Senator Bernie Sanders, who represents vehemently pro-gun Vermont, has built a fairly firearms friendly voting record during his time in the U.S. Senate. After he recently emerged as the 2016 presidential race’s standard-bearer for the Democratic Party’s progressive wing, progressive politicos who oppose gun rights began to complain about Sanders’ record on guns. In an apparent primary-season about-face on Sunday’s episode of NBC’s Meet the Press, Sanders radically adjusted his position on guns and advocated for a sweeping gun ban that would outlaw most firearms designed for home and self defense.

In the above-embedded clip from Meet the Press, which is featured on Bernie Sanders’ YouTube channel, he said, “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.

While most of the positions that he advocated for on guns on Meet the Press fall within the mainstream of the Democratic Party, Media Research Center points out the fact that calling for a ban on all firearms “used to kill people” and “not for hunting” implies a ban on all weapons that are impractical for hunting but used primarily for self defense, including handguns, shotguns, and specific classes of rifles.

Coming from a rural state, I think I can communicate with folks coming from urban states where guns mean different things than they do in Vermont where it’s used for hunting,” said Sanders, clarifying that he would continue to defend his home state’s hunting tradition but would oppose gun rights for people living in an urban area.

The Washington Post notes that the previously pro-gun Sanders won his first House seat with the help of an endorsement from the National Rifle Association.

In a May op-ed criticizing Sanders’ votes in favor of gun rights, Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern wrote, “Sanders, an economic populist and middle-class pugilist, doesn’t talk much about guns on the campaign trail. But his voting record paints the picture of a legislator who is both skeptical of gun control and invested in the interests of gun owners—and manufacturers. In 1993, then-Rep. Sanders voted against the Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks for gun purchasers and restricted felons’ access to firearms. As a senator, Sanders supported bills to allow firearms in checked bags on Amtrak trains and block funding to any foreign aid organization that registered or taxed Americans’ guns. Sanders is dubious that gun control could help prevent gun violence, telling one interviewer after Sandy Hook that ‘if you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.’

For more 2016 election coverage, click here.

Vote for our poll below:

Who would you vote for in the democratic primary? in Truth In Media's Hangs on LockerDome
  • Amantissimus Rei Publicae

    Public policy based on falsified events. The Democratic party is no different than it was under FDR and LBJ. Lies. Lies. Lies.

    • builder21

      If it were possible to stuff Bernie Sanders into a time machine and drop him in history where he best fit, he would land squarely in the lap of Huey Long….

  • Carol S’ kids (Surgery)

    Goodbye Bernie

  • LocalHero

    Come get them, Bernie.

  • John Andrew Schmanek

    Bye bye Bernie. You just shot yourself in the foot.

    • 7LibertyForAll

      We can certainly hope so but there is power in mass stupidity.

  • ctlovesnathanhale

    Busted!

  • lakeside227

    No, Mr. Sanders, our Rights are not under the government’s control.

    These Rights are pre-existing, they are inherent. They don’t come from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the government, or from any person. Our Rights are ours simply because we exist.

    We are fortunate enough to live in a Country whose Founders recognized these self-evident truths and created a government to protect our unalienable Rights. Not to control and regulate these Rights.

    Mr. Sanders, you are simply not the right person to sit in our highest elected office and represent this Country as president.

    • Herbert Dunwash

      Well said!

      • lakeside227

        Thank you. 🙂

        • Herbert Dunwash

          And I thank you for taking time to post. It seems some people either don’t know or forgot our inalienable Rights.
          Don’t ever give up.

  • Matt McCoy

    Guns are the least of our worries. Dont be so simple. We need someone in office who wants to get the money out of politics and usurp the power of the super rich. Thats what matters. More than anything is income inequality. – A Major overhaul of current government would indirectly effect everything and everyone. If crime is down, law enforcement reformed, jobs and opportunity up, it all effects the initial desperation that fuels envy and agitation towards another human being anyway. Dont write off Bernie just because of one tiny issue. Think how may other issues that are important to you that he would address. Think of other people’s lives, including your own, that he would change for the better. – Since when does 1 issue make or break this country? We are stronger than that. #BetterBeBernie

    • LetsTryLibertyAgain

      The BernieBots are out in force.

      You’re barking up the wrong tree. The “income inequality” dog doesn’t hunt in a community that understands how free markets work. Your socialist dreams of how Bernie will magically fix government corruption, reduce crime, and put a chicken in everyone’s pot have no substance and will not result in any Bernie votes here.

      As for not being a single issue voter, I’d say that if I were to pick a single issue, I’d go with the right to keep and bear arms. I’ve found that a politician who doesn’t trust me to own firearms is a politician who doesn’t believe in individual rights. The same politicians only protect free speech when it’s speech that enhances their political power. They respect the property rights of their financial supporters while denying property rights of their political opponents. In general, they believe in wielding the power of big government for their benefit.

    • Dana King

      Any time a politician opens their sewer and proposes usurping liberty they should be charged with treason. Sanders should be put on trial, and if found guilty of treason, should hang. Anyone who dismisses a politician attempting to usurp liberty is also a traitor to freedom and liberty. If one cannot convince another using reason and instead uses political power to force something on another is tyranny, and should never be tolerated in a “free” country.

      • Grayden

        Hahahaha, you’re going to need to put A LOT of members of our current and past administrations and Congresses in front of Sanders. The guy says one thing wrong after a career full of trying to do right by the people of this country and you call for the noose?

        What about the administration that caused millions of innocent deaths and wasted trillions of OUR tax dollars on useless wars? Or the politicians who nearly destroyed our economy? Get your priorities straight or these people have already won.

        • WesSeid

          I assume you’re referring to the current administration that has bombed more countries than the previous administration did.

      • Matt McCoy

        Your definition of “liberty” and “freedom”is the exact thing that strangles the liberty and freedom of millions. These billionaires have had too much for too long and its time justice be served. No human deserves that amount of money. Dont you realize they dont care about you and only care about the gains they can get from you? Its selfishness and greed. period.

        • WesSeid

          Somehow it’s selfishness and greed to earn and have “too much money,” but it’s not selfishness and greed to want to “redistribute” (confiscate) that person’s money for yourself.

          • Matt McCoy

            Who is “yourself” ? Millions of people? Yea, thats exactly what Im saying. Its not selfishness. You proved my point. Lets feed some people and sacrifice a f*cking yacht or two… Sounds good.

          • WesSeid

            It is selfishness and greed to want to take someone else’s money. If you want to “redistribute” money, go use your own.

          • Matt McCoy

            Right. Their money. How’d they get that money again? That’s right. Loopholes and Lobbying. Seriously, they want you poor too! They will stop at nothing to make it ALL theirs. Its not theirs. It’s just “legally” stolen from those without money and power.

        • builder21

          Matt, it’s obvious to most of us by now that you’ve broken all your toys, and now you want ours to break also.

          Are you one of those kids that screamed and yelled till Mommy yanked the Barbie Doll away from your sister and gave it to you?

          Is that how you learned to “share”?

          Is that how you determine just how much everyone “deserves”?
          Or just “who” deserves “what”, and how much?

          Of course the 1% have a dis-proportionate amount of wealth and influence.
          Yes, most acquired it dishonestly.

          What you probably aren’t smart enough to realize is…..
          They acquired it EXACTLY the same way you propose to rectify it.

          Wealth redistribution is a two-way street, in case you didn’t know.

          The only sure remedy is Sound Money.
          Eliminate the speculation, the leverage, the usury, the graft, and you end virtually ANY artificial means to wealth consolidation within ANY social class.

          All you would be left with is the naturally occurring accumulation of wealth based solely on productivity.

          How much wealth you produce will no longer be determined by how you learn to game the system, or fudge the ledger, but by how far you can drag your lazy ass off your couch.

          Not interested?
          Didn’t think so…..

        • lakeside227

          Who made you, or the government, the arbiter on how much money people deserve?

          That power certainly isn’t in my Constitution, nor is it contained in any federal or state law l know of….

          That is just not your, or the government’s, decision to make.

    • CrazyChester

      When the “one little issue” happens to be literally the second most important amendment to the Constitution, I would say yes, it’s make or break. He could have just left the whole topic alone and gone on to beat the drum about corporate control of the system. He just lost a whole lot of independents.

      • Matt McCoy

        When was the Constitution written again? Like over two-hundred years ago? – Not saying any of its bad or completely outdated but to believe that it is just as relevant now as it was when written is just silly. – Also, he does leave the topic alone for the most part. He doesn’t really bring it up because he understands what is more important to the American people.

        • builder21

          Oh Christ, another mouth-breather that thinks the USC is a living, breathing document….

          Your opinion is irrelevant.
          In fact, your entire existence is irrelevant.

          • Matt McCoy

            Oh Christ is right. I mean Jesus dude. Why do you wish death on me? Bully. Keep in mind Im a person. Jesus.

          • builder21

            Of course you’re a person, Matt.
            You’re just a person with some really distorted ideas.
            Would you like us to make a special exception for you?
            Would you like a booster seat?

            You talk like you have all the answers, so I figured you must be pretty jaded by now.
            If you’re just a rookie, then my apologies.

            Either way, I wish you a long and healthy life……..as far away from a voting booth as humanly possible.

        • Orion

          Yet you couldn’t measure up to any of the founders.
          Here’s Bernie’s plan for Americans;
          http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T6GmW7klMo0/T11AUlBM-sI/AAAAAAAAaHs/9P8dWMN4vYI/s1600/TheWall_161Pyxurz.jpg

        • Social D.R.

          Also, when the 2nd Amendment was written, do literate adults have any idea of what kind of guns existed? LOL so strictly speaking, I am pro-2nd Amendment in a 1700’s type of way. Those guns are fine. But the military style guns we have today? Hell naw.

          • builder21

            The ignorance is thick in this one.

            First off, the arms that existed when the 2A was written were likely the best available at that time.
            Available to both the standing army and the citizen alike.

            Which is why a lot of gov’t issue arms ended up in the hands of the citizenry after the war.

            Not because they would become valuable collectables 200 years later, but because they may very well be needed again.
            And more than likely, for the same reasons.

            I’m surprised that the “living, breathing document” crowd doesn’t understand that today’s available arms should be equal to, or greater than those issued to our first line of defense.
            We have to keep up with Progress, don’t ya know….

          • lakeside227

            When the First Amendment was written they had quill pens, printing presses, and engravers. Your freedom of speech extends to only those mediums.

            Your Right against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to only physical searches by LEOs. All searches/seizures involving technology are permitted because none of that existed when the Fourth Amendment was written.

            See how silly that is? Our Rights keep pace with technological advances because our Rights don’t come from our Founders, the DoI, the Constitution, the BoR, the government, or any person. The government has no authority to define or limit our Rights.

            Our Rights are pre-existing and inherent. The BoRs are bans on government infringement on our Rights.

            Congress shall make no law…

            Shall not be infringed…

            The Right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…shall not be violated…

            See, bans on government infringement of our Rights.

        • CrazyChester

          Coming out and basically saying(at least implying) we should ban all guns is not “leaving the topic alone” by any stretch. Age of the Constitution is irrelevant. There are mechanisms built into our republic and it’s founding, guiding document to modify or outright remove parts of it. Doing so by arbitrary encroachment is not what was intended.
          The real problem is this: In the past, Bernie has consistently voted against the Brady bill and other infringements of the 2nd amendment. To now pull a 180 and call for a ban or any other serious restriction is a flip-flop and shows he has his finger in the wind and is modifying his own positions based on his perception of what the majority wants.

        • lakeside227

          Of course the Constitution is just as relevant now as when it was written and ratified.

          The Constitution created the federal government. Without it we would just be a bunch of states. The Constitution lists everything the federal government is permitted to do. If it’s not in the Constitution, the feds have no power to do it. The Constitution is the list of rules the federal government must obey, the Constitution is Supreme Law. It is supreme over federal law, state law (concerning powers denied to the states by the Constitution), and treaties. Nothing can contradict the Constitution.

          What’s important to the American People is a federal government which carries out its Constitutional duties, protects our unalienable Rights, and does not violate our Supreme Law.

    • “Dont write off Bernie just because of one tiny issue.”

      Don’t be so simple. Just because he understands that money in politics is a major problem does not mean that he even understands the solution because he does not.

      This guy wants to grow every segment of government and I believe by his pandering here that he will sell everyone out if he thinks he has a chance at winning.

      • Merlot

        He has no chance anyway. The people are not so far dumbed down as to elect a socialist yet.

        • Matt McCoy

          Ya know, Christ would probably be considered pretty socialist… Or we could just twist what He said too…

          • Merlot

            Oh, didn’t know Christ was a big government guy 🙂

          • Matt McCoy

            Sharing is Caring – Bernie considers himself a “democratic socialist”. Dont be frightened by a buzz word. Watch him explain it…https://youtu.be/BFAq-4Vv5c0?t=20s

          • Merlot

            Socialism, Communism, Fascism…all different sides of the same big government coin that leads to totalitarianism and misery.

    • 36/g

      Is the one little thing socialism?

      • Matt McCoy

        define socialism.

        • builder21

          Define “define Socialism”.

    • Matt McCoy

      I loved and love Ron Paul because of his unapologetic consistency. And just like Paul, Bernie can’t be bought either. Their sincerity and clarity on issues is why I voted for Ron and I will vote for Bernie in the primaries.

    • WesSeid

      lol “one tiny issue.” The 2nd Amendment is not a tiny issue. Bernie apparently thinks the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for hunting and target shooting. If Bernie can’t even get that one right, then he’s an idiot and shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a government office.

    • builder21

      “…..Since when does 1 issue make or break this country?….”

      Since the 2ndA’s safeguard against tyranny is precisely what protects all our other rights…..

      snapperhead.

  • LetsTryLibertyAgain

    Exactly the statist view we always see from big government socialists. They do not believe in individual rights. To them, we are all the property of the state. The right to protect yourself against tyranny is anathema to Bernie’s world view. His comments completely ignore the obvious wording of the 2nd amendment in our Bill of Rights, because his views are entirely unreconcilable with the founders’ clearly worded restraints on the power of government.

    On the plus side, like Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders is a side show freak in the 2016 presidential circus. On the negative side, we’re realistically looking at Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush as the media promoted “top tier” legitimate candidates.

    It won’t be long now. This zombie economy and our completely corrupt non-representative government can’t keep lumbering along much longer.

    • builder21

      Thank you LTLA, that’s the most sane, logical, and accurate post yet.

  • Eddie

    Whenever a politician flip flops there’s usually money involved. Bernie Sanders clearly doesn’t understand the 2nd amendment if he thinks it’s meant for hunting gear. The goal of that amendment is to discourage a government from becoming tyrannical. No occupation has ever lasted long when wide-scale guerrilla warfare is conducted by the populace.

  • CrazyChester

    Clearly just bowed to pressure. His gun voting record has been better than some Republicans up to this point. It’s a shame, despite the obvious socialism in his platform, he really was gearing up to be the only true anti-establishment candidate who might actually do something. He should have instead pointed out the real things killing Americans right now. I would have started with Big Pharma and the epidemic of prescription drug deaths. . . but as usual, facts become irrelevant in these political circuses.

  • ThistleMeThis

    “There may be other things we have to do”
    Like ban all guns and destroy the remainder of the constitution. Just get it out Bernie. He’s a socialist and the point of socialism is communism, says Vladimir Lenin.

    • builder21

      It’s ridiculous how people can’t see this.

      The Elite are waging Empire on the Right, leaving a Country riddled with irredeemable debt, while the Left sweeps the newly minted paupers into a Communist prison.

      Lenin missed the boat by not using the “two pronged” approach….

      • 7LibertyForAll

        I see yard signs here in western Massachusetts for this collective shill. They are so so pacified, unaware, propagandized and brainwashed. It’s very sickening to witness.

  • Seeking_Truth

    I wonder if he has any firearms?

    • Seeking_Truth

      Sanders probably has a gun to his head; with an offer he can’t refuse. The elites who run Washington, D.C., and the world, from behind the scenes, are probably telling him what to do. If he doesn’t do as he is told, the elites will release to the public, the contents of the file they have on him. It would expose all of his illegal dealings, his girlfriends, or boy friends, if any, and any other dirty laundry. Or, they may tell him how how tragic it would be for his family, or him, to have a bad accident. Or, If he didn’t go along with “the program”, he might mysteriously commit suicide. (Just check out the ‘Clinton Body Count’. google it.)
      Then there is the alternative. If he goes along with the program, he can have this very large offshore bank account.
      Do you believe the elites would stoop so low?

      • Grayden

        Considering EVERYTHING else he has been running on is in direct opposition to the elitist mentality virtually all congressional members have these days, and the fact that he’s an Independent, Sanders is the least likely to be a puppet of the establishment running for the Presidency.

        • Seeking_Truth

          Thanks for the reply. It’s good to hear that an independent is truly independent.
          Then I truly fear for his life. If he does become president, he won’t last long.
          As far as a gun to his head, if not now, then if he becomes president. (He has a very slim chance of becoming president, but then so did Lincoln.)
          I believe the high up congressmen like Mitch McConnell, and John Boehner, have a gun to their head. It’s the most plausible explanation for their behavior.

          • Amy

            He is NOT an “independent”. He has never held a real job. And in rural Vermont where the average police response time is 45 minutes +/- “hunting” isn’t the reason for my firearms. Bullets travel at about the same speed regardless if the gun is painted black or camouflage. Please take a look at how far Vermont is in the hole with their “free health care” ($100M and still not functioning) and welfare benefits of around $40,000/yr. There is only one city in Vermont that “loves BS” and it’s full of flatlander liberal transplants that keep voting him in.

        • builder21

          The fact that Bernie is an Independent, is precisely why he may already be bought and paid for from the beginning.
          Any Party outside the Two Party system of ONE, is just another layer of controlled opposition.

          You cannot successfully control the body politic without first controlling the Parties.

      • builder21

        Make no mistake about it.
        Bernie Sanders thinks he IS part of the Elite.

        There’s no gun to his head, it’s in his blood.

        His job has always been to mingle among the Goi.
        Befriend them, sympathize with their plight, organize them, convert them, then sell them out.

        Bernie commands the hearts, the minds, the votes of thousands of brainwashed cattle.

        • Matt McCoy

          You are hillariously incorrect. As incoorect as my spelling.

          • builder21

            Look! There’s one now……

  • Rufus Peckham

    Well time to disarm everyone in the military, police force, and government since they are all mentally unstable agents of the State.

  • Arrow Durfee

    another idiot who thinks the second amendment is for duck hunting…Bernie… you just lost the election…. the second amendment was developed for citizens to protect themselves from tyranny.. Who are tyrants? People, therefore the US citizen has a right to bear arms intended to kill tyrant people.

  • Ship4brains

    Another moonbat libtard and his pipedream rhetoric.

  • padden

    You just “shot” yourself in the foot Bernie. What a shame.

  • 1patsfan4eva

    Whoa, Bernie! You want to hold the highest office in the United States of America when clearly you do not understand the 2nd Amendment. Disappointed….Slippery slope you got yourself on now. Good bye!

  • travtw

    Well he just lost my vote(not that he or any other politician would get it anyway). What an idiot. You know my stance on guns used to be radically different as well. I used to think that a ban on all guns was a good idea but after our government was hijacked by banks and big business, I think our right to bare arms is the only defense we have left. I hate guns but I hate the gov more. Our gov is slowly preparing for the inevitable collapse of our financial system. Our national debt is insane and its a direct result of banks and big business screwing us.That’s the true reason they want to take our guns away. Chaos will erupt and we will be much easier to control if we don’t have guns. They can stage a million false flags but there’s no way they’re getting our guns. People are waking up and seeing right through their BS. It’s getting harder for them to pull off schemes. It Will take a revolution before things get better. There’s mo way around it

    • builder21

      Welcome back to reality, travtw.
      You were gone for far too long.

