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

a reply to: infolurker

feel so bad for Americans having Hillary as a candidate. With this announcement Hilliary will surely be all over this.
She is proven to work for the banksetrs and dotn care about the people. Bernie seemed liek a good choice for you guys

other than that Ron Paul would of been awesome. Seems you let you decent guys that can make positive changes just vanish. And left with the same old same old.

originally posted by: SaturnFX
We get who we deserve I guess.

Please don't say this garbage......that's the reason we're in this mess in the first place.

APATHY KILLS.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The saddest part of this is thanks to spin, like the thread title, people are ignoring what he said in favor of what they think he means.

"Guns used for killing people, exclusively..."

Y'know, like a belt fed machine gun? Something that's fully automatic? I can't lay claim to having hunted animals all that much, but I don't recall ever thinking "God I wish I could shoot this deer 31 times in less than three seconds. That would make this way better."

Now, one could reasonably argue he (sanders) might include any assault type rifle in his statement, but I think that's up to him to clarify and not others to ASSUME, isn't it?

Nah. Way more fun to tweak his statement juuuuust a little bit and then scream about it.

Considering a "belt-fed machine gun" and other weapons that are fully automatic are already illegal for all but the wealthiest of gun owners, it's pretty clear what Crazy Bernie is referring to. I would advise you educate yourself more on the matter before chiming in with utter BS.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Counter point: Where in the second amendment does it say that people should have weapons of an equal quality and type to the government?

No, seriously. Where does it say that? Where is the clause in the second amendment that guarantees access to anything better than a musket?

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

There's no mention of muskets in my copy of the Second Amendment, either.

Regardless, if, according to the 2nd Amendment, the militia is necessary to the security of a free state, it seems obviously implicit that the 2nd Amendment is not limited to a protection of obsolete firearms. Otherwise, there's really no point to it.

I'm not saying that its completely unlimited, mind you, but rather, if the thing is to be effective as the founders intended, it most certainly cannot be limited to something that was obsolete almost two centuries ago.

This is bull# disinfo for. He didn't even mention sources

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Shamrock6

Counter point: Where in the second amendment does it say that people should have weapons of an equal quality and type to the government?

No, seriously. Where does it say that? Where is the clause in the second amendment that guarantees access to anything better than a musket?

Where does it say that the government should have weapons superior to the people?

Where does it say that I should be forced to buy health insurance?

The Constitution is meaningless today.

The will of the people is all that would make it mean something, and we have been beaten into submission.

a reply to: vor78

While that may be the spirit of the law, it is not necessarily the law as it is written. Arguably, even if we assume that the amendment is not limited to a protection of "obsolete" firearms, as long as the citizens have some guaranteed access to a "modern" weapon (such as a handgun, hunting rifle, so on and so forth) then the Constitution is still being obeyed.

I will repeat: Where does it say in the second amendment that people are guaranteed weapons of an equal quality and type to the government?
Where does it say that they are guaranteed a wide range of weapons beyond one specific type?
Everyone is assigned a dual barrel hunting shotgun at birth.
That's it.
No handguns, six-shooters.
No semi-auto rifles, fully auto rifles, snipers.
No pump-action shotguns.
One hunting shotgun, or two.
We'll let them have ammo, just 'cause we're nice.

a reply to: TinkerHaus

And I'd advise you to calm your knees down before they jerk themselves into an ACL tear.

There, now everybody has advised everybody else on what they should do based off one single solitary comment on an Internet website. Yay!

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Where does it guarantee access to a musket?

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

"Infringe upon" is defined as not obeying the law, or wrongly restricting or limiting access.

So no, "some access" does not equal "no infringement."

a reply to: Shamrock6

That is my point. Where does it guarantee access to anything that isn't a musket?

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Where does it guarantee access to anything that IS a musket? Where does it limit "arms" to muskets?

a reply to: Shamrock6

They have full access to "arms". It is not being infringed.

As it stands there are certain types of weapons that are limited or restricted, so the second is already shredded if you consider that the case.

Ah, also, then why are guns sold, rather than given out for free when requested?
Attaching a price is limiting access.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

There's no written guarantee of any type or quality of firearm in the 2nd Amendment, whether superior or inferior to the government. The only thing we can assume with reasonable certainty is that the weapon types protected by the 2nd Amendment are those suitable to militia service. This is something that the US Supreme Court strongly implied in the 1939 US vs Miller case, citing that Miller's sawed off shotgun had no application to a militia and therefore, the government could regulate or ban it (which it had done in the 1934 NFA).

And yes, I think it could be Constitutional for the government to assign each citizen a firearm or set of firearms, though a limitation to a double barrel shotgun is going to meet with huge public opposition (three quarters of the US population, for instance, support a private right to handgun ownership) and wouldn't satisfy the purpose of the amendment, either.

a reply to: Shamrock6

It doesn't need to guarantee a musket. It guarantees "arms."
A musket is an "arms."
Thus, if "Musket" is guaranteed, "arms" are guaranteed. If "arms" is taken as plural, then "Musket and Shotgun" may be guaranteed instead.
Or "Handgun and Shotgun"
Or "Rifle and Handgun."
Etc. etc.

a reply to: vor78

That is my point. The second amendment is there, but it is not specific enough.

What if the gun assigned was a semi-automatic or bolt-action rifle? Perhaps a Mosin-Nagant?
Actually, that sounds quite enticing.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Lol well now you've moved so far away from reality there's no point in continuing. You can't claim "they have full access to arms" in one breath and then turn around and say it's restricted access in the next.

Arms were not "given out" when the amendment was written, so coming to the conclusion that having to buy arms is somehow violating the amendment because "restriction" is fanciful.

Now you're just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Thanks for explaining what it guarantees for me. Particularly after I had already done so.

It doesn't specify anything. It guarantees arms. Period. Full stop.

You can argue both sides of the issue and use circular logic to your heart's content. Coming up with a list of possibilities for what "arms" could entail and it does nothing to further the debate.

a reply to: Shamrock6

They have full access to "arms", because they are guaranteed a musket, which is an "arms".
Anything else is superfluous.
If I am guaranteed a vessel in which to hold water, it does not matter whether that vessel is Chinese porcelain or a hollowed log.
Yes, I understand that this may appear to be an insane thing I am saying.

So you are saying that guns only being available as a purchase is not limiting access only to those with the economic status and ability to buy one? If someone is penniless and homeless, where is their firearm access?
Not giving guns to the homeless is a second amendment violation, is it not?