It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bernie needs to educate himself on firearms!

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: butcherguy
Again true.

Is that a situation one runs into a lot while hog hunting?

The necessity to fire off 30 rounds with no reload?

You should check out some hog hunting videos on YouTube. The hunters are presented with large numbers of running hogs. Some guys are outfitted with what would otherwise be called military gear. Night sights mounted on AR and AK rifles. The hogs are running at the first shot and at that point you have a lot of moving targets in low light conditions.
It really is a necessity to have these things when the goal is eradication.




posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Personally speaking, I've never understood this semi-auto hunting thing.

I've hunted most of my life and as far as I'm concerned if you can't take down a buck or bull moose with one shot to the kill zone causing instant death, you shouldn't be fricken hunting. The whole point is to take down the animal immediately with it not having to suffer any kind of pain before it drops... instant kill. Not to mention all the damage done to the hide with multiple shot holes everywhere.

If you don't have a clean clear shot in one go, you don't take it... "Unless you're starving to death" as my grandfather always put it.

But that's just the way I was raised and taught.

I suspect my grandfather is probably rolling in his grave and shaking his head in disgust with this AK-hunting thing. He was an avid hunter and taught all of us kids, but he was very strick with specific hunting rules at all times.

I have nothing but respect for my gramps for being the strick old bugger that he was.
edit on 31-7-2015 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

A semi auto can shoot one shot as well as any other type of hunting rifle, there is no reason to spray lead and ruin the meat and hide.

If the autos are cheaper than the bolt action why not use them for hunting?



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: KawRider9

Yeah, that's silly. The good news is, those who go main stream embrace a false left and a false right. All you need to do is point out how corrupt and corporatist our government actually is to bring down their fake narratives. So Bernie is such a "leftist", such a "man of the people" that he wants to make sure that only the corporation who wrote the TPP can say who gets a gun and who doesn't? He so enamored of the working man, that he wants to give TOTAL control the corporations who currently control the federal government through the revolving door? He wants elite corporate masters to decide which workers can defend themselves because he is "for ALL the workers"?

LEFTIST FAIL.

The people are so sick of fakes at this point, that we will vote for whoever the REAL authentic man (or woman) is, left or right. There's nothing to be ashamed of in the TRUE old fashioned leftist perspective of helping all workers and the helpless, but when it drifts into these corporatist weirdo narratives of the need for total control through the federal government, we've ALL had enough, and we are well aware of the level of corporate control at the federal level. Real leaders, left and right, have faith in the spirit of the people and embrace the idea of seeing more empowered people through all means.



edit on 31-7-2015 by tridentblue because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
OP - so you must agree that guns that are specifically designed to kill people should be allowed for sale at gun shows with no background checks ?

Bernie Sanders is proposing common sense gun control, what he's proposing isn't extreme in any way.

Do you know who actually made changes that were way worse than this in Britain, someone who actually not only bought in gun control but managed to take away guns from large sections of the population at the same time? Gun Control that is widely regarded as some of the strictest in the world even 30 years later?

Yes, that darling that the right wing loves to uphold as an example of Conservatism -- MARGARET THATCHER.

You know who else was a strong supporter of gun control, and even managed to pass the Brady Bill ? That other version of right wing Conservatism - RONALD REAGAN.

Maggie bought Gun Control to the British after a particularly disturbing mass shooting in Dunblane, Scotland, and there HASNT BEEN ONE SINCE. AT ALL.

Don't tell me that the answer to mass shootings in USA is "more guns"



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: James1982



And you can actually get .308 and .30-06 kits which allow you to fire .308 from your AR, so by your silly definition it's now a hunting rifle.

Do you think everyone that buys a AR knows enough about weapons to be able to make that conversion?



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies




OP - so you must agree that guns that are specifically designed to kill people should be allowed for sale at gun shows with no background checks ?


Every gun show I've been to has required an ATF form 4473 and a call to the NICS background check system.

Every gun has a different application. Hunting, plinking, competition, and self defense. The law abiding citizen does not carry a gun to kill. They carry a gun to stop someone or something from killing them.