    • ffr5155

      And that is exactly why I don’t understand why most liberals/progressives are not on the same page as you! I know there are many more, but they just are not very vocal about it. I grew up in the vestiges of post hippie communes in the sierra foothills of Northern California, and you cant separate a one of them from their firearms for the very reason you explained.

  • Orion

    Sure sounds like the B.S from B.S, Bernie Sanders plan for America:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T6GmW7klMo0/T11AUlBM-sI/AAAAAAAAaHs/9P8dWMN4vYI/s1600/TheWall_161Pyxurz.jpg

  • Eric Wagner

    Hey Senator… Responsible people don’t use guns to kill.
    You’re An idiot. They use them to protect themselves and stop the threat.
    No responsible person sets out nor wants to take a life.

  • E_Styles

    This is simply not true. It’s a spun article. It’s the one interview where he doesn’t choose his words properly when referring to the guns that are made to kill people, but if you take a moment to branch out from your strictly right-wing paranoia journalism and listen to more of his interviews on his gun-control policy, you would see that he’s referring primarily to assault rifles. He has no intention of banning shotguns, or handguns, or rifles to be used for protection and hunting. He just wants to keep them out of the hands of those who aren’t of sound mind enough to handle them responsibly, and sees no reason to give the public access to military grade assault rifles.

    • gzizzle

      Why shouldn’t people have access to military grade “assault” rifles?

      • gzizzle

        I thought there would be no cogent response to my question and I was right. There never is.

        • g.johnon

          well then, try asking a cogent question sometime.

      • WesSeid

        At the worst, whatever police (police are not military) can have, regular people should be able to have. And police currently can have pretty much anything.

        • Orion

          No compromise, a well regulated militia is equal to what ground forces (grunts) would be issued. I know you knew that, just needed to write it.

          • WesSeid

            Yeah. I said that because people who don’t want people to be able to have “military guns” rarely seem to have a problem with the non-military police having them.

            So then you ask them why police can have them but you can’t. Is it the super special police training? If you get the same super special police training then is it ok to have a “military gun” like the non-military police do? And then instead of answering that question, they usually just call you a racist or an uncle tom and tell you to shut up.

          • Orion

            I agree, there’s one sample on this forum about grenade launcher and “flame thrower”, I mean have you seen the surge of crimes with those weapons? The reach is……… I can’t write it……

          • JSebastian

            It was a complete strawman argument. And the guy obviously knows nothing about guns in the first place!

          • JSebastian

            Police spend less time on the range training with the weapons they carry every day (and out in public with), than most even casual gun enthusiasts do. Nationally the police average is less than 15 hours. When most guys I shoot with go to the range, its 4-6 hours per outing. Just not worth the time/expense/hassle of packing up all your gear for less time than that. So a lot of private gun owners might put in 15 hours just in a couple of months. Heck, I used to spend all day at the range sometimes, go through 500 rounds on rifle, and 200 on pistol.

      • JSebastian

        Which, by the way, the federal government refers to as “personal defense rifles” when they are procuring them for the military or federal law enforcement. And mind you, theirs are capable of full-auto/select fire.

    • Ship4brains

      Uh….fail. You FAIL. Keep believing the crap and lies and soon, you’ll be living in Greece.

      • E_Styles

        Fail? That’s your only response? Tell me how they’re lies. For fuck’s sake, give me an actual educated response and tell me how they’re lies. Show me that you know what you’re talking about and not just spewing bullshit.

    • megadave

      I think a sound mind person should be able to buy a f**king tank if they are trained with it. Yeah, it’s pointless, but it’s fun.

      • E_Styles

        I can agree with that.

    • Ship4brains

      The public does NOT currently have access to military grade assault rifles. PERIOD. Educate yourself before you flap your stupid face.

      • aszure42

        flap your stupid face?

    • Ship4brains

      Explain the difference between a “rifle” and what moonbats call an “assault rifle”. There is essentially, NONE. The biggest difference isn’t caliber, knockdown power, distance……….etc. The biggest difference is THE COLOR, the stock and other cosmetics. That’s it. I’ve owned semi automatic rifles all my life that moonbats consider “hunting guns”….in reality, they are as deadly as any of your “assault” rifles. IDIOT.

      • E_Styles

        It’s pretty simple. Let the “idiot” explain it to you. Aside from the caliber and cosmetics, there are rifles designed to hunt game with, and there are rifles designed to kill people with. Yes any gun can be used to hunt game and any gun can be used to kill people, but there is an undeniable distinction between the purpose of a hunting rifle and an “assault” rifle. It really can’t be argued.

        • gzizzle

          Do you really think a hunting rifle is any safer than your so called assault rifle? Really?

          • E_Styles

            No, but it was designed for the purpose of hunting game. Obviously people will still use them to kill other people, but they can’t be banned without in turn banning hunters from doing what they do. But nobody is going out to a deer lease or duck pond with an M16 or AK… and if they are, they’re doing it for the love of the kill, and that speaks volumes. A pencil can be used to kill somebody, a car can be used to kill somebody, but they’re not going to be outlawed because they server a more practical purpose in the hands of the sane. The only purpose of an “assault” rifle is to kill people. It serves no other purpose.

          • gzizzle

            “But nobody is going out to a deer lease or duck pond with an M16 or AK” – But you just admitted that it really doesn’t matter does it? Someone could kill with their hunting rifle just as easily as they could with an “assault” rifle. From what I see, the crux of your argument is that we should ban them only because they are scary to you, but for no other quantifiable reason.

            People have weapons to do more than hunt; they use them to defend themselves. Ask some of the people of Detroit who recently used them to do just that.

            Really, you are just saying that people should not have the right to use weapons for defense. Why don’t you just say that?

          • E_Styles

            Come on man, quit putting words in my mouth. I’ll spell my stance out for you since you’re so eager to know. I don’t think guns should be banned all together. But I do think they shouldn’t be able to be sold to people with violent criminal or mental backgrounds. I also think there are guns that are used for hunting and guns that are appropriate for self defense. There are guns however that are not intended to be used in civilian self defense, but rather, based on the caliber or other features, are designed to kill somebody. It doesn’t take much of a firearm to defend yourself. The bottom line being, I am not anti-gun, I just don’t see the point in owning a high caliber or automatic weapon other than the thrill someone gets from firing it, or for killing somebody. So, I ask you genuinely, why should the be legal? Tell me your stance on it.

          • gzizzle

            I have no problem making it illegal for people with a record to own firearms. I take issue with mental backgrounds because that is going to cause people to not seek professional help and make matters worse.

            But the rest of your argument isn’t logical. You think guns should be used for self defense but not designed to kill? That’s like designing a tennis racket without any string. The point is for the weapon to be deadly. The threat of death is the very nature of defense.

            These so called assault weapons are for more than hunting or defending against criminals. They are meant to dissuade a tyrannical police state. In order for arms to be of any use, they have to be “designed to kill somebody” or they are useless.

            It is my hope that I never need a weapon to defend any of my rights, but if that time should come, I certainly want to be equipped with a weapon “designed to kill somebody” and not anything else. I am pretty sure a deer is not coming through the door to murder my family, so excuse me if I believe it is my right to own a weapon design to kill somebody.

          • builder21

            E_Styles is just flapping his Stateist gums.

            Trying to frame the argument in a “hunting, sporting” light is exactly his intention.
            It’s designed to make you think he’s offering you a compromise.
            His only interest is making sure citizens only have pea shooters when the Tyrants have bazookas.

          • WesSeid

            Your car can go faster than the speed limit. You don’t need a car that can go that fast. You don’t need a “high-capacity” gas tank that can hold 18 gallons. You might get chased by the police and you’d have extra gallons to keep driving away.

            I could go down the list of things you don’t need or that other people “don’t see the point” in letting you own. Interestingly, unlike those other things, the thing you want to ban has a constitutional amendment saying it shall not be infringed.

          • JSebastian

            Most hunting rifles are larger caliber than AR-15s. What does AR stand for, btw?

            You don’t know crap about guns, and that’s obvious in your posts. All guns are designed to do exactly the same thing…fire a projectile to impact a target. Does not matter if that target is a human or a deer.

          • LetsTryLibertyAgain

            “There are guns however that are not intended to be used in civilian self
            defense, but rather, based on the caliber or other features, are
            designed to kill somebody.”

            Yeah. I feel so stupid now. I have these dangerous guns that were obviously designed to kill people. It’s a wonder that they haven’t killed several people already. What was I thinking? I should have gotten one of those self defense guns that wasn’t designed to kill people.

            At this point, all I can do is point and laugh. So much nonsense. It honestly seems like a completely alien thought process to me… or perhaps a birth defect. Is it possible to be born without the capacity for rational thought, or is that a learned response to big government propaganda?

          • JSebastian

            Years of leftist indoctrination in government schools and constant blabber from radical talking heads in the media and Hollyweird. Plus you have to understand, these people literally exist in a leftwing echo chamber. They rarely encounter any dissent nor are forced to defend their ideas in formal debate. They just assume everyone has the same view and are bewildered when people don’t agree.

            Someone who has never had to defend their thoughts is surely equally unprepared and incapable of defending their person or their liberties. Sad.

          • WesSeid

            The 1911 sitting next to me must be defective since it hasn’t killed anyone despite 1911 being “a military weapon” for over 100 years.

          • Robert Miller

            E_Styles

            Our founders looked at self-defense in a similar manner as that of John Locke, where he stated the following:

            “THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.”

            By placing themselves into a state of war, causing someone to be required to use self-defense, the person can be regarded no different than an animal. Which means the firearm would be used no differently than if you were hunting another noxious animal … after all, you would simply be making a case before the ultimate arbiter – while making ‘An Appeal to Heaven’.

          • g.johnon

            perhaps there is no point in owning a firearm other than in the fact that the gummint is highlyaware that there are a couple hundred million of them out there. personally, I can see no greater point than that.

          • Michael Sage

            I go to the deer lease with an AR15 or AR10, and know tons of others who do now. I also know people who love their AK or SKS for killing feral pigs.

            What does the original design have to do with anything? Most bolt action hunting rifles can trace their lineage to old military rifles, too. You’re still arguing cosmetics and honestly don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

        • JSebastian

          “assault rifle” is just a term manufactured by gun control advocates. It has no meaning. It would be like calling a car an “assault car”. Its a car. Whether its a “sports car” or a “family sedan”, that’s just marketing. Its the same damn thing no matter what you call it.

        • LetsTryLibertyAgain

          This is essentially a rewording of the gun banning ninnies’ “scary black guns” argument. We already have a lot of ridiculous gun bans based on purely cosmetic features. Ignoring for the moment that these gun bans are completely unconstitutional (SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!), it’s obvious that banning guns based on purely cosmetic features has no chance of reducing crime. It’s just nonsense. But then again, what should we expect from people who do not think rationally and instead base their beliefs and actions on their feelings? Fear is a powerful emotion, so much of their legislation is proposed and passed based on “this scary gun makes me scared”. Sadly, many of the gun control laws are written and enacted by people who know less than nothing about guns. For one example, search online for Shoulder Thing That Goes Up.

          • builder21

            I think the obvious answer to “scary black guns” is “happy pink guns”.

            Hey, if it calms down the limp wristed Liberals……

        • lakeside227

          It’s the difference between the capability of firing fully automatic – military – and semi-automatic – sold to the public.

          A person can purchase a full auto, but it costs a lot of money and a lot of hoops before being licensed for one.

          A semi-auto rifle is no different than a semi-auto handgun – one pull of the trigger = one round fired. A person can shoot and kill the same number of people in the same time span with a semi-auto rifle as with a semi-auto handgun. The rifle just looks scarier. Also, ‘assault weapon’ sounds a lot scarier than semi-automatic rifle/handgun.

          It’s misdirection and deception…and by repeating their fallacies you’re a part of it.

          • g.johnon

            no. the only difference between a rifle and an assault rifle is that one has been used to assault, even if both are identical in all ways. potentiality carries no weight here.

          • lakeside227

            Be careful not to confuse ‘assault rifle’ – a specific type of rifle – with ‘assault weapon’ – a term made up to scare people.

            “assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Because they are light and portable yet still able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 300–500 m (1,000–1,600 feet), assault rifles have replaced the high-powered bolt-action and semiautomatic rifles of the World War II era as the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the United States’ M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3.”

            http://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle

        • g.johnon

          and by that definition, the one designed for killing people is, hands down, the most important one to protect your right to own. not to be taken, in any way, to reduce the importance of the hunting or recreational firearms.

      • WesSeid

        I think the main difference between a “rifle” and an “assault rifle” is one has “a shoulder thing that goes up.”

    • aszure42

      Thanks E. I read the exact same thing in what he said. One big problem with what he said was that he never clearly defined what weapons he’s referring to. I think he misspoke, and was probably referring weapons like uzis with grenade launchers and the optional flame thrower attachment. And, yeah, those should be difficult as hell to obtain, if at all. But he needs to really clarify.

      • E_Styles

        Thanks. That’s really the only point I was making. I appreciate the reply.

        • aszure42

          I’ve always thought that guns should be categorized, and licensed accordingly. The more deadly the weapon, the most range time you need, the more training you need, the cleaner of a background you need. Similar to drivers licenses. Truckers are held to tight scrutiny on the road to a degree that the normal motorist isn’t.

          So sure, someone wants an uzi with a grenade launcher. One can have it, but you’ll go through the same training as a soldier went through before he was trusted in the battle field with it before you can have said uzi with a grenade launcher.

          • WesSeid

            IF you want to make guns like cars, I don’t need a license to drive my car on private property.

          • aszure42

            I didn’t say like cars, I said like licensing. See up there…where I said “similar to drivers licenses”. See that there. Did I use the word car?

          • 1454

            Where are you getting your information from?

            http://people.opposingviews.com/can-buy-car-license-3822.html

            You can *legitimately* buy a car without a valid drivers license. You can’t rent one, but you also can’t rent a car if you are under 25. (special restrictions not withstanding)

          • JSebastian

            Rights don’t have licenses. Only privileges have licenses. The SCOTUS has ruled that no law can legitimately convert a right into a privilege.

          • g.johnon

            not to mention, j, can you show me in the constitution where it says the government can dispense privileges to the people?

          • WesSeid

            See that part where you said “drivers licenses” and mentioned truckers? I don’t need a drivers license to drive on private property.

          • lakeside227

            I don’t need a license to exercise my Rights. I don’t need one for religion, for speech, for assembly, for petitioning the government for redress. I don’t need a license to exercise my Right to not incriminate myself. I don’t need one to not be subjected to unreasonable searches/seizures or searches w/out warrants. I don’t need a license to not be tried twice for the same offense, nor a license for a trial by jury.

            Get where I’m going???

            The government has no authority over our Rights. Our Rights don’t come from the government, they can’t control or regulate them.

            The Bill of Rights are bans on government interference in our Rights. The Amendments are ‘declaratory and restrictive clauses’ the states demanded before they would ratify the Constitution.

            Shall not be infringed is not vague or ambiguous.

          • 1454

            Well, the constitution did give them the authority to infringe on them…… They just have to do so with a 3/4th’s majority…… Yeah, good luck with that.

          • lakeside227

            Not really. 🙂

            Amendments can only be made by the People, not the government – the government can only propose amendments. The Constitution was written by the representatives of the People and ratified by state conventions of the People. The People are the only ones who can change the Constitution.

            Even if the 2nd were to be repealed, the government would have to be delegated authority over firearms in an amendment for them to legally pass gun control laws.

            That’s why all federal gun control laws are invalid. Not only does the Constitution not delegate the feds authority over guns, it specifically bans their infringement on that Right.

            I believe you are correct that the 2nd would never be repealed and the People would never amend the Constitution to give the feds authority over guns. 🙂

          • g.johnon

            actually 1454, both the first and second amendments have safeguards against government attempts to “infringe” on them.
            “congress shall make no law” (first). and: “shall not be inringed”.
            (second).
            ergo, there is no federal gun law in existence that is not an act of treason by those who passed it.

          • JSebastian

            The more deadly the weapon, the most range time you need, the more training you need, the cleaner of a background you need

            All firearms are deadly. Dead is dead..how much deader can you be? This makes no sense.

            So sure, someone wants an uzi with a grenade launcher.

            Civilians cannot posses grenades in any state , so I don’t know why you’re bringing it up. Seems like a great “strawman” argument though.

    • Orion

      Okay, I’m being nice today since I promised someone close, But can you PLEASE define an Assault Weapon of any type, and be cautious I know the difference first hand.

      • E_Styles

        No. I’m not going to argue semantics with you. I realize that I’m labeling certain types of weapons as “assault” rifles that may not be accurate. I’m sure you are much more knowledgeable well versed than me with regards to what an assault rifle is or isn’t. So, thanks for being nice.

        • WesSeid

          As usual, people who don’t care about facts or logic also don’t care that they want to ban things they don’t understand.

        • Orion

          I knew that going into asking the question, So i’ll take it a little further, It is not you or folks like you that are creating the myth, it is people who are supposed to serve us, they are not royalties, But folks in the likes that use the “assault” weapon argument have been hoodwinked and really should research a little more. You see a True Military Grade weapon “can” be purchased, with long red tape process involved, an added tax and giving the ATF the ability to come to your residence (where such firearm dwells/is housed) 24/7/365 and do an inventory. So there is restrictions in place already.
          And if you do not have any of the stamped items, you’re hung.

      • g.johnon

        lemme get that one. an assault weapon is any weapon (rock, pencil, hat pin, gun, anything, that is use to facilitate an assault. pretty self explanatory really, until you let politicos get their hands on it, then the definition just becomes meaningless.

        • Orion

          :-)))) That’s why I stated I was being nice, “yesterday”, You could add simple house/car keys, They just don’t get it.

    • WesSeid

      You need to branch out from your inanimate-object-hating, don’t let the facts get in the way, strictly left-wing paranoia journalism reading because assault rifles are already practically banned in the U.S. and have been since 1934.

      You have a higher chance of getting hit by lightning than killed by any rifle of any kind. Of any kind.

      There are more guns in the U.S. than ever before, carry laws are less restrictive, and crime and murder are the lowest they’ve been in 40 years.

    • LetsTryLibertyAgain

      Bernie clearly trotted out the tired old “I’m not a gun banning Democrat” line when he said that he was not in favor of banning guns used for hunting. This is the Democrat divide-and-conquer strategy on the gun rights issue. Move the conversation toward big government totalitarianism and away from individual liberty, and then appear to be a centrist on the new grading scale because you don’t want to ban guns used for hunting, generally referred to as “firearms with a legitimate sporting use”. News flash, statists! The second amendment does not have ONE single thing to do with hunting or sporting purposes. It really isn’t about self defense either. Both of those were assumed to be obvious uses for firearms. The second amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms because it’s necessary to the security of a free state. We have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms so that we may protect our nation against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. We are armed to prevent invasion from without, and to prevent tyranny from within.

      Any time a politician tells you he doesn’t want your hunting rifle or the shotgun you use to hunt ducks, you should add “yet” to his statement, because this is obviously someone who does not believe in protecting our Constitution. This is someone who believes in the power of government to rule over the people, and this is someone who is quite comfortable in their lies and deceptions.

    • E_Styles

      Wow. Dogpile the liberal, ha. I can honestly say that a couple of you made good points and gave me food for thought. I can only respond so much before I become redundant, but I read what you had to say. I appreciate good feedback, especially since I’m not a firearm enthusiast, and now I know things I didn’t before. The rest of you could use a little more tact in trying to get your point across.

  • megadave

    Welp, there goes 2016. If Gary Johnson doesn’t run it’s pretty much a dead one.

