Bernie Sanders Calls for All Guns Not Used Specifically for Hunting to be Outlawed!

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: infolurker

In regards to gun ownership in the US, I grow ever suspicious of politicians that ignore the criminal element and mental health issues and instead target average Joe law abiding citizen. This call for outlawing certain types of firearms will only punish good, honest and peaceful Americans who enjoy their rights to own firearms and stands to embolden the criminal waiting for the public to be disarmed so it makes his illegal activities easier to execute.

Maybe he can explain his rollout strategy of how he plans to disarm all the criminals of assault weapons first, before he targets average Joe.

That easy.

If the government gives them everything they want then they would have no need to be a criminal.

a reply to: butcherguy

its hard to say. the biggest concern would be rifles or handguns that can use high capacity mags. the more bullets a person can fire at will the more people a murderer or terrorist can kill. the way i see it if a cop can defend him or herself with a handgun theres no reason an ordinary person cant either.

should any one person be able to outgun the police? i dont think so. should the average person including the mentally unstable or murderer be able to kill more than 10 people easily if they wish? i dont think so. i know guns can protect you from another murderer but realistically whats the minimum any one person needs to be able to defend themselves?

as far as i can tell, there will always be mass killings if we allow anyone to do so easily. the only thing we can do is try to bring the number of casualties caused by terrorists and murderers down. maybe the answer isnt enough to limit the type of guns, but also to limit the number of guns anyone can own considering most guns used in mass shooting are bought legally.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

You're not guaranteed a musket.

You're guaranteed the right to own arms. Whether you choose to do so is voluntary. It's a right to own one. The right itself is guaranteed. Being guaranteed a weapon is not the right. Much like you have the guaranteed right to free speech. Whether you choose to exercise that right is entirely up to you. But you have the right to do so if you wish. Nobody is forcing you to do it.

You seem to be extremely confused about a number of things that pertain to the bill of rights and constitution. I would suggest you do a significant amount of research before trying to engage in constitutional debate. Your beliefs are fundamentally flawed from a very basic level.

Why is this now about muskets? I was using a musket as an example of an "arms" that could be totally legal and in fact freely provided by the Government, while still within the Constitution's "keep and bear arms" clause. If we extend it to necessarily being a weapon sufficient for Militia duty, then that musket gets upgraded to a Mosin-Nagant.

Yes, that's a fair point. Rather than being assigned a Mosin-Nagant at birth, the government would have to freely supply them at request of the citizenry.
Yes, you are guaranteed the right to own arms. If you are freely given a Mosin-Nagant as you desire one, your right to own arms is fulfilled. You are allowed to keep and bear a Mosin-Nagant and only a Mosin-Nagant, of course, but the Constitutionality is still sound.

Are you choosing not to explain what I am confused about because you do not wish to spend that time, or because you do not believe you would be successful, for one reason or other?
I am not confused. I am working entirely within the bounds of what is defined within the relevant area of the constitution I am referring to. (In this case, the second amendment.)
Tell me, why are my beliefs fundamentally flawed? Much like you saying something is a fallacy does not make it a fallacy, you saying my beliefs are fundamentally flawed does not make my beliefs fundamentally flawed.

affirmative conclusion from negative premise

Where am I committing that fallacy? I am saying that an [insert any firearm(s) here] is classified as "arms", therefore, if you are guaranteed an [arms], then the terms of the constitution has been fulfilled. It lacks qualification. It is not specific. It does not say "All arms", it does not say "Arms of equal or superior quality and type to those wielded by the armed forces of the State." It just says "Arms".

negative conclusion from affirmative premise

Once again, I am not committing that fallacy. To simplify it into single letter terms, my argument would appear to be as follows:

B is A
C is also A
An A is guaranteed
There, if [B or C] or [B and C] is guaranteed, the terms are fulfilled.

Or to explain it another way.

You must have an A.
B=A
C=A
D=A
E=A, etc.
Therefore, any singular of [B, C, D, E...] suffice.

self-refuting idea because of the first two

First two having been addressed, this is irrelevant.

reductio ad absurdum

Are you referring to this?