To add: Guns don't have a mind of their own. It is the person who makes the decision to murder. Murder is illegal already. If the goal of gun control is to reduce murder, it is failing. When prohibition began the goal by early 20th century progressives was to prevent alcoholism. All they did was create the freakin' mob and other criminal gangs.




Bernie Sanders is proposing common sense gun control, what he's proposing isn't extreme in any way.


He's proposing to ban all self defense weapons.

Bearing Arms

Sanders told moderator Chuck Todd that “guns used to kill people exclusively, not for hunting, should not be sold in the United States of America.”


Bernie wants to ban the right of the individual to self defense by banning the sale and possession of firearms that are "not for hunting". The Second Amendment isn't about hunting.




Do you know who actually made changes that were way worse than this in Britain, someone who actually not only bought in gun control but managed to take away guns from large sections of the population at the same time? Gun Control that is widely regarded as some of the strictest in the world even 30 years later?

Yes, that darling that the right wing loves to uphold as an example of Conservatism -- MARGARET THATCHER.


What does Margaret Thatchers ridiculousness have to do with Bernie Sanders?




You know who else was a strong supporter of gun control, and even managed to pass the Brady Bill ? That other version of right wing Conservatism - RONALD REAGAN.


And he was wrong to do it. What he actually did was violate the 4th and 2nd amendment by making it a legal qualification that one must undergo a search without due process to exercise their right to arms. Violating my 4th Amendment rights in order for me to exercise my 2nd Amendment right is criminal.




Maggie bought Gun Control to the British after a particularly disturbing mass shooting in Dunblane, Scotland, and there HASNT BEEN ONE SINCE. AT ALL.


No...But they have such a high knife related violent crime rate that they have proposed to ban pointy kitchen knives. They have instituted a "Turn in your knife campaign" similar to gun buybacks in the states that have amounted to NOTHING. What the Brits actually did was trade one mass shooting for an enormous trend of murder by knife. They STILL have an illegal gun problem as gangs have not turned theirs in...Imagine that.




Don't tell me that the answer to mass shootings in USA is "more guns"


The answer to stopping a dick with a gun out to murder as many people as possible is to not create sitting duck zones. Theaters, malls, schools, and all manner of gun free zones are the sole targets of these psychos BECAUSE NO ONE IS ARMED.

And then what happens? Someone calls men WITH GUNS to take the shooter out..Or he kills himself. Until the cops arrive that psycho has all the control. He dictates who lives and dies because no one there can stand up to him...Because they have to follow the rules. Psychos like that don't follow the damned rules.
edit on 3172015 by LunaticPandora because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: butcherguy

Sure, and lever action does the same thing.

Hunting with AR's is not a necessity, it is a preference.
Which is fine, but lets just call a spade a spade.


Not too many lever actions can fire thirty rounds without reloading..... or be reloaded as quickly as an AK or AR.

If a "hunter" is so bad that they cannot hear the hogs at a distance (because hogs don't exactly sneak around) that they get into a situation where they need thirty rounds then they need someone to train them how to hunt. I did some hog hunting when I visited some relatives that lives in the south and I always heard them before I saw them.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I look at a guy like Bernie Sanders and I don't immediately associate him with gun control. His over-all message is inequality and the concentration of wealth and power in America.

He's still a senator and has been introducing bills left and right about his message and his campaign:
Sanders Introduces Bill for $15/Hr Minimum Wage
Sanders Introduces ‘Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist’ Bill to Break Up Big Banks
Bernie Sanders Introduces "Free College For All Act"
Bernie Sanders Introduces Bill To Provide Solar Energy To The Poor (VIDEO)

You're probably thinking, 'That's all well and good but I'm really only concerned with gun rights.' I say to you, if the above catches your interest then maybe you shouldn't count Bernie out just yet;
Why the most liberal candidate for president opposes strict gun control


When it comes to guns, though, the socialist is a moderate who has voted against gun-control advocates on several major bills during his time in Congress.