    • gzizzle

      Plugs Biden is going to run.

  • Klokinator

    Bernie Sanders 2016!!!! Keep those guns away from those crazy rethuglikkkans! Before long they’ll be shooting black boys in the streets if we don’t take their guns away!

    Bernie/Hillary 2016!!!

    • gzizzle

      Why would they shoot black boys in the streets? The black boys take care of that themselves.

      • Klokinator

        You disgusting racist! You just can’t wait to get a rethuglikkkan into the BLACK HOUSE (Obama up in here wut wut!) so you can enact more racist divisive policies! Burn in hell!

        • Guy

          You couldn’t be a more obvious troll. Just ignore this clown folks

        • g.johnon

          wow, that was supremely ludicrous.

    • Matt McCoy

      Bernie would never let Hillary on his ticket. Shes bought by the banks and billionaires he’s trying to break up.

      • Klokinator

        Sounds like you dont want a women in the white house, sexist!!!

        also hillary isnt bought, trump is! bernie/hillary 2016!!!

        • Matt McCoy

          Wow. Do your fingers just type without you knowing ?
          Look at top donors for Hillary. Yep. Bought. – Trump wouldn’t need anyone’s money. Plus he has nothing to lose really. And the “sexist” remark you made. Not true. Sanders/Warren would be my ultimate ticket and also, since when is Hillary a woman? Haha! Nevertheless, keep your faith in Bernie ol’ chap!! 🙂

          • Klokinator

            Warren is a communist groupie!! Hillary is the woman we need, an honest woman with backbone, something a KOCH lover wouldn’t understand!!

          • g.johnon

            would both you socialist morons please leave my country?

          • Klokinator

            socialism is great! you capitalist dogs just want to rape our earth with your big OIL PENIS! vote hillary 2016 so we can have full socialism! 80% tax on CEO’s!!!

          • g.johnon

            capitalist. hmmm I guess in your little world there are only two ways to go. well, at least, thanks for confirming the moron thing.

          • Klokinator

            yes, there is only my way or the highway! hillary will make all you misogynists go away in 2016!!

          • g.johnon

            and reconfirming.

        • g.johnon

          when did Hillary become a woman?

  • Rick Russo

    BERNIE YOU JUST LOST MY VOTE!!!!!!

    • Matt McCoy

      Why? If its that easy for you to throw someone under a bus, you must be pretty ripped and have a lot of dead friends.

      • Rick Russo

        NO GUNS, NO BERNIE. END OF DISCUSSION.

        • Martin Pintado

          He didn’t say he was going to ban guns, that asshat interviewer kept pushing his own agenda. If Bernie even thinks about banning guns he’s going to lose more than just the presidential election.

          • g.johnon

            Bernie is infringing, what more do you need?

      • g.johnon

        Bernie was born under the bus.

    • Jim Edwards

      “BERNIE” JUST LOST MILLIONS OF VOTES !!!

    • g.johnon

      really? there was a time when he actually had it?

  • Josh Labbate

    These are my firearms I will not part with it to no nation for it is my right to hold it to defend my loved ones against those that would do harm. Such as an intruder or a sick government that has lost its way. I serve the United States and will always serve such whether it is for it or against itself. So go ahead and become Nazis and take away guns you Hitler wannabes. I will be here waiting for you and your polluted ways of so called government. Don’t Tread On Me You Domestic Terrorist!!!

  • It’s not about what type of firearm a person uses; it’s about their mental state of mind and their criminal background. They both should be key reasons in keeping firearms away from them.

    Instant background checks? Yes! A database of mentally disturbed/violent people to see that they don’t have access to guns? Yes! Take away my right as a law abiding person to protect myself and my family? Hello NO!

    I really do hope Bernie Sanders can clarify what he said, b/c his history of gun rights goes against very much of what he stated in this video. Ban my guns? You just lost my vote and that of my family. Again, clarify what you said!

    • WesSeid

      I don’t know what trickery is used to get so many people to praise Bernie’s past on gun rights. Yes, he’s voted against things like being able to sue a gun manufacturer for misuse of their product, but it’s nothing new that he wants to ban “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines and things.

      • g.johnon

        he’s nuts wes, always was, always will be. and his little followers will believe anything that promises to make those scary booms and bangs go away.
        tax me to the poorhouse, but just don’t scare me.

    • g.johnon

      no sir, they should not. bad governments make criminals out of good people and there is no definitive way to actually determine, generally, whether or not a person is mentally disturbed other than on the say so of someone more apt to be bat shit than the “patient”.) as things stand in our society today, anyone can be pronounce either crazy or criminal without the inconvenience of any objective standards whatsoever.
      background checks, databases of the mentally disturbed, are blatant infringements on my right as a citizen to deter tyranny in this land.
      so take you mealy mouth little left wing arguments and park them posteriorly.

  • Bottom line nationwide gun .laws never worked and never will

    • g.johnon

      they have historically never worked for anybody except tyrants.

  • JSebastian

    This guy will never become president. Thankfully, right? What a nightmare. 2A guarantees our right to bear arms, not for hunting, but because resisting the tyranny of an out of control federal govt and standing army is critical to the survival and security of a free people (state).

    • RickCoMatic

      The 2nd Amendment actually says, … “A [WELL REGULATED MILITIA]* being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” A well regulated militia does not mean every living soul who can afford to buy firearms may have as many assault weapons as they can afford to buy. The word MILITIA does not mean General Public. I doubt there is anyone who is of a right mind would dare to state that firearm ownership in these United States comes anywhere close to being WELL REGULATED! Two hundred twenty-five years ago, when a drive-by meant: Being shot-at by men, riding horseback, armed with inaccurate smooth-bore muskets, able to fire but one round before needing 15 or 20 seconds to reload is … by far … different from what present-day arms are capable. Muskets are obsolete. So is the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment desperately needs to be re-written. Those twenty-seven words don’t cut it anymore.

      • lakeside227

        …and you’re wrong. The Right mentioned in the 2nd is the Right of the People to own and carry firearms. The militia is mentioned, but it is not connected to the Right of the People. If the Right pertained only to the militia the Founders would have said that.

        Look, the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are not a list of our Rights. The Amendments, according to the Bill of Rights’ Preamble, are ‘declaratory and restrictive clauses’ for the government. Our Rights are mentioned in the Amendments, but the purpose of the Amendments is to prevent misconstruction of laws and abuse of powers by the government.

        THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

        Our Rights are not obsolete. Our Rights are pre-existing and inherent. The Bill of Rights are bans on government interference in our Rights. They, also, are not obsolete. The government has absolutely no authority to define or regulate our Rights. It can’t because our Rights don’t come from the government.

        What doesn’t cut it, is the government’s continued violation of the Constitution – our Supreme Law. The Supreme Law that no federal law, state law, or treaty can contradict.

        • Reality Blowz

          And somehow they still try to use the militia argument while avoiding that these are a list of Individual Rights for the individual. So by their standards, only the militia has the Freedom Of Speech?

      • lakeside227

        P.S. The militia of the 2nd is the unorganized, reserve, citizen’s militia. They are only under the authority of the government – state or federal – when the militia has been called out to serve the state or the feds.

        Well regulated meant self-regulated by the individual militias. In the context of the 2nd well regulated, also, means in good working order and well armed.

        The militia means every adult citizen not already serving in the military or National Guard. Look it up in the US Code.

      • Jim Edwards

        AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN IN YOUR LIFETIME…….GUTLESS WONDER !!!
        THEY CAN PASS ANY KIND OF “LAW” THEY WANT !
        WHEN THEY COME TO “ENFORCE” IT………ALL HELL WILL BREAK LOOSE………..YOUR SORRY ASS WON’T BE ANYWHERE AROUND !!!

      • g.johnon

        in 1776 the term “militia” as applied to the constitution, meant every able bodied man not currently serving in the military. “necessary to the security of a free state” is key here. “well regulated” I refer you to the preamble to determine who is doing the regulating here. ever wonder why the words “we the people” are printed over 5 times larger the the rest of the words in the constitution? ………no, you probably haven’t.

    • g.johnon

      no j. berny will not become our next president, but rest assured, some worthless asshole will.

  • Ctrot

    I want Bernie to go around collecting personal firearms himself since he thinks doing so is such a good idea.

  • Gregory Alan of Johnson

    Which way is that “wind” blowing again?

  • JSebastian

    Thousands of people have pledged their mutual support to secede from and declare war on any government or organization that attempts to ban or confiscate personal defense weapons. Sorry, but if this EVER becomes a law, then this country as you know it is done for. The government understands this quite well too.

    • Darrin Freeman

      see results of the American civl war!

      • ehv45@hotmail.com

        if this is ever tried it will be rural america against inner city people and the metro areas will lose.

        • jhendr83

          Sure. Just like the other civil war, huh? Those rural confederates sure taught all the big city folk up north a lesson.

          • ehv45@hotmail.com

            there was no large metro populations then, over populated by libertards , my ancestors killed in the civil war were all rural people fighting on both sides

          • Jim Edwards

            You are a “MONUMENT” in ignorance…………..if o’slimo gets his wish and starts a “war” against white, patriotic, hard-working, god-fearing American people……….with a bunch of shift-less welfare trash & a handfull of sick-sex perverts……….IT’LL LAST ABOUT 48 HOURS………….AND AMERICA WILL BECOME THE GREAT COUNTRY IT ALWAYS WAS. AGAIN………BEFORE THE BASTURD-DENT CAME IN !!!

  • Dave Froman

    Edited video…more Koch brothers sponsored garbage…..yawn

    • PROVE IT

      • Darrin Freeman

        already proven…..this article is a misrepresentation of mr Sanders stance….i saw the entire interview on its original airing….as is typical of rightwing propagandists…the author of this misleading article has woven actual quotes with supposition….only “…” is a direct quote….the latter sentence without the “….”…is pure supposition…..learn to understand the basic laws of the written word!

        • Jim Edwards

          In other word…………….IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF “IT”
          DOES IT STINK …WHERE YOU HAVE YOUR IGNORANT HEAD ?

    • Dale Campbell

      You’re full of crap. he said what he said

  • WhiteRabbit

    Africa for africans!
    Asia for asians!
    White countries for everyone!
    Diversity means chasing down the last white person.
    It’s genocide.
    “Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.
    #Whitaker2016

    • jhendr83

      Good, so… when do you go back to Europe? Whites are already a world minority, and will be a minority here in the US within the next 2 decades. If your historical treatment of minorities is any indication, good luck. 😉

      • JSebastian

        So your justification for enacting genocidal policies against whites is that they are already a global minority? (about 10% of the population, maybe a bit less).

        When do you start clubbing the baby seals?

        • jhendr83

          There are no genocidal policies, it’s nature. Natural selection. Whites who resort to racism as an answer to diversity instead of embracing themselves as members of the larger human family make everyone look bad.

          • What about all the other races who also resort to racism? You do know it’s universal, right?

          • Jim Edwards

            WELL……….GROW SOME BALLS………….PUT A STOP TO IT !!!
            I thought so…………another chicken-shit coward………..

          • g.johnon

            so you are going to take a very tiny portion of white people (supremacist types) and paint the entire white race with that brush?
            natural selection also works against stupid you know.

      • “Your?”

  • Mister E

    So, he was once an honest politician, but now that he’s in the national spotlight, trying to win a Democratic nomination (which should be interesting since he’s an independent), he does an about face and starts lying his tail off?

    Figures.

    • Jim Edwards

      He’s a penny-anti crook……he’ll kiss SATAN’S ASS, for a chance at “POWER” !!!

    • g.johnon

      please point us all to the time when b.s. was an honest politiian…….please.

  • Jimmy Johnson

    FK off Bernie.

  • Social D.R.

    This has always been Sander’s policy lol. Barry Donegan should go to high school and learn to do research.

  • dltaylor51

    Bernie just crushed any political exasperation’s he might have had for the presidency with this one stupid anti gun move,like Bill Clinton said”stay away from gun control if you think anything of your career in politics,it can be murder”,there were some pro gun guys who were actually listening to him untill he shot himself in the foot,now they wont have anything to do with him.

    • Karolyn

      Not a contender in my book; who wants a socialist running the country; not me. We have zero candidates that are going to do anything good for America. Until we wise up and get an Independent that believes in following the Constitution we are lost.

      • dltaylor51

        You are so right on,i only wish we had someone worth voting for,I’m tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.

      • ffr5155

        Rand Paul

        • Karolyn

          I was hoping Rand Paul would be the candidate of choice but he is NOT his father and he is for helping Israel which we give millions of dollars too and are going to give them more to soothe them since they are so upset about the Iran deal. Bibi is just as corrupt and as big a liar and propaganda spreader as our government. Let them defend themselves! Just who is and would come to our aid if someone to start a war with us? If we keep pushing Russia World War III may just happen; Putin is not afraid of Obama or the U.S.

          • Jim Edwards

            You are pitiful in your ignorance !!!
            Do you think for even one second, that Putin wants to go to war with America ???
            If you do you are a certified idiot !
            What in hell does he “gain” from a radio-active waste-land afterwards…………HE’S ANOTHER PISS-ANT “DICTATOR” LIKE O’SLIME-BAG……………get in his face and he’ll fold like a rubber dick !

  • Dingus Mcgee

    this hack job is deserving of Koch backing. here is what Bernie really said

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9uhZIHZbBA

    • dtownprof

      That is a completely different station… that’s not the same interview. But I don’t see how this is any different than what he said above.

      • g.johnon

        and now you know why his mama named him dingus 🙂

  • ra wo

    Too bad. He might have been a real contender.

  • dmiller64152

    Bernie Sanders is not out to take your guns, but pretty much every candidate out there is certain tp make sure the guys at the top will take your money. That’s what you should be worrying about.

  • ra wo

    Just watched the video, Ben should check the headline, he didn’t say he would ban al self defense guns. He did vote to ban semi-auto rifles. Which is bad enough.

    • dtownprof

      He said he wants to ban “assault weapons” or any gun that is “not for hunting”. Guns not used for hunting are typically self-defense weapons… hand guns, tactical shotguns, etc. The “assault weapons” he calls out by name, which is a name that means absolutely nothing. “Assault weapon” is a legal term they made up to describe a class of gun that has cosmetic and ergonomic features in common with assault *rifles*. Those features do NOT include selective or automatic fire. No one is spraying bullets with an AR-15 and you can make the case that a bolt-action rifle is a poor weapon to hunt something like coyote, which in my area run rampant, killing small livestock and game.

      Besides, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting. It’s about self-defense and defense against tyranny.

      • Dave Hilling

        In many areas I’d say AR and sks type weapons are preferred for coyote since they often travel in groups and your going to be doing your best to take out multiple animals…

  • ArtieP

    I know that I am probably opening myself up to some name calling, by some ignorant people, but there is a story that I want to tell, about myself, that you all need to hear. What is mental illness? How is it determined what mental illness is since there is no way to measure the levels of chemicals in the brain. Many, many people are on some kind of psychotropic drugs for anything from anxiety to depression. I had depression since I was a kid. I made the mistake of seeing a psychiatrist, back in 1992, to find out if seeing a psychologist would help or was it a physical issue. Well, he deemed it a “chemical imbalance in the brain”, a term that most people will hear from the pharmaceutical companies that pimp their psychotropic drugs to over the television.

    This visit occurred during the era of Prozac, and Prozac is exactly what he gave me, along with Xanax for anxiety which, at the time, only occurred when I had to start a new job. These meds did what they were supposed to do. They did not make me dangerous or change the way that I was, but I was not prepared for what would happen 4 years later!

    I started another new job and it caused me great anxiety, so he decided to mix in a second antidepressant, Imipramine. It is extremely dangerous to mix an SSRI (Prozac) with a tricyclic antidepressant (Imipramine) because it can cause a condition known as Serotonin Syndrome. This syndrome swamped my brain with Serotonin, causing me to attempt suicide 4 different times. I did NOT use a gun, I took sleeping pills and I was never a threat to anyone else. At any rate, I was INVOLUNTARILY committed to 72 hour stays in hospital psychiatric wards on each occasion. It wasn’t until the fourth visit that a psychiatric RESIDENT figured out what was causing this erratic behavior. Why didn’t any of the very experienced psychiatrists figure this out? She took me off of the Imipramine, which caused the Serotonin Syndrome and I have been fine ever since.

    However, I soon learned that because of even just ONE INVOLUNTARY 72 hour commitment to a psych ward, you are stripped of your right to own, or to even have anything to do with firearms, for the rest of your life. It has now progressed to people who VOLUNTARILY commit themselves for any reason.

    In short, because of a doctor’s mistake, which resulted in Serotonin Syndrome for me, I was permanently banned from having a firearm, despite the fact that, since the Imipramine was discontinued, I have never been suicidal again. And even during the period that I had the Serotonin Syndrome, I was NEVER a threat to anyone but myself. I was also never a threat to anyone prior to the Serotonin Syndrome or after the Serotonin Syndrome! The way it was described to me was to use the pregnant woman example. A woman becomes pregnant, and remains that way for about 9 months. Her baby is then born and the woman is no longer pregnant. I had mild depression before Imipramine was mixed with Prozac, I had Serotonin Syndrome while the Imipramine ws in my system and, once the Imipramine was removed from my system, I no longer had Serotonin Syndrome. Since that time, although I rarely have depression but still suffer anxiety attacks, which are easily treated by Xanax, I have a sound mind.

    But the laws are one size covers all. They don’t care why you were in a psych ward, just that you WERE IN A PSYCH WARD! They don’t care if any wrongly administered psychotropic drugs caused erratic behavior, or that you are no longer on that drug and are a productive member of society, they just look at the involuntary commitment and deem you a threat to society, forever stripping away your second amendment rights.

    I have spoken to lawyers, who specialize in the area of gun rights and have been told that they can attempt to have these involuntary commitments expunged, but the odds of winning were 50/50 and the legal costs would be upwards of $5,000. Their advice was to not even bother!

    More people, than not, are one some sort of psychotropic drug today. These drugs are a cash cow for the pharmaceutical companies and they are advertised on television. I am not, and have never been mentally ill, but because of the actions of one uneducated doctor, my second amendment rights have been removed.

    We are supposed to trust our doctors, as they should know what they are doing. If I had known that this could possibly happen, I never would have started on psychotropic drugs in the first place. I don’t know if I am in the federal NICS database, or the Pennsylvania PICS database and I have no way of finding out. I spoke to our county sheriff and they told me that they could not find out unless I had an open case in progress. As a matter of fact, they told me to go to a gun shop and to try to purchase a firearm. What kind of advice is that? When you fill out the paperwork to purchase a firearm, you have to fill out a questionnaire, and one of the questions is “have you ever been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility”? If you answer NO to this question, you have just committed a felony by lying on a firearms questionnaire, but if you answer YES, they will not even run the background check, telling you that you cannot purchase a firearm.

    I don’t know if any of you have been put into this position, but I think that most of you will agree that this was a temporary condition, that has not existed for the last 15 years and will never exist again (because I now research the interactions of any drugs that doctors suggest to me with any medications that I am currently on), and agree that the situation was, indeed, temporary and no longer exists. At least that is what anyone who has a logical mind should be able to agree upon.

    I would like intelligent responses to this post, not childish rantings and bashings. I have opened up a very personal side of myself to you and would ask that you respond in an adult and respectful way. I discussed my case because the government is looking for any, and all, ways to take our guns away….well not my guns because I’m not ALLOWED to have any!!!! One size does NOT fit all and anyone with a working brain should see that this was a temporary medical condition that has ceased to exist for the past 15, almost 16 years. I have never had a run in with the police and I used to have a CCW permit. I am a law abiding man with a family of my own and I have permanently lost my right to bear arms because of a doctor’s mistake. That is the point that I am bringing to the fore, so please, respect and no bashing!! Thank you!