If you're saying that "weapons cost money in the 18th century" therefore limiting the access of firearms only to those with the economic power to purchase them is not an infringement, then neither is limiting the weapons themselves to those used during the 18th century.

I stand by that argument. To state that limiting the people's access to firearms dependent on their economic status because that's how it was done during the 18th century is fine, yet limiting their weapons to those that existed in the 18th century is not fine is hypocritical.

escape hatch

Considering I am still taking part in this discussion, and the reason I left was genuinely due to needing to leave (I had already stayed up far later than I should have participating in it), we can safely call this one another false accusation, I believe.

hand wave

Where's my hand wave? I will happily explain whatever it is you assume is a hand wave more thoroughly if you will only specify.

Ah, and you should probably know that the last two, er, aren't actually fallacies. ^_^

a reply to: the owlbear

You would be surprised.

I never would, but know a lot that hunt with them.

Bear hunting with big bore pistols is very popularly.

Also many hunter carry pistols as well as rifles. Used to finish off the game at close range if the rifle shot didn't kill them. Also used for protection at close range for wounded prey.

a reply to: the owlbear

You would be suppressed how many people don't hunt for any "thrill". They hunt for food.
When was the last time you saw venison (Deer) in the local grocery store?

I love to shoot. I haven't hunted in years. Why? I'm not a big fan of deer meat, so no reason too. Now if I needed to I would, but...

Now I did have same bear steak many ynormal hunter.ears ago that I would love to have more from. But bear hunting is not for the normal hunter.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Also... what are all the policeman going to do, resort to crossbows?

Harsh language.

Nope can't do that. You might offend some one or hurt their feelings.

You must use soft gentle nurturing words.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: MOMof3

I know several people who hunt with handguns. Boar, especially. I've hunted boar with a handgun...I wouldn't recommend hunting boar with anything smaller than a .44 magnum...I hunted with a .357 magnum, and it took far more shots than it should have.

It depends upon the handgun, and the animal being hunted.

Boar are one of the thing I would use a full auto on. They tend to get real mean when you just wound them.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: poncho1982

Guns make people more violent, though. I'm not saying this to disparage your point, since I am technically anti-gun control as far as the US is concerned, but someone carrying a gun is more likely to respond with violence than someone who is not. The most important thing is ultimately education, but I simply do not understand why you allow criminals convicted of violent crime to obtain firearms. At the very least, that is obviously a bad idea.

And were did you come up with this idea?

I know people that have carried guns for years and no one even knew they had one. Look at the number of CCL people out there and tell me they are more violent. Show me the number of CCL owners that have every pulled their weapon. You will find that the number of shootings involving CCL carriers is very small.

Oh by the way CCL -- Concealed Carry permit

a reply to: vjr1113

its hard to say. the biggest concern would be rifles or handguns that can use high capacity mags.

There are plenty of states that allow hunting with 'high capacity mags'. So the whole hunting thing has gone out the window.

should any one person be able to outgun the police? i dont think so.

There are weapons that are available and sold only to law enforcement agencies. How are they outgunned, in light of this fact?

as far as i can tell, there will always be mass killings if we allow anyone to do so easily. the only thing we can do is try to bring the number of casualties caused by terrorists and murderers down.

Maybe the problem isn't with the availability of guns, but with our society?

maybe the answer isnt enough to limit the type of guns, but also to limit the number of guns anyone can own considering most guns used in mass shooting are bought legally.

How many guns can a person fire at once? What would a limit on the number of guns a person can own accomplish?

You speak of legality in relationship to guns.
How many people are addicted to heroin in the US at this moment?
Is heroin legal to buy, sell, transport or possess?
Would a person that wanted to try heroin have any trouble getting some right now?
Let me answer that one..... NO, they wouldn't. You can buy it on street corners and you don't have to go through a background check or even provide an ID.
Why would it be any different with guns?

originally posted by: Kryties
After having read the thread through I am forced to come to the conclusion that some people WANT to own guns designed specifically to kill people so that they can kill people.

