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

My post was trimmed, I could not get the entire thing to post, so I deleted the entire thing.

a reply to: vjr1113

Except the 2nd has no restrictions within it. SO how about this. Why don't you move to a country with more restrictive firearm laws and allow the people here in the US, that value freedoms outlined as such, to do as we please.

Oh, Afghanistan has firearm laws in place for the lawful side of its citizens. But, just as is the case everywhere in the world, the people that don't follow the law do what they want and don't obey the laws.

Oh, don't forget that since gang bangers don't obey the law either, their ability to get any weapon really isn't hampered in any way.


Care to try some more hyper emotional retorts that are not based in fact?

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Within the US, the stats show this to be true.

Outside the US??? Who cares. It's the residents within that country's problem.

a reply to: the owlbear

I hunt white tail deer with a large caliber handgun and rabbits ans squirrels with a .22 handgun. I have also shot coyotes with a handgun.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

More guns in the right hands yes.
We need to work on crazy a tad more.

originally posted by: TramperoJuan
a reply to: infolurker

I'm surprised that, for someone who claims to lurk for information, you so shamelessly failed to properly contextualize Mr. Sanders' main idea. In the clip, he implicitly and explicitly references two types of weapons: those intended for hunting game, and those intended for killing human(s). Churlish arguments about all guns possessing the capability to kill humans aside, Mr. Sanders is clearly making reference to weapons that are, by design, intended to efficiently kill multiple people. As opposed to, oh, multiple elk or multiple chipmunks or multiple feral cats.

To top it off, you act so surprised that a democratic socialist would have the temerity to either hold such a view, or to espouse said view when prompted to do so. Glad to see you've trivialized his belief as a "zinger," but I guarantee you it isn't such a zinger for some of the folks who survived Aurora or any of the countless mass shootings over the past several years.

Good news is, he didn't ban logic or reasoning, so it isn't too late for you to apply either one.

And which guns would those be as highlighted in bold?

a reply to: Flipper35

That is the question, isn't it? How do you differentiate?

If a gun is capable of killing multiple humans, and that's all guns, then it is, by definition, capable of killing multiple feral cats, and vice versa.

So he actually meant, all guns, and doin' a really poor job of trying to cover the gaff.

a reply to: seagull

You don't seem to understand what "exclusively" means.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

There is no such thing as exclusively where the uses of firearms are concerned.

If it can kill one particular animal, it can kill any animal. It's the user that makes the choice, not the weapon.

Berny is/was making artificial distinctions in an attempt to cover his gaff.

originally posted by: Flipper35

originally posted by: TramperoJuan
a reply to: infolurker

I'm surprised that, for someone who claims to lurk for information, you so shamelessly failed to properly contextualize Mr. Sanders' main idea. In the clip, he implicitly and explicitly references two types of weapons: those intended for hunting game, and those intended for killing human(s). Churlish arguments about all guns possessing the capability to kill humans aside, Mr. Sanders is clearly making reference to weapons that are, by design, intended to efficiently kill multiple people. As opposed to, oh, multiple elk or multiple chipmunks or multiple feral cats.

To top it off, you act so surprised that a democratic socialist would have the temerity to either hold such a view, or to espouse said view when prompted to do so. Glad to see you've trivialized his belief as a "zinger," but I guarantee you it isn't such a zinger for some of the folks who survived Aurora or any of the countless mass shootings over the past several years.

Good news is, he didn't ban logic or reasoning, so it isn't too late for you to apply either one.

And which guns would those be as highlighted in bold?

Don't hold your breath waiting for a proper answer Flipper.
The same ding dogs that say we should be limited to muskets because 'that's what the Constitution meant' would be astonished to find that muskets were designed to be able to kill humans.

a reply to: seagull

So you're saying all guns are the same?

a reply to: butcherguy

It's not what the constitution "means", the constitution doesn't "mean" anything. It's an almost worthless scrap of paper in and of itself, the only thing that gives it strength is focusing the will of the people. While limiting the civilian populace to nothing but muskets is technically constitutionally sound, that's not going to happen because so many people (falsely) believe that they have a right to all sorts of armaments that cannot be taken away. It's what the Citizens think that counts, not what the document actually says.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

The 2nd purposefully is worded to not have restrictions, exclusivity or limits in regards to firearms.