    • Karolyn

      This is wrong what was done to you and this should not be allowed to continue. They are just looking for any excuse to take away 2nd amendment rights and that should not be allowed to happen. Most shooting are because the person is on psyche meds which Big Pharm pushes, psychiatrists and doctors push and are approved by the FDA when there has not been enough research done. These mass shootings are almost always done in “gun free zones” which is approved by the gov’t, city or State and everyone should be allowed to have protection and that is what the 2nd amendment is all about. It does not specify which guns are allowed but all citizens. This is also a protection against tyranny and this is what Hitler did. Follow the steps Hitler took to overcome the people and you will see it is exactly what ur government is doing slowly but surely. If people really believe we are still a free people they need to take a closer look at how our freedoms and liberties are being eroded and how the Constitution and Bill of Rights are ignored by or gov’t.

      • ArtieP

        Thank you Karolyn and I agree with everything that you have said, particularly about the 2nd amendment. These so-called lawmakers should have to abide by the same laws as We the People. So, let them have their security details, but make them unarmed. They want to disarm us, but when it comes to them it is a different story. Gun control is a joke! They want to disarm all law abiding citizens, which would leave who with the guns? The police, the military, and the crooks, who obtain their weapons illegally! As a matter of fact, the 2nd amendment has no qualifiers. It is straight and to the point, and the main thrust of it is to back up what the Declaration Of Independence says about OUR right to remove a corrupt government, and gives us the means to do so, should it come to force. Now, these days, the military has so much more sophisticated weaponry that, what the founding fathers had in mind couldn’t have even be conceived of back then. And you are also correct about what history has taught us about what happens to the People when governments disarm them. And gun free zones are an open invite to insane people, telling them that they have an open invite when they decide to go on a shooting spree.
        Most people wrongly believe that the Bill Of Rights is a list of rights that is bestowed upon We the People, by the government. The fact is that the Bill Of Rights is a list of God given rights that the government is NOT to trample upon. Thanks for your kind, and right on the point response.

        • Karolyn

          You said it even better than I did. So many of us would like to remove those in power that have totally overstepped how they are supposed to govern and what they are allowed by “we the people” but what you state about the weapons controlled by the government makes it almost impossible for us to remove them. The crooks, military, police and those “protecting” those in government will always have weapons as you have stated. The question has been asked many times, what can we do? We know what needs to be done just not how to get it done and would the military & police be there for us? We are already living in a police state and Wesley Clark said those of us who are not in agreement with our government should be rounded up and held until the war on terror is over? So what really is the war on terror and with our corrupt government it will never be over just like all the wars we stay involved in. Or would they follow orders and shoot the citizens? We are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

          • g.johnon

            obviously, Wesley clark is a terrorist.
            first rule of winning any war is to properly define and identify the enemy.

    • dltaylor51

      If God didn’t make it dont put it in your mouth and if man made it spit it out immediately.

      • Reality Blowz

        Just turn your head away first.

    • adamh2o

      I agree with most of what you said, but I take issue with your statement that more people, than not, are on some form of psychotropic drug today. I find it really hard to believe that over 50% of the population is on psychotropic drugs. I know quite a few people who are, but it is nowhere near 50%. That’s like gay rights groups claiming 50% of people are gay or bi, when it’s actually like 2%.

      • ArtieP

        Adam, one time i asked my, then, psychiatrist how many of his new patients walk out of his office with a prescription for a psychotropic drug. His responses was “All of them!”. I was not giving percentages when I said that more people, than not, are on psychotropic drugs, I was stating that psychotropic drugs are very prevalent in society today. Look at what they are doing to children, who show any signs of activity. They label them as ADHD (formerly known as hyperactive). My brother was hyperactive when he was a child but he was not treated by a doctor, he just outgrew it. How many children are on Ritalin today, as opposed to 20, 30 years ago. Ritalin is basically “speed”!

        These charlatans, psychiatrists, have no medical diagnostic tests to measure brain chemistry. They have boilerplates that they use to form a diagnosis. Through those years, I saw many psychiatrists and they all came up with different diagnoses, and all offered psychotropic drugs to fit their “diagnoses”. I have been told that I have atypical depression, major depression with anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, and adult ADD! These diagnoses are based purely on my answers to their questions. My son was diagnosed, at age 14 with bipolar disorder. He DID NOT have bipolar disorder, he was going through puberty and he grew up to be a highly intelligent, empathetic, and honest adult. The medical community is very quick to label someone as having a psychiatric condition so that they can prescribe psychotropic drugs and get a kickback from the pharmaceutical companies which make billions of dollars per year on the sale of psychotropic drugs.

        I challenge you to tell me that you know not one single acquaintance of yours that is NOT on a psychotropic drug. If you are honest, you will find that you DO know someone who is on a psychotropic drug. You may find this article very interesting, as it pertains to the rampant prescribing of psychotropic drugs:

        http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/06/prescribing.aspx

        Here is another article about why, in America, as opposed to other countries, our children are quickly diagnosed with ADHD and put on psychotropic drugs:

        http://cchrflorida.org/why-is-adhd-rampant-only-in-the-united-states/

        And the truly sad thing about these drugs is that they are not prescribed based on any medical testing. As a matter of fact, there are not medical tests that can determine the levels of chemicals in the brain.

        • adamh2o

          I already stated that I know quite a few people who are on a pschotropic drug. I was just questioning the more are than not comment. I know it’s over-prescribed, but not to the extent that over 50% of the population is on them. That was my only point of contention on the matter. I agreed with the rest of what you said.

          • ArtieP

            Good enough Adam! I should have worded that a bit differently but compared to 20 years ago, psychotropic drug use has skyrocketed and that is one thing that no one can deny. BTW, all of those diagnoses that they had for me all came from different doctors. My true diagnosis is major depression with anxiety disorder. For the most part, my depression today is minimal and I was never, before that doctor caused my Serotonin Syndrome or after it was over, have I ever been suicidal. You may find it a very interesting read if you lookup the history of psychiatry. It was considered the dumping ground for doctors who couldn’t make the grade in any other area, and i believe (I read this article about a year ago) that this was the medical establishments mindset in the first half of the 20th century. In my opinion, that is still valid, personally speaking.

            Psychiatrists don’t even do therapy anymore. They are literally pill dispensers. But once you are on these drugs it is literally impossible to get off of them. The withdrawal is absolutely awful.

      • Libertywmn214

        Actually now a days I wouldn’t be surprised one bit, look at all the new diagnoses they have come up with in DSMV in order prescribe more psychotropic drugs – restless leg syndrome (self explanatory)”, “a new mental illness called ‘oppositional defiant disorder’ or ODD. Defined as an ‘ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior,’ symptoms include questioning authority, negativity, defiance, argumentativeness, and being easily annoyed” and ” ‘orthorexia nervosa,’ defined as ‘a pathological obsession for biologically pure and healthy nutrition.’ Insinuating that our demand for nutrient-dense, healthful food is a mental disorder that must be treated.” This would be a very effective way to take guns away from a large number of people. I’m sure you are aware that they have started taking guns away from Veterans who are suffering from PTSD and/or just need someone to assist them with their finances or if someone within the VA just feels they shouldn’t have guns. It is now being pushed that who ever is on Social Security and needs assistance with their finances will also loose their rights to owning firearms.

        • ArtieP

          You sure hit that nail on the head!!! BTW, the DSM-V, which is fairly recent, is created by a group of psychiatrists who come up with these “mental illnesses”. They have everything covered! Biting your fingernails has a DSM code. They have a code for every single little quirk that anybody could possibly have. Who would have thought that biting your fingernails would be a mental disorder? Oh, that’s right….the psychiatrists who brainstorm to come up with as many crazy conditions as they can and put them into the DSM-V! And our veterans? They don’t seem to have a problem sending them into a war zone, of their own making, including multiple tours of duty, but when they return home with the expected PTSD, the gun grabbers want to ban them from owning firearms. I guess it’s okay to have automatic rifles when you are plowing down the “supposed” enemy, but when you come home, you are considered too mentally unbalanced to own any kind of firearm. There is definitely an agenda going down, and it’s curious that the ban is only on firearms. What about knives, hammers, cars (which you can plow into a crowd), or even your own fist, which you can pummel someone with, or your feet, which you can kick someone to death with (I guess that they would have to have them amputated). Strange that there are no restrictions on them for any of these items. People have been known to go on killing rampages with knives, but there is no prohibition on knives. It all seems to be focused on relieving us of our firearms! I’m sure that many cops have suffered mental trauma from what they have seen in the field, but they are not taking away their 2nd amendment rights.

          In cases of 72 hour involuntary stays in psychiatric wards, there should be a review board that looks at the facts about each case, after at least every two years, and rule whether the person is still a danger to himself / herself, or anyone else for that matter. If they determine that they are no longer a threat, their involuntary psych ward stays should be expunged and their 2nd amendment rights reinstated.

          • Libertywmn214

            In FL the Police, who have no Psychiatric training what-so-ever, can Baker Act you (Commit you for 72 hrs). So even if its not all that serious they can still do it if they really want to. I also forget to mention the new Diagnosis of Depression from the Grief of a loved one dying, I”m pretty sure there’s also one for kids who throw tantrums and then there’s the caffeine withdrawal diagnosis. Its getting to the point that any human behavior that is troublesome is diagnosed as a mental illness.

          • ArtieP

            So true Liberty!!! Everything and anything is considered a mental illness. Pick your nose, I’m sure there is a code for that one too. Here is what I consider to be a very real possibility. Someone calls the cops and says that you are depressed. The cops come and, despite the fact that you may be down, you are nowhere close to being suicidal, the cops make the decision to forcefully detain you and involuntarily admit you to a psych ward. Yes, they will evaluate you in the psych ward but typically you will be rather upset at what is happening to you, and they will keep you for a 72 hour observation, with the possibility of extending that time. Someone’s overreaction to your depression can lead to an involuntary commitment and it’s game over for your right to bear arms.

            It is so easy to be setup these days. I know that this is off topic, but I want to point out just how easy it is for cops to put you in jail. If a cop pulls you over and asks to search your car, despite the fact that they need probable cause to do so, how easy is it for them to slip a bag of cocaine or a handgun into your car and then “find it” and charge you with possession or illegal carrying of loaded gun. Who will people believe, little ole you or the cop? I don’t think that I even have to wait for an answer to that question. It is that easy to be setup these days.

            Getting back to the original point, we did attempt to hire a lawyer and sue the doctor who dosed me improperly but he told us that he wouldn’t take the case because doctors are not going to testify against other doctors. He added that, if I had died that would be a different story! That sure is a nice and comforting thought!

    • g.johnon

      artie, well said. but just as an aside, there were roughly 32,000 gun deaths in the united states last year. over half of those (around 60%) were suicides. accidental gun deaths and gun murder accounted for around 12,000 deaths. ok, not a good thing, for sure. but (of course there is a but) over 780,000 deaths in America alone were caused by medical malpractice. including misdiagnosis, misprescribed medicine and side effects of “properly proscribed” medicines.
      truthfully the leading cause of death in this country, and no doubt the world, is the medical/pharmaceutical community.
      aren’t you glad the government is forcing you to buy health care?.
      so, my advice to you, depression is natural in this day of abounding happy horseshit. you pretty much have to be nuts to not be depressed from time to time….so, kiss off your shrink, and when you are feeling low, take a nap or get youself an icecream.
      I would also say, get yourself a gun, but that could get you in trouble. not because you don’t have the right (according to the constitution you do) but because we are suffering under a treasonouse government that has no right to take your guns away nor to make a criminal out of you for having one. so, you have been forced into a position of compromise regarding exercising your fundalmental rights. and left with a value decision which is up to no one but yourself.
      interesting times for sure. this group of jackals that call itself the fedguv may be a lot of things, but boring is not one of them.

    • 7LibertyForAll

      Actually, they CANNOT strip you of any right if you are one of the People–not under their fake and assumed jurisdiction. The right to keep and bear arms has been under particular assault by the collectivists who run the “government” corporations at our expense. They make these fake, color-of-law, “laws” and since the people people have no idea who they really are and what their rights REALLY are, they accept more and more incursions into their unalienable rights. If you’d like to be part of the effort to take back OUR common law courts and go after these filthy criminals at every level of the corporations that rule over us, go to National Liberty Alliance (nationallibertyalliance.org). You can learn (for free) just what your unalienable rights are and just what powers our government DOES have.

      It was never meant to be like this in America but it is so, now. Only the people can take back America–and we sure want it to be non-violent.

      I would also suggest you go to this site and read this lengthy and very eye-opening pdf. I knew much of it already but there were still some surprises for me: http://www.mediafire.com/view/1v6ygb9hr0x9t02/Corporate_America_Reduced.pdf I understand there is a print version of this; there are some pages missing from the pdf file. I am tracking that book down.

      Best to you.

    • Barry

      Thanks for posting that. I agree 100%.

    • Inquisitor

      You are a prime example of the Democratic and “Gun Safety[?]” people who believe no one should have access to firearms, they just don’t why for each person yet but they believe any reason is a good one!

      • ArtieP

        Say what? Did you READ what I wrote?? I said that gun control laws are unfair and out of control. How you have me confused with a “people who believe no one should have access to firearms”, who wants more gun control is beyond me. I want MY second amendment rights RESTORED!!! Read before going off half cocked, no pun intended!!

  • Jujubmuse

    Sorry, Sanders, I would want a gun that is made to kill people to defend myself. Whoever brings up the “hunting” gambit aren’t people who care about the constitution. It is not in the constitution to protect hunters’ rights.

  • Tom Cohn

    What an intellectually dishonest article. If you actually bother to look at Sanders’ comments and voting record on gun control then you see that what these statements constitute is very far from an about face on his position on guns. As many people who want gun legislation say, certain types of guns are meant exclusively for killing large groups of people, so Sanders really isn’t referring to handguns and shotguns but assault weapons, which he has voted to ban. This is key.

    But the only way that you would reach the conclusion that he means to include banning firearms for home defense is that you are trying to spin a particular narrative and want to have an excuse to post a very misleading headline. You do this to try and alienate those voters who won’t bother to look into Sanders’ actual positions and will automatically dismiss him as a candidate.

    Congratulations on your scare tactics.
    Shame on you for claiming to show truth in media. This is why alternative media often has no more merit than mainstream news.

    • Jarhead6541

      Bernie Sanders own words; “guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America”. Anyone would conclude that means handguns & many currently popular rifles.

      • Gail Sutherland Dontigney

        he said it!

    • TheSlot1942

      I don’t give a damn how he twists words or massages his rhetoric, he wants guns gone.. now and forever. I say his ass will be gone…. now and forever were he to forcefully get his way.

    • lakeside227

      ‘Assault weapons’ is a made up term. What people mean when they say ‘assault weapons’ are semi-automatic firearms. All semis work the same – one trigger pull = one round fired. It doesn’t matter if it’s a semi-auto handgun, rifle, or shotgun.

      People want to ban semi-auto rifles because they look scary. They are not assault rifles. Assault rifles are full auto. People can purchase full autos, but it is very, very difficult and very, very expensive.

      The government has no authority to limit home defense firearms to revolvers -because there is no difference between a semi-auto handgun and a semi-auto rifle except cosmetics.

      Shame on you for perpetuating myths, deception, and misdirection.

      • zer0sig

        Technically, assault rifles are supposed to have select fire, but of course the thing you select would have an option for auto and possibly 3rd burst. You are quite on point, but I felt I had to be nitpicky. Carry on.

        • lakeside227

          Haha. I wanted to put that (I like to be accurate and factual), but I couldn’t remember what it was called. Select fire, thank you, I was wracking my brain. 🙂

          Until Sandy Hook, I knew nothing about firearms or, really, about our Rights, the Constitution, our Country’s founding, or how extra-Constitutional our governments have become. I gave myself a very intense, and thorough, crash course.

          • zer0sig

            Glad to help. I’ve been following a lot of this stuff for some time, but I’m sure that the term “select fire” is something that I learned related to one of these topics, and relatively recently, as I’ve never used such a firearm.

        • Reality Blowz

          If that comment caused you concern, I pity the person that mentions a “30 Round Clip”. I like to use that one to watch my firing range friends wince.

    • Alistair Luger

      Then he better ask his security detail to get rid of their firearms since all of them are designed exclusively to kill people.

    • Criminals will not honor bans. This would result in law abiding citizens armed only with shotguns or pistols fighting criminals with AR-15s.

    • I_Am_Me

      I see you are adept at reverse psychology as propaganda. And the funny thing is you probably don’t even know it.

      Sanders is pushing now, for whatever reason, the lie that the 2nd is for “hunting” arms only. But this is a minor point. He’s a collectivist, and by definition that means he is anti-individual; and anti-individual is anti-liberty.

      Good day, Comrade Cohn.

    • Libertywmn214

      A purpose and intention of the 2nd Amendment was so that the people would be EQUAL in arms to the Gov so that they wouldn’t be in danger of Tyranny. As it is now we would pretty much be screwed if something happened here like it has in other countries where the Gov turns on its people. People like you want to make it even easier for that to happen whether that is your intention your not. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t only meant for protecting your self and home and it wasn’t only meant for hunting. It was meant so that the Gov would fear the people rather than the people fearing the Gov which seems to be happening more and more now a days. Another point I want to make is that you must think criminals couldn’t get assault weapons if they were to be banned which is a little loony in and of itself. LOL criminals don’t care and don’t follow gun bans or gun laws, they will get them any way which would then just leave us as sitting ducks because we follow the laws and bans and would not have them to protect ourselves and our homes with. Kind of like that how that whole war on drugs has worked out so well, yeah banning all those drugs sure has kept them off the streets hasn’t it? But yet in countries in which they have been legalized their problems stemming from drug use and abuse have plummeted.

    • Jim Edwards

      AMAZING !!!
      How can anyone post such ignorant “dribble” online…………WITH HIS HEAD SO FAR UP OBAMA’S SLIMEY ASS-HOLE HE COULD KISS HIS TONSIL’S……FROM THE INSIDE !!!

    • g.johnon

      tommy boy, how does it feel to step in shit and sink in up to your eyebrows?
      you may want to think very carefully before taking your next step down the road of collectivist treason that you have apparently embarked upon.

    • David Stichter

      You mean the rifles used in less than 3% of firearms related crime which is at its lowest level in 40 years as it is…way to manufacture a crisis! Ask New York legislators how the SAFE act is working out for them…

  • Evans John

    Banning guns will drive up the price of them while our Senators and gun advocates fight the Bill thus in turn lines the pockets of B.S. and all the other crooked polititians involved.

  • nickjm

    What I find Bernie Sanders saying is that he is giving his opinion in regards to being a Senator for his state, but also saying that thing in regards to guns are not the same in every state so he thinks that there needs to be a major open debate on how to deal with it. By having this debate he just sees himself as the leader of getting the debate going in a sensible manner, unlike how it is now, and not saying gun control will be one way or the other.

    • lakeside227

      Nope, not only are guns not a delegated power of the federal government (which means they must, by law, refrain from legislating on the subject), they are specifically prohibited from infringing on the Right of the People to own and carry firearms.

      Sanders opinion regarding a ‘debate’ is irrelevant. It’s not the purview of the government.

      • Perfect analysis summed up exactly with this “It’s not the purview of the government.”

      • shatzi178

        SCOTUS disagrees with you. No rights are absolute.

        • lakeside227

          Right….

          Part of the entity bound and controlled by the Constitution decrees they can define our Rights. Rights that aren’t even a delegated power of the federal government. The BoRs are bans on the government, not permission for the feds to define Rights that happen to be mentioned in those bans.