Bernie Sanders Gets His Gun


Sanders’s record on gun legislation is somewhat mixed. He used to be a National Rifle Association candidate of choice, but these days, given his support for tepid gun-control measures, he’s persona non grata with the NRA. Even so, Sanders has been opposed for the most part to greater government oversight of ownership and sale of firearms. During his long tenure in Congress...Sanders opposed universal background checks, and after the Sandy Hook killings in 2012 he said that even the strongest gun-control law would not have prevented a massacre of innocents.


Bernie Sanders, Second Amendment Socialist?


Sanders went on to vote against the Brady bill, which required federal background checks for most firearms purchases. He has also voted to block lawsuits against gun manufacturers, to allow guns to be transported in checked baggage on Amtrak trains and to prohibit foreign aid from going to any international efforts to restrict gun ownership.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

So what you're saying is that he has either been lying all these years about his support for the second amendment...Or he's lying now to suck in the liberal vote.

Either way, he's a liar.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Did you kill most of the herd?
That is the goal when a farmer is paying you to kill all of them.
Did you kill any?



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: LunaticPandora

It sounds like you've not even entertained the idea of voting for the guy so I'm going to post this reply for people who might entertain the idea.

He's not lying, he just doesn't take an 'all-or-nothing' approach when it comes to guns.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

You're right.

The wording of the Constitution is pretty explicit.

It is all or nothing. You either have free speech or you don't
You either have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures or you don't.
You either have the right to keep and bear arms or you don't.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: LunaticPandora

Cool let me just grab a broadsword and go for a walk then... oh wait, I can't, carrying that arm is illegal.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   
What current politicians seem to forget, is that the founders of our country did intend for firearms to be used for hunting.

Just that the prey may be politicians that do not follow the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

It does amaze me how many peope think politicians and celebrities matter and need to be listened to though.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: LunaticPandora

Cool let me just grab a broadsword and go for a walk then... oh wait, I can't, carrying that arm is illegal.


In most states carrying a sword is perfectly legal.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LunaticPandora
a reply to: links234

You're right.

The wording of the Constitution is pretty explicit.

It is all or nothing. You either have free speech or you don't
You either have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures or you don't.
You either have the right to keep and bear arms or you don't.


You have a fundamental misunderstanding of your rights. It is not all or nothing. There can be limitations and those limitations can be expressly established through the people by way of their legislatures.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: links234




You have a fundamental misunderstanding of your rights. It is not all or nothing. There can be limitations and those limitations can be expressly established through the people by way of their legislatures.


"Shall not be infringed"

"Congress shall make no law"

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

These are pretty well absolute language. Exceptions to these rights are written into the amendments. No one has the right or power to simply legislate away my rights.

Note the use of the words "shall not". That would be you rsign. You wanna change the Constitution do it accordingly and convene a Constitutional Convention and then get the requisite 3/4 of the states to agree to that BS. That would be 38 of 50 states.

Good luck with that.
edit on 282015 by LunaticPandora because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: LunaticPandora

There's not a whole lot I can say to change your mind. You're convinced of this and decades and decades of constitutional law rulings, from felons not being allowed to own firearms (second amendment), parolees and probates subject to search and seizure at any time (fourth amendment), you can't libel, slander or threaten someone and call it free speech (first amendment) probably won't change your mind.

Sure, you have the right to arms, but the government can restrict which arms those are. If you don't like it, take it up with the SCOTUS.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
If the purpose of the 2nd is to allow us to be secure from a tyrannical government, then we should have the right to buy tanks, grenades, fully automatic 50 caliber machine guns, missiles, attack helicopters, nerve gas, and everything else the military has.

If the government has the above tools at its disposal to use against us, I don't know what good a 12g shotgun or a 9mm hand gun is going to do.

Back when the 2nd was written, your average Joe could buy the same tools of war the government could.

The 2nd is already compromised. Just wanted to point that out. If you want to use the 2nd amendment as an argument, realize that the guns you are "allowed" to buy won't do much against a modern military.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join