This is very simple to understand.

a reply to: macman

And the lack of those lack of qualifications, that lack of specificity, makes it extraordinarily easy to abuse the way it is worded. For instance, confiscating almost every gun in America is constitutionally sound.

The second was also being broken at the time it was written, since a citizen's ability to acquire a firearm was limited by their economic status.
There should have been a clarification there.
"... to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, unless they are poor, in which case who the f*ck cares about them? They're poor!"

This is very simple to understand.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn
Now honestly.....where in the hell do you come up with this BS?

Gun confiscation is sound?? The poor are screwed?? Guns limited to economic status??

Where does one get such polluted and incorrect info?

a reply to: macman

Oh? Why is it BS? Because you don't like it?

In the case of the poor and unwealthy, It's written in the constitution, thank you very much, and in this instance the constitution is very clear.
"Shall not be infringed."

Now, an infringement is, as I have been told by a poster here named Shamrock, the limitation of access. Yet as I look to the American people, I see those whose access to firearms is being limited (hence infringed) by their lack of funding to purchase a weapon should they so desire. In other words, by not partially or wholly subsidizing the purchase of armaments, or producing them and handing them out for free, the Government is breaking the terms of the constitution's second amendment.
If you disagree with this, then by extension you must agree that it would be perfectly acceptable for the government to tax the sale of guns to the ludicrous degree, thus making each individual weapon cost in excess of $300,000 thereby limiting their purchase to only 0.01% of the population.
Or, I wonder, will you attempt to argue that is it somehow alright for the government to allow, and cause, 0.01% of the population to not have access to firearms, but is not alright for the government to allow, and cause, 99.99% of the population to not have access to firearms.
That would be quite hypocritical of you.

As to the confiscation, read my earlier posts in this same thread. I am sure you will find them quite enlightening.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

*SMH* You have got to be kidding.

Your retort is a joke right......I mean you can't honestly sit here and believe what you put....


"Shall not infringe" applies to the Govt. Has nothing to do with a US citizen exercising free commerce.
Further more, to show just how ignorant you are to the issue. Infringement does happen from the Govt.
For certain firearms, and firearm related items, the US Govt imposes an illegal tax stamp requirement.


Confiscation is no where within the 2nd.


What you have put here is absolute crap. Here, this is the visual of what you offered up, . That's right. A big ol bucket of crap.

Clearly you have no understanding of the 2nd, nor any knowledge of the history of the 2nd.

Please, do everyone here a favor and either become educated within this topic, or maybe stick to something simple like crayon drawings.

He calls for it so you can duck the hunt the other two extremes are calling for on the far right and far left... if you want balance and peace? harken or else quack quack comes barking... til you squeal. best to halt the nonsense and take control of oneself before even concidering controlling another. or every single move one makes tips the whole thing against you instead of bringing any sort of balance... justice isnt blind to the weight tipping scales in her hand.

a reply to: macman

Do I sound like I am kidding?

It is accurate. A small amount of human error somewhere is to be expected, I am not a machine.

Yes, it does apply to the government. Thus, by failing to subsidize, lower taxes to the extent, or otherwise provide means so that any citizen regardless of economic status is capable of obtaining a firearm is an infringement.
It might be illegal through other avenues, but hefty taxation is perfectly legal under the second. Or at the very least, you believe it to be so. Since, if taxation so that 0.01% of the population cannot acquire a firearm is acceptable, then by extension taxation so that 0.01% of the population are the only people who can acquire one must also be perfectly acceptable. Otherwise, your logic is inconsistent and, once more, hypocritical. Either that or you reveal that this discussion doesn't have anything to do with the second amendment, and is only about your desire to have easy access to your guns, with the second merely providing a convenient (and often misused) excuse.

Did you fail to read my earlier posts?
I feel like that is likely.
It is rather cut and dry.

You really need to learn that you saying something doesn't make it true. It's not a very healthy mindset to have. ^_^
Soon you will be saying "I am Superman" and jumping off a building intending to fly.
Then... *Splat*

Yes, the tried and tested "you don't have any understanding because you disagree with me" approach. I do not need to have any knowledge of the history of the second, I only need to read it.

And finally finishing off with an ad-hominen attack implying that I am either a child or mentally challenged.
I assure you, in seeking such a person, the purchase of a mirror may prove its usefulness. It may help you observe things you otherwise could not.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

WOW.....you clearly don't have a single clue as to how the 2nd is applied.


Thanks for the lengthy reply though. Very entertaining.