          Where does the Constitution give the feds authority to define and regulate our Rights?

          Tell me another funny….

          • I_Am_Me

            You’re dealing with a Leftist. He/she/zit only understand positive rights. They’re clueless.

        • LibertyMonger

          And SCOTUS is GOD they couldn’t possibly be corrupt LMFAO

        • As we all have seen over the past month or so, “SCOTUS” as an entity is not terribly concerned about the Constitution or what it says any more. I would not hitch my wagon to that particular star.

        • Jim Edwards

          We already know “scotus” has become a obama ass-wipe……..WHO GIVES A DAMN WHAT THEY THINK !!!
          And remember…………

          • Jim Edwards

            WHO’S GOING TO VOLUNTEER “COLLECT” THESE GUNS FROM THE 100 MILLION OR SO PATRIOTS WHO ARE READY, WILLING, AND “VERY ABLE” TO DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM THE MORON THAT COMES FOR THEM……….THERE NEVER HAS BEEN A LIB-TURD WITH BALLS ENOUGH TO DO ANYTHING BUT “WHINE & CALL NAMES”………..I THINK “”SCOTUS” CAN SAFELY KISS AMERICA’S COLLECTIVE ASS ON GUN CONTROL………AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN !!!

    • The “sensible manner” of debate is for BOTH sides to FIRST acknowledge that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, God-given human right, and also a civil right protected by the Second Amendment, and that all proposed restrictions on that right, no matter how small, or at what level of government, are subject to Strict Scrutiny.

      Once that is agreed upon, a legitimate debate may begin.

      • boB

        At what point in the bible do you find God giving humans guns? I missed that chapter.

        • Are you really that dumb, or are you just playing dumb? Self-defense, and especially the defense of others, is a thread that runs throughout Scripture. The particular means of defense may change, but God-given rights do not change.

          Have you never read the Declaration of Independence? “Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” This is the foundation of America, my friend. Where have you been?

    • g.johnon

      no nickjm, what he is saying is: “I have no real convictions, criticize me and I may very well change my stance on anything.”

  • QuestionItAll

    Why is anyone surprised? Sanders is an avowed Communist and Communists despise individuals, personal freedom and above all guns that they don’t control!

    • ballardpimp

      Gawd, you really are jack-shit stupid, aren’t you? You don’t even have a clue what a Communist is.

      • I_Am_Me

        Sanders is a collectivist. The particular label is irrelevant.

      • Jim Edwards

        And you do………………PUKE ???

      • Marvin Knoll

        apparently YOU don’t either.

      • QuestionItAll

        Clearly you don’t, Fuckwad!

    • boB

      Sanders is a Democratic Socialist. Communism is something entirely different.

      • QuestionItAll

        Sure… Keep dreaming!

  • Thank God this emasculated clown has no chance at getting elected.

  • ballardpimp

    Oh how awful! He has the same position as Ronald Reagan!

  • There he goes again. Bernie is always shooting himself in the foot, going off half cocked and jumping the gun. If you ask me, he’s not a straight shooter. We have to stick to our guns and remember life is not all guns and roses.

  • Evan Farley

    Whenever someone calls a law a “loophole” you know they have an agenda.

    • Reality Blowz

      So he is basically stating–If I become president, instead of upholding the Constitution, I want to violate the 2nd Amendment and ban firearms that I determine are not used for hunting?
      This pile of trash is under the impression that the framers of our government were concerned with hunting or traditions? It was for defense of the individual from the government.
      He just sent his political career off into the ditch with this one television show.

      • ShaunMarie

        Only to those who do not actually understand the 2nd amendment or the very long judicial history behind it. Under the reading given to the 2nd amendment by the ammosexuals, we all have the right to have nuclear bombs in our basements in case of emergencies.

        • Marvin Knoll

          No you’re confusing this with Obamas Iran deal

        • Reality Blowz

          Interesting. I do not recall a discussion of nuclear arms in any account of the Federalist Papers nor are any accounts of pre signing judicial references.
          However, there are many people that find the aspect of a woman or elderly person being kept unarmed by our government a desirable situation. Obviously you fit into this catagory.

          • ShaunMarie

            There was also no discussion of AK-47s or military assault rifles, hollow point bullets,

            I think you are right. Every person in Amercia should have unfettered access to a flint-lock weapon, a horn of gun powder, and a stock pile of lead and wadding, fit for making bullets.

            And don’t screw with me on the weapons issue. I can shoot better, straighter, and with way more accuracy than any man I’ve ever met. Yet, somehow – in all my years on planet earth, I have never – not once – been in any situation where I have needed to aim a weapon at another human being.

          • illuminarch

            In real life (as opposed to your public school indoctrinated fantasy), private citizens owned cannons, mortars, and even warships. The government often had to depend on them to fight its wars. So much for your “flintlock” argument.

          • Packin Bombs and Wheelin Moms

            Exactly, people need to educate themselves. patented in 1718

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Puckle

          • David Stichter

            You are very fortunate sir. I have found frequent cause to do so in my professional life…

          • Reality Blowz

            Then by your same reasoning, if you get sick, leeches should be applied to your body. If you get an infection in your foot, your leg should be cut off. Antibiotics should not be used by you, nor should you even have dental fillings, aspirin or major operations. The Founding Fathers granted people the Right to have weapons on par with the soldiers of the government that could attempt to overtake them. Again, the Federalist Papers clearly spells out the intent and reasoning of the stated rights.
            I am about to “screw with you on the weapons issue” because I call BS on your claim of being able to “shoot better, straighter, and with way more accuracy than any man I’ve met”. Either you never get out, or your must stay with women. I deer hunt with a .454 Casull Target Grey pistol and am confident to keep a 6 inch spread at 100 yards free standing, and have dropped deer at 115 yards. People at the range comment admiringly, but I WOULD NEVER EVER make such an outlandish claim, nor would anyone that I know, which tends to make me believe that you do not even own a firearm but are instead a Liberal Troll.
            So YOU never had to point a weapon at somebody, therefore nobody else on the planet has to. Again…that is a totally bizzarre statement. Just because YOU never had to, then nobody should have to.
            Let me take you to a street corner in Detroit this Saturday night while you stand there for a few minutes. I would make a bet that your “situation” would change in less than 15 minutes.

          • Every person in Amercia should have unfettered access to a flint-lock weapon, a horn of gun powder, and a stock pile of lead and wadding, fit for making bullets.

            Likewise, you should only have access to quill, ink and maybe a Gutenberg press if you can afford one. Wait, there is this…

            Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
            Justice Scalia
            United States Supreme Court
            District of Columbia v. Heller – 07-290 (2008)

          • DRJ

            The muzzle loaded Flint-Lock was the state of the art at that time.
            If the framers intended for the citizens to be outgunned by the government, they would have limited have limited them to match-locks or slings and arrows.

          • John Ash

            Here’s what you don’t get. First, there is mention of the miitia. At that time, it was a serious problem to not have well armed men. So they obviously not only wanted to protect gun ownership, but more than anything MILITARY GRADE weapons. Think on it. Secondly, they used the word “arms”, which means ANY weapon of defense that a person can pick up. So, if anything, that means it entirely unconstitutional to take away military grade defensive weapons, such as automatic rifles.

        • Packin Bombs and Wheelin Moms

          “All we want is a rational conversation” – Gun Grabbers “Under the reading given to the 2nd amendment by the ammosexuals, we all have the right to have nuclear bombs in our basements in case of emergencies”- Gun Grabbers
          Yup seems legit.

  • mimi2832

    why the hell should it be so hard to wait for a background check, why does it have to be instant? The answer to that lies in the Louisiana shooter. If you are actually a ‘law abiding’ citizen, you would have no problem waiting for that background check.

    • Reality Blowz

      The information on that shooters FBI background check paperwork was filled out incorrectly by the clerk. If the clerk filled out the form as she was supposed to, his gun application would have been denied as he would have failed.

    • Rework Oh Ryan

      How about background checks before people can exercise free speech? I mean, a law abiding citizen wouldn’t mind waiting for the background check to complete before exercising this right too, right? No, of course not, because we don’t wait to use our bill of rights, those are RIGHTS, not privileges.

      • You’re comparing someone’s ability to speak intelligently, sans foot in mouth, with someone seeking to buy a weapon that can take life. Apples and oranges.

        • scooter

          Ok, background checks for voting then. If you don’t think elections have life and death consequences you need to pay attention.

      • ShaunMarie

        Ok, this is the stupidest line of reasoning you people use to “defend” gun rights. As a citizen, certain rights ARE LIMITED. And in the case of gun ownership the limitation IS CLEARLY STATED IN REAL ENGLISH. As part of a ‘WELL REGULATED MILITIA”. In exactly WHAT way can this be read to indicate that you should own all the weapons you want, there is no state interest in this, and there should be no regulations?????????

        Therefore, under the term “WELL REGULATED” the government is well within its OBLIGATIONS to run a background check, REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE PROPER TRAINING, to issue a license, and to make certain rules as to where, what, when, and what sort of weapons you may have.

        • illuminarch

          Instead of imagining you know what “well regulated militia” means, why don’t you read the words of the people who wrote the 2nd amendment and those who debated over its ratification? They’re very clear as to both the meaning of the clause (not as a limitation, but as a partial justification) and exactly who is in the militia (all able-bodied men; essentially, everyone).

        • lakeside227

          Nope, you are quite wrong in your understanding. The BoR are bans on the government.

          The BoR Preamble:

          “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

          The states demanded that additional ‘declaratory and restrictive clauses for the government be added before the states would ratify the Constitution.

          The Bill of Rights delegates no power to the federal government. The 2nd doesn’t establish the militias nor does it delegate any authority over the militias. The militias already existed. The Right in the 2nd is not the Right to belong to the militia. The Right is the individual Right of the People to own and carry firearms. That Right is not qualified or limited nor is any authority delegated to the government over this Right. On the contrary, this Right shall not be infringed by the government.

          Remember, the BoRs are bans on government infringement of our Rights mentioned in the BoRs. The BoRs don’t establish government control over our Rights.

        • You are mistaken. “Well regulated” refers to the state of order and discipline within the militia proper. And, while the opening words of the 2nd Amendment are assumptive in nature, those words merely bolster the individual right to own weapons.

          As you said, it is clearly stated in real English. All you have to do is know the meaning of the words.

          • ShaunMarie

            Sorry – you are wrong. The term well regulated militia ASSUMES that there is order and discipline; the individual right is subordinated to the primary assumption that the use and ownership of firearms IS something that must be regulated “in a state of order and discipline”. My reading of this is backed by 200 YEARS of jurisprudence: your reading is only that of our currently out of their mind SC. And even THEY were not as liberal as you in your interpretation. If you follow your absolutist principle to it’s end – there should be NO background checks, NO prohibitions on ANY weapon – to ANY person (crazy, criminal, or drunk.)

            We have decided that we do have limitations on ownership; the question is to what degree. My solution would be that the individual right to own a gun should be at least as rigorous as the individual right to drive a car.

          • Sorry – you are wrong.

            Not today. Not on this topic.

            The term well regulated militia ASSUMES … firearms IS something that must be regulated “in a state of order and discipline”.

            Nope. The assumption is that all able bodied males are part of the milita which has to be in good order and discipline to ensure a free state. That assumption is merely a preface and cannot be the main idea as it doesn’t stand alone without the rest of the words.

            Conversly, the part about keeping and bearing arms not being abridged is the main idea. If you remove the assumptive preface and read it again it still stands on its’ own.

            And, “firearms” are not mentioned. The topic is “Arms”.

            My reading of this is backed by 200 YEARS … to ANY person (crazy, criminal, or drunk.)

            You might have a point if that were true. But, the meaning of the words are locked in at the time they are recorded. Just because a body of scientists stated (for 200 years) that 2+2=5 it doesn’t mean they are correct.

            …individual right to own a gun should be at least as rigorous as the individual right to drive a car.

            Interesting. Where is the right to drive a car codified? It’s only fair to tell you that this question is a trap by the way. Or, more accurately, it is intended to get you to reveal your own thought process.

            Then there is this…

            Imagine that you wake up one morning and sit down to coffee, a bagel, and the news app of choice. The news is looking pretty much like any other day. Then one headline catches your eye:

            “Village Pastor Gives Awful Sermon About Gay Marriage”

            You shake your head ruefully and mutter that such hate filled intolerance should not be allowed in America. Time’s up, and you finish your coffee as you head out to begin your day. You are not in a hurry since today is a tour of a local museum full of locally obtained bits of history.

            Arriving at the museum, you browse in wonder at some of the things that have survived the ravages of time. One thing in particular is spectacular. A printed news sheet dating to 1799 has survived and is now preserved under glass. The headline reads:

            “Village Pastor Gives Awful Sermon About Gay Marriage”

            Stunned. You step back and wonder at the coincidence. And, you are saddened that the hate filled intolerance is now proven to be historical as well as modern. You resolve to teach your own kids better. It is time to break the cycle. But for now you’ve got your essay title for History 101.

            A week later your essay is returned with a failing grade. The professor notes that the paper had a fundamental flaw that no amount of good writing can fix. It’s just too bad you can’t get a do-over.

            How is this relevant to the current discussion?

          • atomiktiger

            Maybe the Supreme Court, who looked at the meaning of EVERY single word of the Second Amendment in D.C. v Heller (2010) can help us out:

            “the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.” (p. 23)
            http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

            Well regulated meant to have in good working order, not “to have laws.” Just like “gay” didn’t mean homosexual at the time of ratification, the modern meaning associated with words changes. What the Court said is that the way it was understood AT THE TIME OF RATIFICATION is what the Constitution safeguards.

            Looks like @pegwinn:disqus is right, and @shaunmarie:disqus is wrong on this one.

          • The Right Fight

            To which “jurisprudence” on the meaning of “well regulated militia” do you refer, @shaunmarie:disqus?

            Further, is not the current implementation of the law governed by precedent established by the most current SCOTUS decision, and not former decisions that have been set aside by the latter?

          • John Ash

            No, what it means is that BECAUSE the Founders believed that well trained men would be the only thing capable of stopping the tyranny of government, that they wanted to insure that the Feds had ZERO power to take away guns from the people (only with due process on an individual basis can rights properly be infringed), and this is why they say “shall NOT be infringed”.

            You believe that they said “the rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed if you are a member of a mlitia”. If they’d meant that, they’d have actually said it. The miltia was the rationale for the 100% prohibition. It doesn’t qualify the prohibition in any way.

          • DRJ

            Well drilled, equipped and plenty of it would be the modern definition of a well regulated militia.

        • GoodBusiness

          Where in the Constitution [not case law theory or statute law] does it say that peoples rights can be limited except as stated inside the Constitution.

          The Powers of the Federal government are limited to Article I section 8 enumerated powers without clauses and changing of word meanings. The current government and Congress/Executive are all usurping the limits – they are operating outside the limits of the Constitution.

          If we the people continue to allow these unconstitutional acts we will not have a Constitution period. As of this time the Constitution is just on hold not used much.

          • ShaunMarie

            “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” First, the second part of the sentence is reliant upon the first part: ie “Well Regulated Miliita’. In addition, the framers knew clearly (as you newborn constitutional “scholars” seem not to), that the phrase “the people” is not the same as “each individual”.
            In 1990 it was affirmatively decided that “the people” represents “personal within a national community”. In 1939, the supreme court ruled that the 2nd Amendment indeed was a collective rights issue; they had let stand a rule forbidding a certain type of sawed off shotgun, stating that “the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . .” The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.”.

            This reading stood for 70 years, until the appointment of the most politicized and corrupt supreme court in the history of our nation. In a very narrow 5 / 4 decision, the court went so far as to state that there may very well be a right to allow gun ownership even in the case of mental illness or a criminal record.

          • GoodBusiness

            You have gone to Statue and case law precedent not inside the actual contract.

            1828 definition: Now check the use in the preamble, the Declaration of independence, the 10th amendment and other places inside that use the term people.

            people

            PEOPLE, n. [L. populus.]

            1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We say, the people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English people. In this sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, or any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country.

            2. The vulgar; the mass of illiterate persons.

            The knowing artist may judge better than the people.

            3. The commonalty, as distinct from men of rank.

            Myself shall mount the rostrum in his favor,

            And strive to gain his pardon from the people.

            4. Persons of a particular class; a part of a nation or community; as country people.

            5. Persons in general; any persons indefinitely; like on in French, and man in Saxon.

            People were tempted to lend by great premiums and large interest.

            6. A collection or community of animals.

            The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer. Prov.30.

            7. When people signified a separate nation or tribe, it has the plural number.

            Thou must prophesy again before many peoples. Rev.10.

            8. In Scripture, fathers or kindred. Gen.25.

            9. The Gentiles.

            –To him shall the gathering of the people be. Gen.49.

            PEOPLE, v.t. To stock with inhabitants. Emigrants from Europe have peopled the United States.

            The Second amendment is in 3 pieces and are not dependent on each other. They stand on their own.

          • DRJ

            The framers never intended for the citizens to be out gunned by the government and law enforcement. It is true that airplanes and tanks had not been invented but there is no good reason to limit the small arms fire power of the people unless the government plans to control them. That is exactly the game plan of the Pro U.N. Socialists in this country.

          • The Right Fight

            You misunderstand the precedent established in US v Miller, @shaunmarie:disqus

            What actually occurred was that one defendant died and the other failed to even appear because he was an indigent drifter. So there was no defense. Scalia covered that in Heller … didn’t you read that?

            The outcome from Miller was that no evidence was presented, so the Court never reviewed a challenge to the National Firearms Act.

            SCOTUS simply let the NFA stand … because it had no challenge to it. They had no other choice.

            What the Supreme Court stated in US v Miller was …

            FROM – law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174

            “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

        • John Ash

          What about “shall not be infringed” is difficult to understand?

    • Chris Stack

      Riddle me this: I already own guns. Why should I have a waiting period OR a background check? What’s the point? Keeping me from shooting someone with my shiny new gun instead of the ones I already have???

      • boB

        I’ll play … So, you already own guns and think that should be your ticket to bypass background checks? But how do I know where you got those guns? [ Keep in mind, “you” in this comment is generic, I am not accusing you of anything ]

        Maybe you stole one and used it and your “But I already have one” argument to get more. Maybe you started your life of crime after purchasing a weapon. Maybe that mental breakdown came after you already owned a gun. Maybe your arrest for threatening someone with a firearm came after you already owned one.

        There are many things that could change the outcome of a background check — having passed one once is no guarantee that you will pass the next one. Therefore, the fact that you currently own gun(s) should have ZERO BEARING on your background check needs.

        Understand?

        • Chris Stack

          First of all, clearly I was referring to legally purchased firearms. Don’t be stupid. Second, everything else you wrote, sure, it might all be true, maybe I committed a heinous crime AFTER I passed my background check, but that doesn’t override the whole point that I already have a gun! From a theoretical perspective, yes, you’ll “keep a gun out of the hands of a criminal” but who cares if you keep out of the hands of someone who already owns a gun?? They ain’t single use. This is just the kind of feel-good do nothing BS that the gun grabbers want to subject us to because it means they’re “doing something” and are “tough on crime”. If I have 10 AR-15s at home, and you make me stand at a counter for an hour and then wait a 5-day cooling off period to buy another one, what have you really accomplished? Nothing. Not a damn thing. Except insult everyone’s intelligence in the spirit of “doing something.”

        • scooter

          I’ll play, you have no right to know where he got those guns. The rest of your rant is irrelevant since he already has guns, with background checks.

        • illuminarch

          If his life of crime or mental breakdown started after the background check, then what good is the background check?

          So, we have criminals who don’t go through background checks, and background checks that don’t stop people who are going to commit crimes in the future, leaving us with…what, exactly?

