could so I should be able to own one as well

I think I mentioned both muskets and cannons being the only "arms" available at the time the 2nd amendment was written and I assume those muskets were privately owned too.

Given the current crop of nutbag militia's in this country we're not doing a very good report with the "well regulated" part

[Kazan]

why couldn't a militia used a sawed off shotgun ?  Seems like liberal BS from the SC

couldn't a militia also use a nuclear or biological weapon.  I certainly think they could so I should be able to own one as well

I think I mentioned both muskets and cannons being the only "arms" available at the time the 2nd amendment was written and I assume those muskets were privately owned too.

Given the current crop of nutbag militia's in this country we're not doing a very good report with the "well regulated" part

I believe US citizens should have access to anything the military has, if you can afford it. The second amendment is simple, like the rest of the constitution, it says what the government can't do to the citizen.

[Straw Man]

I believe US citizens should have access to anything the military has, if you can afford it. The second amendment is simple, like the rest of the constitution, it says what the government can't do to the citizen.

agreed, including nuclear weapons and most especially extra-terrestrial technology from Roswell

[Kazan]

agreed, including nuclear weapons and most especially extra-terrestrial technology from Roswell

Hey if you can afford a nuclear weapon and can maintain it properly, why not?

[Straw Man]

Hey if you can afford a nuclear weapon and can maintain it properly, why not?

why not indeed

I can't think of any problem with that either

[The True Adonis]

Hey if you can afford a nuclear weapon and can maintain it properly, why not?

Yes, ISIS should be allowed to pool their money together for some heavy weaponry.  Why not, as long as they aren't going to use it.  Let them have it.

[Kazan]

Yes, ISIS should be allowed to pool their money together for some heavy weaponry.  Why not, as long as they aren't going to use it.  Let them have it.

I wasn't aware ISIS was protected by the US constitution.

[headhuntersix]

Both the nuclear weapon thing and now the ISIS argument are the last refuge of the gun grabbers. The 2nd amendment has always pertained to small arms....only you idiot libs bring in nukes.

[Straw Man]

Both the nuclear weapon thing and now the ISIS argument are the last refuge of the gun grabbers. The 2nd amendment has always pertained to small arms....only you idiot libs bring in nukes.

Where does it say "small arms"?
Are cannons considered small arms (especially in a time when the next/only step down were single shot flintlock weapons)

[The True Adonis]

Both the nuclear weapon thing and now the ISIS argument are the last refuge of the gun grabbers. The 2nd amendment has always pertained to small arms....only you idiot libs bring in nukes.

I'm not a gun grabber though and neither is Bernie.  Ronald Reagan was a gun grabber in case you were not aware.