Glad I don't live in that #ed-up country.

Hate to tell you this. But if you want to own guns to kill people in ANY country. You probably will.

Look at the terrorist attacks across Europe in the past 20-30 years. All of them used weapons that where illegal to own there. Didn't stop them at all.

Ban all you want make laws all you want Criminals will still have what ever they want.

I think people are missing the point.

I want a firearm designed specifically to kill a human being.

And Bernie is going to deny my right to self defense.

Of course he has body guards, with guns, so why would he give a damn about anyone else.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: AK907ICECOLD

And that's my right to be able to kill people at a wims notice, if your daughter was getting raped along with your wife what are you going to do talk him down and invite them to dinner you're going to shoot that mother if you get a chance could being so naïve about your survival and safety for your family?! Go vote for Bernie and waste your vote,

By the way do you have any guns you want to sell ?

I live in Australia where we implemented common-sense gun laws (note: NOT a full ban as some bull# artists would like to claim) and haven't had a single mass shooting since. Funnily enough I don't fear walking out my front door and getting mugged/raped/shot because it simply doesn't happen here at the high frequency it does over there.

Anyway I'm glad I live safe and sound in Australia NOT fearing those things you listed. I'm even gladder I don't live in a country full of psychopaths who want to shoot everything that moves because they "feared for their safety".

Just as a question. Do you guys even have enough people in one area to even classify as a mass anything?

a reply to: DBCowboy

But do his bodygyards have guns designed specifically to kill human beings?

A hammer can kill, but a hammer has many uses outside of killing, is not intended for killing, and is comparatively to those other purposes is only very rarely used for killing.

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: Kryties
After having read the thread through I am forced to come to the conclusion that some people WANT to own guns designed specifically to kill people so that they can kill people.

Glad I don't live in that #ed-up country.

Hate to tell you this. But if you want to own guns to kill people in ANY country. You probably will.

Look at the terrorist attacks across Europe in the past 20-30 years. All of them used weapons that where illegal to own there. Didn't stop them at all.

Ban all you want make laws all you want Criminals will still have what ever they want.

Yes.
And.... if every gun in the United States was used to kill one person, the US population would be less than ZERO.... so most gun owners are not going around killing anyone.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

But do his bodygyards have guns designed specifically to kill human beings?

I suppose you have to look at the reason that they carry them... vs what the gun was specifically designed to do.

Are the bodyguards carrying the guns for the purpose of hunting ducks?

Plenty of weapons that are used for hunting can be used for defense.

a reply to: butcherguy

I think that reveals a whole other problem.
Even if you like guns... Well, water is good, is it not?
Too much water, everyone drowns.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Too long, didn't read.

Summary: you seem to think that having the right to have something means you are required to have it and the government is required to provide it, free of charge because a price tag makes it inaccessible.

That is not what a right is. Until you understand that point, nothing else is worth discussing because, again, your argument is fatally flawed from the beginning.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: DBCowboy

But do his bodygyards have guns designed specifically to kill human beings?

They'd be poor body guards if they didn't.

a reply to: butcherguy

But are they a "certain type of gun used exclusively for killing people? "
That's what all the fuss is about, isn't it?

He really needs to clarify that before you get all hysterical (even though it's too late.)
I mean, you know those guns you keep in your sleeve, with a poisoned bullet? Don't think anyone hunts with them.
Well, they're probably illegal already.

I'd be glad to see stricter handgun regulation, honestly.

a reply to: Shamrock6

So, I was the one using an escape hatch, hm?

No, I am saying that as you define infringement as "limit access", then charging a price for something is infringement, as it limits access only to those with the economic status to purchase.
Is the logic really that complicated? It certainly doesn't seem like it.

Oh, and as you didn't bother reading the post, you missed this part.

Yes, that's a fair point. Rather than being assigned a Mosin-Nagant at birth, the government would have to freely supply them at request of the citizenry.

So, you are not required to have one. The government is, however, required to provide it free of charge. A price tag is limiting access, which you've told me isn't allowed.