    • Packin Bombs and Wheelin Moms

      There are already background checks required for FFL dealers and because it shouldn’t take a month to exercise a constitutional right.

    • LocalHero

      The Chattanooga “shooting” was fake just like dozens of others that preceded it.

    • atomiktiger

      The Louisiana shooter HAD a background check. It didn’t work. How is this a solution?

      The
      -Virginia Tech shooter
      -Arizona shooter (of Rep. Gabby Giffords)
      -Aurora, CO Batman movie theater shooter
      -Charleston shooter

      All bought guns WITH background checks. They didn’t work.

      This is good policy to advocate? How can anyone with a brain stem look at the evidence and conclude that this is so?

      • The Right Fight

        Good point.

    • John Ash

      Because it is infringing the right to own a gun. It’s not banning it, but by making it more difficult, it is breaking the Constitution. It’s that simple.

      Why would a law abiding citizen trust someone who is willing to break the most important law in the land?

  • Reality Blowz

    Gun Show Loophole: A term used to convince the mindless masses that somehow Federal and State laws are avoided just because guns are sold in a big building. Background checks must still be performed, just as if you are purchasing at a store that sells firearms. The “Loophole” as they call it is from two people meeting that exchange money or trade for a firearm. That can take place anywhere. Pistol exchanges must still be registered in the owners name, and paperwork must be submitted to the state via local police authority. Having a pistol registered to someone else will get you into deep trouble.

    • Sandy Jenkins

      The loop hole is that you can purchase all you want in the parking lots. This is very common at gun shows.

      • Marvin Knoll

        Yes and people can purchase all they want from ANY individual that is “privately” selling firearms. If said individual has 500 firearms and decides to sell them whether it’s a gun show parking lot, their car, or house it’s all the same. Gun show loophole is a lie believed by stupid people that know NOTHING about firearms, firearm laws, or firearm sales.

        • boB

          So your problem with the term “gun show loophole” is that the loophole is actually much larger than gun shows?

          It’s just a poorly named term — there is still a HUGE loophole through which one can purchase weapons without background checks. That loophole is private sales, not gun shows, but it’s like calling all adhesive bandages bandaids — it’s a convenience.

          Just because the term is inaccurate does not mean the problem can be ignored.

          • scooter

            The term is inaccurate, so quit using it, stupid people actually believe there is a loophole in gun show sales.

          • Marvin Knoll

            It’s NOT a “loophole” any more than selling a vehicle to someone with no drivers license is a “loophole” and I have yet to see or hear how this would get enforced or if even could be enforced but then again stupid short sighted people usually don’t think that far ahead, Seriously boB<– )still gets me that a friggin grammar Nazi has such shit grammar they can't spell their own name properly.) But SERIOUSLY how do YOU propose to close this non existent "loophole" how do YOU plan on enforcing it?? What plan do YOU have for stopping the cartels and gang banger from getting their hands on class 3 weapons????

      • Packin Bombs and Wheelin Moms

        Most gun shows require background checks and many private sellers require a permit to carry or permit to purchase along with a bill of sale anyway.

      • scooter

        Parking lots aren’t gun shows, next.

      • LocalHero

        Very common at gun shows? Big gun show attender, are ya? You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about except for regurgitating talking points you heard on C(ia)NN.

      • Reality Blowz

        Or in your living room, garage, place of employment, gun range, police station parking lot via Craigslist, on and on. It is not a “Loop hole” because it is not breaking or skirting a law. It is a term used to cause a reaction from the non thinkers “Oh look, a gun show is happening at that building…they are comitting crimes there. That should be illegal” so that encroaching laws can be constantly implimented.

    • Shane Atchison

      No such thing as mandatory ‘pistol registration’ here in AZ.

  • Rework Oh Ryan

    I’ve been telling people all along he’s a gun-grabber, and they didn’t believe me. Here’s the proof, and the sole reason I’ve never even listened to anything else he has to say. He will never get my vote. Gary Johnson 2016!!!

    • Sandy Jenkins

      I guess you didn’t watch the video. He is asking for common sense and to work on common grounds. I support him 100% for making sense.

      • Marvin Knoll

        There’s NO common sense in what he said. You’d have to be a complete retard to even think ANYTHING he said was based in or on common sense. Gun show “loop hole” <—NO SUCH THING, it's a misnomer and a bald faced lie. In point of fact what he's means to say is he wants to ban ALL "private" firearm sales, in order to ban "private" sales there would have to be a gun registry and the only way to do that is to go house to house and ensure all firearms get registered, but wait what about all the illegal firearms who's gonna register those??? Who's gonna run the background on the firearms sold to and by gang bangers in the ghetto?? Instant background checks ALREADY HAVE THEM, it's the FBI and the BATFE that are NOT doing there jobs, and in order to do what YOU and other idiots like YOU want that means the federal government would need total access to your life, every medical record, every prescription, your complete driving record, you school records (you may have been a problem child in school). "Murder" weapons <—- most idiotic thing he said. The primary reason firearms were created in the 1st place was to kill PEOPLE. If someone wakes up one day and feels the need to kill a whole lotta people and then acts upon that feeling, banning a particular firearm or magazine type is NOT going to stop someone that's determined. People willing to trade away their freedom for the illusion of safety do not deserve to have either

      • Packin Bombs and Wheelin Moms

        I just want common sense laws and regulations like banning the most commonly used rifle in the United States and requiring a son and father to drive to an FFL dealer fill out paperwork and pay some ridiculously high fee to give him a rifle or shotgun. This narrative that these are common sense, common grounds laws is Asinine. Want to start on common ground, lets fix the NICs system by requiring states to submit mental health records so the background check can actually do its job.

      • scooter

        Any examples of “common sense gun laws”? Don’t use the expanded background checks that passed in Washington state, that’s been a complete failure since high school students, and felons don’t submit to checks.

      • DRJ

        “Common sense” gun laws do not involve the Federal Government.
        Those people should have been stopped in 1934. Reasonable Federal Gun Laws are like reasonable cancer.

  • ShaunMarie

    Oh come on. There is a vast difference between “guns designed primarily to kill people” and “all weapons used for self defense”. The fact is that weapons designed to murder other human beings in the united states are totally out of control, and the reason people want guns designed primarily to kill people in the first places is because they are terrified of all the OTHER people who have guns designed primarily to kill people.

    • Marvin Knoll

      UM hey there genius the primary purpose for ALL firearms is to “kill” people that’s the EXACT reason they were invented. Thanks to our criminal government the “bad” guys like the drug cartels and gang banger will ALWAYS have the so called “murder” weapons. The fact that YOU support that proves you’re and idiot

      • boB

        Your entire argument got thrown in the trash pile when I read the words “… that proves you’re and idiot.” Have you ever considered proofreading your words before posting them?

        Oh, and your first premise is also incorrect — several firearms were invented for the purpose of hunting. Their purpose is always to kill or maim, but the target is not always people.

        • Marvin Knoll

          NO boB <—-maybe YOU need to learn how to NOT spell you name backward, which in turn make YOU and idiot, BUT I digress my 1st premise is NOT incorrect, the ORIGINAL purpose for inventing firearms was NOT for hunting in point of fact it was to kill people. But I wouldn't expect someone who failed grammar to have the intelligence to read let alone understand what is common and simple knowledge.

        • Marvin Knoll

          NO boB <—-maybe YOU need to learn how to NOT spell your name
          backward, which in turn make YOU an idiot, BUT I digress my 1st premise
          is NOT incorrect, the ORIGINAL purpose for inventing firearms was NOT
          for hunting in point of fact it was to kill people. But I wouldn't
          expect someone who failed grammar to have the intelligence to read let
          alone understand what is common and simple knowledge.

          • Dr Dave

            Guns were in fact designed for war so by definition that means killing people it was only later that guns were shrunk in size to be used to hunt with. The first guns were more like cannons then rifles.
            So by definition guns were designed to kill people so the rest is an add on. Who cares why they were invented the REALITY is that in the USA there is absolutely NO way to eliminate guns from our society. This is not Australia this country will not tolerate it and either will revolt (the main reason for the 2nd Amendment) or if they don’t they guns will go underground so everyone who has one will simply become an instant criminal. They won’t care they would rather be criminals and in possession then to not be and give up their RIGHTS

      • ShaunMarie

        Marvin – I have moved to the EU. Guess what? I NEVER hear gunfire in the streets. I never wake up to the radio playing the weekend death toll in my nearest city. If Europe can manage to control gun violence, I bet America could too. Without disrupting the right of hunters to hunt.

        • Marvin Knoll

          Well good for you, you decided to move to the EU America is better off without having your stupidity here. I however DO live in America and guess what I do NOT here the sounds of gunfire in the street, the last time I heard gunfire was because I was at the firing range I do NOT here sirens everyday, I don’t wake to the radio playing the death toll in my nearest city, there are literally 10 of MILLIONS of Americans that can say the same thing. So try again.

          • ShaunMarie

            Then why the hell do you need a gun to “protect yourself” – when statistically speaking, you are more likely to suicide or have an accident that kills or injures yourself or someone you love than you are to need (or successfully use) your weapon for personal defense?

          • illuminarch

            There are several million defensive gun usages in the US per year. Most times, they are not fired. This is a good thing, and it far outstrips the number of times guns are used in criminal acts. Do you even know how many people are killed from gun accidents? I suspect you don’t, or you wouldn’t be throwing it around like it’s a huge number.

            As far as suicides go, what does the gun have to do with it? A person with a gun is not magically more likely to decide he wants to kill himself. It’s not an enchanted talisman of self-destructive thoughts. Do you think owning rope makes you want to hang yourself?

          • Dr Dave

            There is no public excitement to publish accounts of guns used in self defense so the media only publishes the gun shootings.
            EVERY city has gun use EVERY day but as you pointed out non-firing gun use is not published. Go look at the police reports and see how many times a crime was averted by a citizen with a legally owned gun. Unless you are a senior or single mom your case will never be announced or published. Basically no one cares about a 6’2″ guy who pulled his Glock out to defend against a potential robber if the robber runs away. Let that be grandma and her over under shotgun and it will be front page.
            The issue is not gun control or use it is media spin. The media controls what information you are allowed to have to make decisions. The data is skewed to the massive gun shootings otherwise you won’t know it happened

          • Dr Dave

            The principle reason for the 2nd Amendment was not to protect oneself from the neighbor looking to steal your TV it was to protect oneself from tyrannical or otherwise inappropriate governments both within and outside the USA.
            The concept of militia and defense was the primary reason not going out to hunt dinner.
            So you honestly think that Iran and North Koreans are satisfied with not being able to revote?
            I doubt it.
            I think 99.9999% of all of us who carry weapons don’t ever EXPECT to ever use them in fact I hope that their mindset is in agreement and not waiting for the day but it is the law in the USA that you have NO right to police protection so the only thing between you and any type of attack is you. SCOTUS ruled several years ago that police protection was not a right of civilians but a bonus if available.
            If you are satisfied with your safety in the EU that is great but I spent an entire career in ER’s OR’s and the like and I can tell you outright if you think that you are safe it is simply because your local press and media have decided to publish other things then the shootings, muggings, rapes, etc
            You are foolish to think that your ER is simply full of flu and broken bones.

          • DRJ

            Where do you people come up with these statistics? Armed citizens prevent more crime than the police all over this country.
            Here in Texas, more than a dozen thugs have stopped bullets this year.
            The cops rarely arrive on the scene in time to do more than fill out a report and decorate with that yellow tape they like to use. Read the real news and stop drinking the Kool-Aid

          • ShaunMarie

            You really, really don’t get it, do you? The level of gun ownership in the United States is simply out of control. As to where I get my statistics, they are widely available. DOJ, FBI crime stats – its not tough to find them.

            I am a US citizen, lived there most of my life, and I never questioned, in particular, our gun laws. I had my first rifle at 12, and was a pretty staunch 2nd Amendment defender.

            I am SAFER here in the EU. I am far MORE free in the EU. BECAUSE I DON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT REDNECKS AND THEIR WEAPON FETISHES. And as to the argument that the right to hold guns is about a violent overthrow of the government – IF this were true (and it isn’t) – the idea is patently absurd. You, your friends, your semi-automatics and shotguns and revolvers are somehow going to take down tanks?

            You folks are irrational. Truly.

          • DRJ

            The level of gun ownership needs to be “out of control” Control of gun ownership is a major step in the process of disarming the citizens. That is what has happened in that paradise you call home. We love our guns. We love our freedom and we absolutely love the smell of burnt cordite and black powder. We love firearms as well as their operation and history. It is you that “really don’t get it” Stay in Europe and leave us alone. Thanks in advance !!!

          • The Right Fight

            I’m not familiar with any DOJ or FBI crime stats that support your claim, @shaunmarie:disqus.

            Could you please share the citation or URL for those specific stats?

          • BECAUSE I DON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT REDNECKS AND THEIR WEAPON FETISHES.

            An overt display of hatred at that level combined with the obvious racial epithet causes me to fear for your freedom. After all, hate speech and other thought crimes are all the rage in Europe. Be careful. Here in the USA the masses of PC commentators will merely SJW you to death and call you things like “racist”. In the EU, you might end up in jail.

            Hope you are a TORreador.

          • The Right Fight

            Which statistics?

        • DRJ

          Please stay there. You have made the choice to live in a country where only the cops and the bad guys are armed. That did not work out very well in France some months back and more soft targets will be nailed in the future.

        • Klent Foster

          Europe couldn’t even manage to control Hitler, not to mention the US during the Revolutionary War. You guys can cower with the French while you’re waiting for us to come save you after the next war breaks out just like we had to do all the dirty work in WW2.

          • ShaunMarie

            Boy – your knowledge of history is just pathetic. Really. Pathetic. First of all, Hitler’s rise to power was largely abetted by US corporate interests, and Hitler had great admirers in both the Government and among the Wall Street elite. (In other words, we were for him before we were against him.) Mussolini also had great admirers in the west, as fascism is largely terrific for business. IBM, Ford, Shell, GM, Standard all had holdings in Germany – and Hitler was excellent for business. In addition to this, world leaders hailed Germany as a bulwark against the Soviets and communism; providing substantial aid to Germany’s war machine – never believing that Hitler would attack Western nations. Germany acted with absolute impunity for 3 full years, annexing and attacking it’s neighbors while America passed a “neutrality act”.

            As for the “cowards” in Italy – my city- Florence – liberated itself. Much of the region endured the worst fighting, and it was the local partisans that did most of the fighting and dying. Near the end of the war, when the allies finally came to central northern Italy, the Nazi’s were nearly beaten; at which point, the Allies withdrew – in hopes that the Nazi’s would finish off the “partisan communists” – and then, they could return and clean up the mess.

            Your understanding of the Revolutionary war is even MORE pathetic – as you’d still be hailing the queen if it weren’t for the French.

            Now, my brave boy; when you live somewhere that has been bombed, where entire towns were burned to the ground (while the children and women, after having been raped) are locked in the local church; when you live somewhere that has been DEVASTATED by war – with every family having lost members – and yet, you fight – then you rebuild – MAYBE THEN YOU CAN TALK ABOUT COURAGE.

            Up to that point, you are nothing but an arm chair chicken hawk, and ignorant as a pig to boot.

          • Klent Foster

            I don’t see how I was wrong about anything, but it’s funny how we gave rise to Bin Laden the same way we gave rise to Hitler. And I wouldn’t hail the queen, just as I don’t hail the president. In fact the only president I respect is JFK, and even he wasn’t exactly a good person. Better to be brainwashed into hailing the queen instead of hailing Hitler, though. And I don’t think I said Italians were cowards, they had the best mafia that ever existed. I think you mistake me for being an American patriot, but I despise nationalism just as I despise racism as well as any other form of discrimination. History teaches us that nations and empires always beget their own greatest enemy, for the enemy of our enemy is our friend only until we have both vanquished our mutual enemy.

          • ShaunMarie

            You accused Europeans of being cowards – contending that the US alone saved their asses. That kind of crap pisses me off, and indicates that you know NOTHING about the history of world war 2. I understand that Americans are generally ill-educated, and I remember being taught that it was America alone who “saved” poor Europe from the Nazis. But it’s a lie. The hated soviet Union gave 14 MILLION lives in the battle against the Nazis. Did you know that? Millions upon millions of Europeans, British, French, Norwegians, and Italians gave their lives to defeat Hitler, and fought that battle for years before America. (It was Norway that ended the Nuclear Bomb project.)

            As to Hitler and Mussolini, and their popularity in the West – its a matter of public record, as are the lists of US investments in the Reich before we became involved in the war. As is the fact that when Hitler invaded Poland, our congress passed an act of neutrality.

            And yes, Bin Laden. Indeed. We armed and trained those “Freedom Fighters” in our proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. We played the same game with Iran and Iraq. We are now waging our war against terrorism against these former “frenimies” – while still playing footsie and being official allies of the Saudis – WHO ARE THE ACTUAL FINANCIAL SUPPORTERS of ISIS.

            This isn’t a matter of opinion – it is a matter of public and historical record. Look it up.

    • LetsTryLibertyAgain

      I own many of these guns that were “designed to murder people” but all of mine must be defective. None of them have harmed anyone. But go ahead and keep blaming the evil inanimate objects when the real problems are economic desperation, a lack of proper parenting, the war on drugs and many other societal ills that were caused by big government. It’s certainly no accident that the areas of the US with the highest violent crime rates that are being used to justify more gun control, are the big government urban hellholes that have the most gun control. The problem is not the guns. Ultimately, the problem is big government policies and big government gun control laws that do nothing to disarm criminals and only serve to prevent people from defending themselves and in the process, deterring crime.

      • Dr Dave

        Mine are defective as well but we all know that before they work as intended by Saunders/Obama the owner has to be mentally ill, over 65, a gang banger, on psychedelic drugs, or a terrorist.
        Lets get real a sling shot qualifies for one of those “devises used to kill people” did you all read the dang Bible.
        Doesn’t anyone remember David and Goliath? Should we ban slingshots as well?
        SO tired of listening to this nonsense of differentiating weapons to kill people and “other weapons” Bullets kill not weapons and the shooter instructed the bullet to do it’s duty so put blame where it belongs!
        Maybe it is PEOPLE WHO KILL PEOPLE not guns that kill people and maybe if we used the existing laws that are already generally agreed upon to lock up the gang bangers who cause 95% of the gun violence rather then locking up pot smokers we could have more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens rather then non-law abiding people and the actual use rate will drop to zero.
        If you outlaw guns only outlaws with have them!
        We spend BILLIONS on law enforcement/corrections and yet we never seem to make a dent in the real criminals. Its a revolving door, in today and back on the streets in 90 days to do it all over again.
        Instead of 3 strikes and you are out for stupid things make it 1 strike for violence and done and over with
        Stop trying to take guns away from the population it simply won’t happen they will go under ground since we all remember that in history the first thing a government does is remove all weapons to force the citizens into a corner that they can manipulate.
        Guns defend against violent offenders as well as unreasonable government officials and THAT is the real reason for the 2nd Amendment not to go hunting with.

      • DRJ

        Mine are defective as well. None of them have ever killed people at least not in my lifetime.

        They should be up to that task when Washington attempts confiscation.

        As for hunting; It is not my thing. I would if I needed to to feed my family.

    • Brandon Diamond

      Ummm no I have guns not because I am afraid of others with guns. But because I don’t want to defend myself with a knife against another person with a knife, or a bat, or a crowbar or any other kind of weapon. I want a gun so I already know I have the upper hand. Or at least the same chance.

      • ShaunMarie

        Brandon. You write well, clearly, cleanly. So, I know you aren’t stupid. I have people I love who have firearms in their homes for the same reason you do…. (and I am NOT particularly anti gun. I grew up with guns, and I am good with them.).

        But you can read statistics. You KNOW a firearm in the home is statistically far more likely to harm someone in your home than some mythical bad guy. You KNOW this. It’s far, far more likely that a person you love will be injured or killed BECAUSE there is a weapon in your home.

        And in the case of some bad guy, your weapon increases, not decreases, the chance that you will be injured, that the situation will escalate, that someone (most likely you) will end up dead, rather than ending up without your XBox. Your gun DOESN’T give you an upper hand; it gives you the ILLUSION of the upper hand, and that in itself is dangerous.

        I am not – as I said – all that opposed to gun ownership on principle; but I am alarmed deeply by the incredible irresponsibility of many US gun owners. Someone who would open carry in a Walmart IS THE LAST PERSON ON EARTH who should have a firearm. Guns are freaking serious business; those who object to reasonable limitations – you know, the same limitations one would need to drive a car – are irresponsible. The NRA used to know this, and at one time wrote and passed some of the most reasonable gun legislation around, as well as providing excellent training to those who owned weapons. Right up until they were co-opted by the wacky right and the weapons lobbies.

        I am not particularly a “gun grabber” – but the proliferation of firearms into the hands of every Joe Dickwad who mistakes his rifle for his manhood is a present danger to everyone around him.

        • The Right Fight

          Which statistics, @shaunmarie:disqus?

          Surely not anything Hemenway claims, since those have been refuted by a broad array of experts (including federal courts).

          The only other studies I’ve seen (two) used very limited data sets, and the authors cautioned against doing what Hemenway claims … which is to extrapolate an extremely limited study into a global framework.

          So … which statistics, so we can examine their methodology and data, and not simply rely upon media claims or partisan proclamations from any particular groups.

          But you can read statistics. You KNOW a firearm in the home is statistically far more likely to harm someone in your home than some mythical bad guy. You KNOW this. It’s far, far more likely that a person you love will be injured or killed BECAUSE there is a weapon in your home.

          And in the case of some bad guy, your weapon increases, not decreases, the chance that you will be injured, that the situation will escalate, that someone (most likely you) will end up dead, rather than ending up without your XBox. Your gun DOESN’T give you an upper hand; it gives you the ILLUSION of the upper hand, and that in itself is dangerous.

    • Jen

      This is a bs article look up his stance this is ridiculous

    • Adam Colquitt

      “Let me tell you my opinion on the headline without reading the story to figure out the headline is bs”

      • DRJ

        You have written these same words a least 1/2 dozen times. We on the unenlightened right are waiting

  • Jim Edwards

    Sounds like he wants to kiss o’slimo’s arse………

    • Adam Colquitt

      Let me tell you my opinion on the headline without reading the story to figure out the headline is bs……

  • NicolasBourbaki

    “…implies a ban on all weapons that are impractical for hunting but used primarily for self defense, including handguns, shotguns, and specific classes of rifles.”

    Nonsense. Handguns and especially shotguns are used very commonly for hunting. Certain rifles like AR-15s and AKs are rarely used but they have target shooting and collector uses.

    • visibleunderwater

      That’s a quote from Barry Donegan, the articles author, not Sanders. Donegan lists those out and Sanders has never said anything like this. Never trust an article that is written by a self-described activist working for the opposition.

      • NicolasBourbaki

        I was responding to the author, not Sanders.

        • visibleunderwater

          LOL sorry! IMHO, the 2nd Amendment should allow for citizens to own whatever weapons needed to overthrow a tyrannical government, since that was the original idea behind it. Per it’s original intent, the “law abiding Citizens” should be able to have actual military – level hardware.

    • Adam Colquitt

      The author is just an idiot

  • jsteele

    if you can’t figure out the difference between “guns designed to kill people” and “all self defense weapons” then you deserve to be misled.

    this is ridiculous. grow up.

    • Chris Stack

      Anyone with a pulse and a vague understanding of current events and the Democratic/liberal stance on weapons KNOWS Sanders is referring to AR-15s and other “evil black rifles” with scary features like shoulder things that go up when he talks about “guns designed to kill people.”

      • richblade

        I understand your point, but its not what he said.

    • illuminarch

      Why don’t you tell us the difference, then? And be specific.
      What sort of self-defense weapon isn’t designed to kill people? What sort of gun exists that can’t kill people?

      • Packin Bombs and Wheelin Moms

        Personal defense weapons are fully auto M-4’s for the DHS, but when citizens want to own a semi automatic AR-15 it’s considered an evil “assault” weapon.

      • visibleunderwater

        It doesn’t matter since “all self defense weapons” is a quote from Media Research Center and NOT Sanders. Sanders never said this, MRC said this, and MRC is a sitting board member of ALEC. ALEC is freaking out over Sanders and this is a sponsored “hit piece” full of disinformation, which is pretty standard for MRC / ALEC.

    • Adam Colquitt

      Let me tell you my opinion on the headline without reading the story to figure out the headline is bs….

  • Greg O’Donnell

    Where does the 2nd amendment mention hunting?

    • Adam Colquitt

      Where does the second amendment say “Well regulated”?

      • DRJ

        The 2nd and third word in the amendment unless it has been altered since I took Poly-Sci 40 years ago

        • g.johnon

          nope, that is still how it reads 🙂

      • Ray Heath Jr.

        Adam, just a little info for you, the term “Well regulated” at the time of the drafting of the 2nd Amendment meant well equipped/prepared, properly functioning. NOT restricted as it has come to mean these days. And while I am at it, the Founding Fathers definition of Militia, was all of the people.

      • 7LibertyForAll

        And…..?

  • mongepedro

    We should ban senile lawmakers !

    • Jen

      This is not his stance on guns look him up

      • g.johnon

        now we have two Bernie supporters spamming the thread for attention. you people should not be allowed to run loose, let alone vote.

    • Adam Colquitt

      Let me tell you my opinion on the headline without reading the story to figure out the headline is bs.

  • Dr Dave

    That comment should just about guarantee that Hillary makes it to thru the primary unscathed.
    The only thing worse then someone who we disagree with is someone who flip flops because you never know WHEN they will do it. Elected on one platform and then starts to use Presidential Directive activities to get the new agenda done. Sound familiar?????
    The only thing worse then someone who we disagree with is someone who flip flops because you never know WHEN they will do it. Elected on one platform and then starts to use Presidential Directive activities to get the new agenda done. Sound familiar?????

    • Jen

      This is not his stance on guns look him yo

      • Jen

        Up*

        • DRJ

          He believes there is such a thing as “sensible gun control” other than the use of both hands. He is a Socialist and a Democrat.
          He also believes the 2nd Amendment has something to do with hunting.

          I hope he runs as an independent and splits the Leftist vote.

          • visibleunderwater

            It’s far more likely Trump will run and an independent and split the GOP vote.

          • DRJ

            I fear that you are correct

      • Dr Dave

        His PAST has been a staunch gun supporter but since running for POTUS he has decided to change directions since he knows that being a DEM and tightly attached to gun freedom won’t get him the support he needs so typical he flip flops to get votes and cash. THAT is why I hate politicians so much. Today they say one thing but if the grease comes from a different place they are more then happy to change their minds if it better supports their ultimate agenda. They forget their JOB is to do what they say they will do as our voice in DC if they are willing to change what they say how can we EVER trust them to say what we expect them to when the rubber actually hits the road?
        I don’t care what his opinion on guns is what is important is that what he says TODAY won’t change once he is elected and he proved he is willing to flip flop so he can’t be trusted to retain ethically locked to the opinions that the people who voted for him expect when the pen is in his hand.

  • DRJ

    I would like to see a strong independent leftist candidate. We patriots need to remember what Ross Perot did to Bush 41 in 1992. Sanders could have the same effect on Hillary in 2016. Something needs to happen or she will be the next Socialist President.

    As for the gun ban; Good luck down here in Texas. You can have my collection one bullet at a time.

    • Jen

      This is not his stance on guns look him up

    • Calvinius

      That old mythology that Perot caused Bush 41 to lose? The reality is that Perot took every bit as many votes away from Clinton as he did from Bush.

      • GoodBusiness

        Not true google debunk on Perot vote from exit polls . . ABC, NBC, CBS all agreed.

        • Calvinius

          The exit polls show he drew 38% of his votes from people who otherwise would’ve voted Bush, and 38% from people who otherwise would’ve voted Clinton.

          • GoodBusiness

            I can not find the link to the exit poll results I referenced and what I did find supported our percentages.

            I stand corrected.

        • DRJ

          Yep, those of us patriots that were voting age in 92 and 96 have vivid memory of the nausea. The 2016 election will produce a threat to freedom much more serious than Slick Willy or the current clown. Hillary is a very capable Pro U.N. Socialist

      • DRJ

        Perot siphoned off 20% of the conservative vote while taking 2% to 5%
        of the Liberals. Nope!! this is not mythology. Clinton had the Socialists, the anti-gunners and the gays in his hip pocket. Perot’s only damage to the Clinton campaign were his views on NAFTA and he was DEAD ON!!! I voted for him in ’92 and ’96.

        • Calvinius

          Those numbers are pure fiction. In reality, 27% of Perot supporters
          were conservatives, 20% were liberals and 53% were moderates.
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/17/AR2010041701613.html

          38% of Perot voters would have otherwise voted for Bush, 38% for Clinton and the rest would’ve voted for nobody.
          http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/05/us/1992-elections-disappointment-analysis-eccentric-but-no-joke-perot-s-strong.html

          • DRJ

            The Liberal mainstream media polls disagreed at the time. I really don’t have any confidence in the two Newspapers you are quoting. They obviously have an agenda and are ignoring the exit polls of ’92. Bush ’41 and Perot were both military veterans and conservative patriots. Clinton was a draft dodger, socialist, pro gay, pro Brady bill and interestingly enough; pro NAFTA.
            The exit polls on the election night supported those facts but you choose to ignore them. It’s a free country and you have the right to be misinformed. I don’t really care. Go ahead and have the last word on this. That is very important to liberals.

          • Calvinius

            “Liberal mainstream media polls”, LMAO.

            Those two newspapers I cited were quoting the exit polls of ’92. You’re the one ignoring the actual exit polls in favor of what you want to believe was true.

          • DRJ

            “LMAO” ?? I really don’t believe this but if so, you are easily amused.

            Are you one of those trendy people that fakes a smile and a chuckle when your argument runs out of steam? probably so

          • Calvinius

            Are you one of those fools who refuses to accept reality even when it’s right in your face? Yes, you are.

          • DRJ

            On election night 1992, the exit polls showed without a doubt that George HW Bush lost due to the conservative Perot voters. BTW I was one of them but fortunately Texas was not carried by the Socialist Party. In later weeks it was even speculated by some that Perot ran intentionally for the defeat of Bush.(I never believed this) It is no surprise to anyone with reasonable political savvy that the NY Times and other Liberal newspapers would spin this to look like their boy, Bill Clinton won the election on his own. Looks like the Times probably had this one ready for the presses before the results were in but that is speculation on my part. I said earlier that I wouldn’t waste any more time on you but I thought a history lesson might be enlightening for someone who either wasn’t alive or wasn’t old enough to understand the system back in 1992.

          • Calvinius

            I’ve already linked to the exit poll results, which showed the exact opposite. Yet you continue to stubbornly deny reality.

    • visibleunderwater

      The idea is if you’ve been previously convicted of domestic abuse, or have been hospitalized for a severe mental illness, then you probably shouldn’t have a gun around you. It’s not in any way a push to remove weapons from normal, law-abiding citizens. In fact, Sanders is a pretty big anti-gun control advocate and has been endorsed by the NRA in the past. I hope that you aren’t proposing people who beat up their spouses to the point they end up in jail should be able to go buy a gun “for the next time she talks back or burns dinner”

      • DRJ

        I am proposing that we abolish all Federal Gun control as applied to citizens. Back ground checks and registration are only angles and loopholes for the government to use to control and eventually disarm its citizens. People that commit gun crimes don’t give a clinton’s ass about background checks and gun laws. Firearm ordinances should be states rights issues.

    • Adam Colquitt

      Let me tell you my opinion on the headline without reading the story to figure out the headline is bs…

      • DRJ

        My reply is a message to all of the tyrants in Washington.

  • Philip Beck

    Bernie, ya big commie! Read the Bill of Rights, especially the second amendment
    (my favorite because without it, the others are just words).

    • Jen

      This is not his stance at all actually look him up

      • Philip Beck

        …from Meet the Press, which is featured on Bernie Sanders’ YouTube channel, he said, “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.”

        Jen, the 2nd Amendment is not in our Bill of Rights in order for the citizenry to hunt. If that were true, then many hunting regulations would be prohibited under the 2nd. These are his own words and I can only infer from them that he is fixated on the erroneous concept that firearms ownership “is not” guaranteed under the 2nd in order to protect the people from a tyrannical government.

        http://truthinmedia.com/bernie-sanders-calls-for-sweeping-gun-ban-that-would-outlaw-all-self-defense-firearms/

    • Adam Colquitt

      Commie defined as “A big word I don’t know but use when I don’t like somebody”
      The 2nd guarantees our government the rights to regulate it.

      • Philip Beck

        No Adam, you are very wrong about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

        The actual Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated
        Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
        people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        • Chad Pranke

          All one sentence. Splitting it in half and only focusing on one half takes both halves completely out of context. What the 2nd amendment means:

          Liberal: “A well regulated Militia yadda yadda yadda.”
          Conservative: “Yadda yadda yadda right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

          I think the most important point about the whole debate that is overlooked is that this is an AMENDMENT, meaning something that was added to the Constitution after the original version was written. I don’t see any reason whatsoever that the Constitution couldn’t be amended again to remove, contradict, or clarify the 2nd Amendment. In this light saying that owning weapons is a right and can’t be touched is a pretty worthless argument.

          • Philip Beck

            You do realize don’t you that constitutional amendments must be voted on by the citizenry, not prescribed by liberal judges?

            “…owning weapons is a right and can’t be touched is a pretty worthless argument.”

            I guess nothing has much worth if the Bill of Rights doesn’t in your mind.

            BTW, I have no known problem with a well-armed militia, but the second part of the Amendment is a very valuable check and balance just as our Founding Fathers spoke of.

          • g.johnon

            hmmm, good one Philip, but I always took the second part to be: “necessary to a free society”.

          • g.johnon

            chad, you left out the little part in the middle that says: “being necessary to a free society”. the little part that ties the whole thing together, the part that gives the amendment its direction and its reason.
            disarmed societies to not long fare well in regards to liberty.

        • DRJ

          A large, well drilled and well equipped standing army being necessary to national security but an undeniable threat to freedom; the people must always possess the means to oppose it if required to maintain that freedom.

  • Bat Man

    Who ever wrote that headline should be shot!

    • visibleunderwater

      Ben Swann should be ashamed, and fire them. It hurts his whole site when his people start quoting “Media Research Center” aka ALEC.

  • Afi Keita James

    Sanders can kiss my ass.

    • Adam Colquitt

      Let me tell you my opinion on the headline without reading the story to figure out the headline is bs!!

      • g.johnon

        ok, you have proved that Bernie supporters are idiots. you can stop spamming the thread now.

      • g.johnon

        probably more because he is a left wing pos who works hard to try to undermine the bedrock foundation of this nation. and you, shaunmarie, are one of his little flying monkeys.

    • ShaunMarie

      Why? Because a reporter fed you an absolute lie about him?

  • Bryan Knight

    What a dipstick. Ban certain guns here but ship them overseas that you still pay for but cant own that will kill none American people. Those same guns no one will have to pass a background check for, supply finger prints, or even pay 1 cent for. I should run for office as i would have then crawling to my office begging for my quietness as i would be a serious threat to their pocketbook as that is what our government is about suppress everyone else in America while my pocketbook grows. Trading guns for stock is a good deal especially when its not your money that bought the guns in the first place.

    • Adam Colquitt

      Let me tell you my opinion on the headline without reading the story to figure out the headline is bs!

  • Klent Foster

    How can you ban something if we already have it? You’re only going to increase the popularity of whatever you’re trying to ban. Just look at what happened when they tried to ban alcohol.

    • Adam Colquitt

      Let me tell you my opinion on the headline without reading the story to figure out the headline is bs

  • Jen

    This is complete and utter nonsense bernie sanders did not say nor support a wide ban on guns. Its exactly the opposite hes gotten into arguments with the citizens who want to take them away. He has voted for common sense gun control laws but nothing outlandish. Its also pulled out of context. Whoever wrote this needs to factcheck themselves before looking like a person who writes shit like a fifth grader…. BernieSanders.com #feelthebern

    • richblade

      You are wrong. I pointed out in another response that Barry said guns used to kill people should not be sold in America. Guns used to kill people are the very weapons legal, licensed gun owners purchase to protect themselves. “Protection” is a politically correct term used as an alternative to saying “killing a human intruder”.

    • g.johnon

      no jen, what is complete and utter nonsense is the idea of common sense gun control laws. no such thing exists and you should well know it.
      you have succumbed to the lure of the shining path, so just stay on it until it leads you away from a country that is trying to rediscover the concept of liberty.
      Bernie wants to control guns, the constitution says he cannot. huge problem.
      as are all so called “progressives” who want to disarm the people in the face of a heavily armed and deeply corrupt government.
      go talk to your cat or feed your unicorn or something else that is more positively effective than the way of the liberal..

      • Adam Colquitt

        Constitution says guns can be regulated by the government (You know, well regulated militia… the only way you can regulate a milita is what they have… guns) -_- I love the 2nd so much I omit the parts I hate..

        • g.johnon

          so a militia is a gun. okee dokee then.

      • ShaunMarie

        The constitution says no such thing.

        If the constitution declared “Congress shall make NO law regarding the use and ownership of firearms” you might have some point to make.

        Until 2008 (and the most corrupt supreme court we’ve ever had) – the reading of the constitution was very consistent that the second amendment was specifically a communal, and NOT individual right, specifically tailored to the maintenance of a military force. It has only been FIVE years since there has been any other constitutional reading; and in that constitutional reading, (5 to 4 by the way) – the right wing of the court stated that perhaps even the criminally insane had the rights to own weapons. Are you really OK with that?????

        • The Right Fight

          You appear to be ignorant of what US v Miller held on the issue of “communal vs individual right of ownership” of the arms used by the Militia, @shaunmarie:disqus.

          And, btw, that SCOTUS case was from 1939, which was quite a bit further in the past than the 5 years you claimed … “It has only been FIVE years since there has been any other constitutional reading …”.

          https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174

          The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

        • g.johnon

          yes I am totally ok with that and am extremely tired of that lame ass lefty argument. ponder the ramifications of polite society for a….oh, sorry, forgot; you are a lefty and do not ponder, you just march.
          btw, “congress shall make no law” and “shall not be infringed” mean basically the same thing with the exception that “shall not be infringed” does not specify only congress.
          pretty darn arbitrary to call any one American supreme court “the most corrupt ever”. they have pretty much always been partisan horseshit dispensers.

      • visibleunderwater

        Bernie has never said anything about controlling guns. His voting record is the opposite of this article, he’s one of the most pro-gun non-Republicans in office. The only “control” he wants is in regard to mentally ill / domestic abuse perpetrators buying guns, and even that is only a recent platform change.

        • g.johnon

          any attempt at infringing upon the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms is an attempt to control guns. constitution says you cant touch that. Bernie is feeling really touchie. violation of his oath of office, violation of the constitution, treason against his country and his species.
          socialism is a cancer upon society and Bernie is a carrier.
          and you are one of his impervious little helpers.

        • Ray Heath Jr.

          Bernie has voted for gun control. In 2013 he voted for Feinstein’s gun ban, He voted for the Lautenberg magazine ban, and voted for the Toomey Manchin universal background check bill (AKA gun registration scheme) and here are the voting records to prove it

          https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/s101,

          https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/s103

          https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/s97

  • Boomer

    Gibberish as babbling as any idiot that has no clue of what
    to say or how to respond. So he does what every liberal does is to respond to
    soundbites- that trigger the emotional imbalanced voter- that too- has no clue.

    It’s called pandering to the low self-esteem scared women
    & Old men that don’t seek leadership -but rather seek being coddled by a
    government that promises a better life. Bernie talks in parables that he cannot
    ever deliver or let’s say never gets delivered as they pictured it. Democrats
    always watered down a policy and leave out the part about they’ll have to get
    in line for before the money runs out!! Hillary is the same- pandering to self-esteem
    scared women.

    This coming from a women who takes money from countries that
    abuse women -as speaking fees while funnels it into her own 501c3 account for
    running for office. Wow she makes Richard Nixon look great!

    Republican’s and the Democrats
    are lobbyist hooked junkies!!! Lets face it they both keep the nation divided
    which keeps us in gridlock and keeps the lobbyist money coming while pandering
    to you the voter!

    They will never come
    to agreement on issues until you take away the lobbyist and special interest
    groups including PAC’s which half of the readers here have no clue. I’m voting
    for TRUMP because he’s the only one NOT TAKING BRIBE MONEY!

    Either figure it out or keep your misery!

    • Philip Beck

      Are you aware that lobbyists and special interest groups are simply participating in America’s freedom and liberty? Without them, I think that there would be a lot less accountability coming from our elected officials. Besides, the laws passed to address and restrict this First Amendment right haven’t been successful at doing what you think needs to be done.

  • visibleunderwater

    Really, Barry Donegan? This is HORRIBLE reporting, with your flat-out lying headline. I’ve read the actual transcript, no where in it does he call for a “sweeping gun ban that would outlaw all self defense firearms”. Did ALEC, who Media Research Center is a sitting board member of, tell you to posting this?

    Your taking what MRC said and attributing it to Sanders, and completely warping his actual gun control stance. Which is, in reality, quite pro gun. His attitude has only changed towards specific gun types…and even on that he is very unenthusiastic.

    This is the second recent article on here against Sanders that use use such tactics to mislead people. Perhaps Swann needs to talk to you about this; twice is a pattern. Personally I think your upset that Sanders is starting to appeal to Paul’s supporters, the more Progressive Republicans that are left in the party.

    I realize many Republicans cringe at the word “Progressive”, but there once was a very Sanders-like platform in the 1950’s. Even many of the Occupy “demands” echo the Progressive Republicans. The ProgReps are what the Tea Party could have been if they hadn’t gone all fundie.

    “In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people’s money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative.” President Dwight D. Eisenhower

    • richblade

      Sorry. Barry said “guns used to kill people SHOULD NOT be sold in America”. Most readers of this article would align Barry’s words with the headline. Go back and read the transcript again.

      • Juliox

        Who cares what Barry says? He’s a paid troll writing crap for people like you to gobble up. Enjoy.

        • visibleunderwater

          Seems like it. I only care because I got a message from a good friend freaking out over this, took a few hours to explain that this is yellow journalism and is very much disinformation. Usually truthinmedia has great articles so it is a bit concerning. Out of all the Democrats, Sanders is one of the most pro-gun. Publishing stuff like this is quite disingenuous and purposely incorrect and, honestly, is damaging towards Ben Swann’s reputation.

          • richblade

            Fair enough about Bernies position on guns, but there is no misunderstanding that he said guns that kill people should not be sold in America. I believe he is referring to hand guns.

          • visibleunderwater

            He might be, we just don’t know yet. Looking at his past voting record, I believe that he would (as POTUS) sign a gun control bill if one ever managed to get through Congress. Yet it doesn’t look like he would go out of his way to initiate anything on his own. Sanders has always walked a very fine line on gun control, and his attitude has only recently changed…I’m assuming all the public shooting have something to do with that.

      • visibleunderwater

        Exactly, and that’s the problem. I have read the transcript repeatedly. And you’re really confused, as Barry wasn’t on the show. Sanders did say this, but he never defined these guns. Media Research Center did, and Donegan is taking MRC’s words and attributing them to Sanders. This is almost to the level of libel, purposely using a false attribution to damage someone’s reputation. This is nothing but a hit piece paid for by ALEC.

        • richblade

          Do you know anyone who hunts in the deep woods of Vermont with a pistol?

          • GenEarly

            Comrade UDT troll is suggesting hunting as a 2nd amendment “Right” as long as it is with guns incapable of killing people.

      • richblade

        My error – I meant to refer to Bernie.

      • g.johnon

        or just watch the short film under the headline above. it backs up the headline quite nicely. but I digress, I am trying to use logic to debate with a lefty. I really really do know better.

  • Nexus Arcana

    Any politician that uses the term “assault weapon” is lying through their teeth. There is no such thing, and true assault rifles are already heavily regulated at the Federal Level. Paramilitary arms is what Bernie is talking about and those are specifically protected by the 2nd amendment according to US vs Miller (SCOTUS) and the Heller vs DC case which deferred to US vs Miller for the definition of what arms are protected by the 2nd amendment.

    Here is the decision from US vs Miller:

    “…in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use
    of a shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length at
    this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
    efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
    Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
    Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part
    of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could contribute to
    the common defense…”

    The shotgun in that case was a double-barrel, two-shot, hunting shotgun. The court in US vs Miller ruled that hunting weapons are NOT protected by the 2nd amendment, only MILITARY arms are and since the Heller decision ruled that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals and not the states, the 2nd amendment means that individual citizens have the right to own and posses military arms useful to the militia. The militia’s duties–according to article 1, section 8, clause 15 of the US constitution–are to uphold the laws of the Union (constitution and bill of rights), put down insurrections, and repel invasions.
    Title 10, Section 311 of the United States Code clarifies that the National Guard is NOT the militia of the 2nd amendment, and it also states that every abled-bodied male ages 17 to 45 are members of the reserve militia forces.
    The fact that Bernie Sanders (or any politician) supports any kind of ban on any paramilitary weapon or its equipment shows they are unqualified to be in government, let alone the Presidency.

    • GoodBusiness

      Read the following – people have 100% of these rights to possess these ARMS it does not say guns now does it?

      Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms

      <>

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      Meaning of arms in 1828 Webster dictionary . . we can have a lot of ARMS.

      arms

      ‘ARMS, n. plu. [L. arma.]

      1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.

      2. War; hostility.

      Arms and the man I sing.

      To be in arms, to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life.

      To arms is a phrase which denotes a taking arms for war or hostility; particularly, a summoning to war.

      To take arms, is to arm for attack or defense.

      Bred to arms denotes that a person has been educated to the profession of a soldier.

      3. The ensigns armorial of a family; consisting of figures and colors borne in shields, banners, &c., as marks of dignity and distinction, and descending from father to son.

      4. In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another.

      5. In botany, one of the seven species of fulcra or props of plants, enumerated by Linne and others. The different species of arms or armor, are prickles, thorns, forks and stings, which seem intended to protect the plants from injury by animals.

      Sire arms, are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, &c.

      A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.

      In falconry, arms are the legs of a hawk from the thigh to the foot.

      • Adam Colquitt

        now give us the definition of “Well-regulated”

        • Philip Beck

          Adam, you are simply a leftist with no compulsion to study the other side of any argument you get yourself involves in.

        • GoodBusiness

          Not material as, The Second amendment is in 3 pieces and are not dependent on each other. They stand on their own.

          A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

          militia

          MILI’TIA, n. [L. from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, L. molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

          regulated

          REG’ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.

        • Walternator

          It is the people that are granted the right to bear arms, not the militias, though it’s inclusive. SCOTUS decisions have affirmed that more than once. They have also affirmed more than once that the right to bear arms can be regulated, so the rest of what is discussed above your comment is pretty much moot and wishful thinking.

        • DRJ

          Well trained, equipped and plenty of it. The 18th century meaning of that term had nothing to do with laws and regulations.

      • Wayne White

        Aside from the fact that you’re functionally illiterate, you and the rest of your ilk sure love to ignore the words “well regulated” in the 2nd Amendment.

        • GoodBusiness

          Are we ruled by a Democratic representative Republic with a Constitution or are we not? If we do not honor the limits of the Constitution then the RULE – BY – LAW system is gone and we are now a rule – by man.

          There is no language inside the Constitution that permits the courts to create Judicial review or Implied powers – they are both usurped powers not included in Article III limits on Courts.

          • GenEarly

            The “rule of law” was repealed by the Obamy. We now have rule by Prog Whim………until………OPSEC prevents further discussion.

          • DRJ

            The Supreme Court has been altered (deteriorated) to a political extension of both the executive and legislative branches of our government. It should no longer be recognized as the supreme law of the land if we wish to remain a free people of sovereign states.

            Fill in the blanks as you wish but the 2nd amendment is more important at this time in our history than it has been for a very long time.

      • Nexus Arcana

        I am aware of what the 2nd amendment says in 18th Century English, however, the SCOTUS has changed its meaning by judicial ruling.

        I didn’t say I agree with them, I just illustrated what they have ruled.

    • Walternator

      A sawed off shotgun is not a hunting weapon, and your legal interpretations are off the mark.

      • GenEarly

        Who has “sawed off” shotguns? You are such a Delusional Prog.

        • Steve

          People who have sawed off shotguns have sawed off shotguns have them. Are you completely retarded or are you paid by the NRA to say the things you say? You are responding to every other post so I would say you must be a paid shill.

          • GenEarly

            How about a Blunderbuss, Comrade Steve? Do we have your approval for that? Because we do so want to conform to your prog wishes……..soooo much!

          • GenEarly

            ProgreSSives who are idiots are idiots and have useful idiots for friends. To paraphrase your stunning opening syntax challenged sentence.
            Please go take some shotgun training at Joe Biden’s Home Defense Institute for Morons and learn to fire both barrels in the air to scare away burglers. Progs are so insanely cute.

      • Nexus Arcana

        Nice try.
        However, this is not MY interpretation, I cut and paste the actual decision from Miller.

        Presser vs Illinois said this:

        “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms
        constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United
        States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the
        general government, as well as of its general powers, the states
        cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second
        Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing
        arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for
        maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing
        their duty to the general government.”

        Couple that with the Heller decision and you can see plainly that SCOTUS has ruled that the militia is the citizenry (the abled-bodied male population) and that the only weapons protected are military arms.
        A sawed off shotgun is a hunting weapon when it is only double-barrel, two-shot. That used to be called a “stage-coach” gun and was very common in the 19th century. However, by the time of the US vs Miller ruling, that weapon was obsolete and thus no longer part of the “ordinary military equipment” used by the US armed forces. When reading Miller, one must understand it.
        I do, and I know this may come as a shock to Progressives, but their interpretation of the 2nd amendment is completely wrong.

        • John Ash

          That may be the opinion of SCOTUS, but it’s an illogical one.

          A sawed off shotgun is, more than many rifles, an excellent weapon of defense and a poor weapon of offense and is beyond a doubt an “arm” as envisioned by the Founders.

          SCOTUS says shit that is just ridiculous on a constant basis and much of it i so uneducated, I can hardly believe these people could qualify as an ambulance chaser.

      • imoffendedthatyoureoffended

        Actually, you would be wrong. A shotgun with an 18″ barrel can be used to hunt, and is good in thick brush. With slugs, it’s not quite as accurate but can hit close enough out to around 50 yards (which is about as far as you can realistically see in thick brush anyway).

    • Herbert Dunwash

      amen

  • BurningBeard

    In an NPR interview he stated that he is for a ban on assault rifles, specifically. Not shotguns or handguns. Pretty hard to find “Truth in Media” when you don’t look at all the media available.

    • GenEarly

      Comrade Beard, What is an “assault rifle”? Other than a gun banning hyperbolic
      progreSSive pc term.

      • Calvinius
        • GenEarly

          Thank you, though the question was to Comrade Beard, but since you answered up it should be obvious from the Wikipedia definition that all most all Americans do Not possess “assault rifles”. Being knowledgeable as you obviously are, I’m sure you agree.

      • Marvin Miller

        assault rifle would be anything that holds a 30 round quick change clip that can be made full auto with a 2 dolor part you buy online

        • GenEarly

          Comrade Marvin, It’s a magazine not a clip. So now that we have established you don’t know a muzzle from a butt, well maybe not the butt. Butt I digress.
          Most Citizens with guns do not want to run afoul of the gun running BATFE SS agentz, by doing anything construed to be illegal, let alone buying illegal parts on the internet for 2 “dolor”.
          (if that even exists)
          I realize you as a ProgreSSive are exempt from the IRS, but even Progs are subject to the ATF boys………sometimes.
          And if you were to ever read the 2nd Amendment you would be gratified to see that hunting was the essential reason for the weapons exception for sheeples to have and keep these guns.
          Have a nice day in your USSA; I don’t live there in the illusions of your alleged mind.
          Comrade Beard remains MIA.

        • imoffendedthatyoureoffended

          Technically it’s a rifle, not an “assault rifle.” There really are no specifically designated “assault rifles.” It’s the intention of the user that matters. By liberal logic, my Winchester 94 could be considered an “assault rifle” because it was used in battle. By the way, the “AR” doesn’t stand for “assault rifle,” contrary to popular liberal belief. That was fabricated by libby gun-grabbing politicians to make these rifles sound scary.

        • Herbert Dunwash

          You don’t know the difference between a mag and a clip yet you could make full auto with a 2 dollar part?

        • 2BRKnot2B

          Such a knowledgeable person, Marvin, ought to know how many arms use a clip versus how many a magazine. What makes a clip “quick change”? Does it talk you into parting with more money than you were owed? I hear a “con” job.

      • BurningBeard

        That would be semi-automatic rifles with tactical grips and large magazines. It’s pretty easy to classify if you have 2 brain cells. I’m not saying it’s right or it would help. I’m simply stating that’s his stance.

        • Ray Heath Jr.

          An AR15 is a semi automatic rifle, no difference functionally from any other semi auto, 1 squeeze of the trigger fires 1 shot. No different functionally than a Ruger Ranch rifle, .223 caliber semi auto rifle. Same goes for the AK47 as sold here in the US, a 7.62×39 mm semi auto rifle, no different functionally than a Ruger Mini 30, 7.62×39 mm semi auto rifle.
          You should the truth learn about firearms before commenting on them, not the BS spread by the anti-gun crowd.

          http://www.assaultweapon.info/

          • BurningBeard

            I don’t need a lesson on guns. I’ve hunted my entire life and reloaded my own ammo. I am aware of what it all is. You should educate yourself on embracing common sense gun control such as instant background checks so we can properly protect our rights rather than just cutting down any and every barrier that might stop guns from getting into the wrong hands. Have a good day.

          • Ray Heath Jr.

            Again it is you who should educate yourself, this time on current gun laws. Don’t swallow the lies and distortions from the media and the anti gun crowd.
            1) it is already a Federal offense (felony) to sell a fire arm to a prohibited person ( are you willing to chance a felony conviction thereby losing your second amendment rights? I know I am not, and nether is anyone I know)
            2) There is already a background check system available, you just have to go to an FFL and have them run one on the potential buyer, yes it cost a little $ (5-25 around here depending on the FFL) Anyone I do not know is legal to possess goes thru a BG check if they want to buy a firearm I have for sale. If it is someone I personally know well enough to know they are OK to possess then I will go with out the check because I am sure they are legal, or if they have their current conceal carry license then I know they are legal too.
            3) there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole” either. #1 above applies there as well, And any dealer must do a BG check on any sale they make whether it is at their shop or at a gun show, not doing so is a violation of Federal law and they would be guilty of a felony, resulting in prison time, fines and loss of their FFL. They are not going to take that chance either.
            So why don’t you have a good evening.

          • RalphEaton2011

            Well put.

          • GenEarly

            Yes Comrade that term “common sense gun control” was polled quite extensively by the DemocRats.

          • RalphEaton2011

            We have background checks that must be completed before the gun is released. There is no virtue in “instant.”

          • BurningBeard

            Fine, take a week for it then. IDGAF. I was just arguing for instant so there was no waiting.

          • 2BRKnot2B

            The instant check is not instant. It can take anywhere from 10 minutes to 3 days, or more. At 3 days, the individual has to be allowed the arm, by law, if the check has not been answered.

          • BurningBeard

            And, no we have many loopholes that you don’t need a background check to buy a gun.

          • RalphEaton2011

            Name them all.

          • BurningBeard
          • RalphEaton2011

            Very friendly. You must be a democrat.

          • RalphEaton2011

            Name calling certainly elevates the validity of your argument.

            There is only one “loophole” as you call it. It is not really a “gun show” loophole. It is a private sale “loophole.”

            And in many states even this loophole doesn’t exist. From your link:

            “As of August 2013, 33 states do not require background checks for sales of firearms by private individuals, while 17 states and Washington, D.C. do require background checks for some or all private firearm sales.”

            All dealers, at all times, on all guns, must run background checks.

            Sellers are responsible to not knowingly sell a gun to persons prohibited from ownership.

            So contrary to your assertion they are “many” loopholes, there is just one, and that one, if you were going to close it, has a variety of assorted impacts on privacy, private property rights and other issues. How would you suggest the state monitor private interactions of people, for example?

            Lastly, I’d suggest that in a comparable period of time there were fewer guns used in crimes that found their way to criminal hands from the “loophole” (since there appears to be virtually zero) than from Fast and Furious, whose guns are showing up all over the place, and in the hands of many criminals.

          • Herbert Dunwash

            You are right. If everyone used common sense, we would not be discussing this.

          • Herbert Dunwash

            You are just describing the difference between semi auto and full auto. If I just shoot my full auto at targets at the range, how does it become an assault rifle?

        • GenEarly

          Well, Comrade Beard, Mr. Heath has given you a technically accurate response, and as approved by the exalted BATFE, I might add, which of course is far superior to that old historical parchment of a constitutional 2nd Amendment.
          The “Assault Rifle” has “Select Fire” where 1 trigger pull gets more than 1 bullet fired and is very, very seldom owned by the vast majority of gun owners. I hope this helps you to sleep better at night.

          • BurningBeard

            I think it’s funny that you think I’m some kind of communist for stating what was said in an NPR interview. Have fun shooting your guns. I know I do.

          • Sir Tapir The Based :]

            I’m glad I’m not American. Don’t have to live with these idiots.

          • GenEarly

            We are glad too!

          • GenEarly

            YOU are the one who implied agreement with Bernie on banning “Assault Weapons”, not me.
            Hope we don’t have to shoot at each other when TSHTF, but mere gun ownership doesn’t make a Patriot, too many Polezi out there think they Are The Law just as an example.
            The “fun” evaporated for me with the SS BLM at Bundy Ranch, NV.

          • Mitchell Brown

            You’re just burning for a civil war. What pushed you over the edge? Was it gay rights? Was it a woman’s right to choose? Was it the the “War On Christianity”? Was it the election of a black president? What? ( Oh, I love the calling and implying people are communists who disagree with you. Nice!)

          • GenEarly

            All of the above, except the “black president” comment. I have supported patriotic, constitutional blacks like Allen West, Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Ben Carson, and most especially Thomas Sowell.
            I am ready for an economic demise that will set off a diversity fueled civil war within communities and neighborhood to neighborhood as food quickly becomes scarce. No one is forcing your agreement, Comrade. Do as you choose. It’s so ironic that your diversity only flows one way, with what you agree with, typical progreSSive putz.

          • Herbert Dunwash

            You forgot erosion of freedom

          • 2BRKnot2B

            LOL! Almost everyone I know who owns arms has at least one, and some many, semi-automatic arms.Heck, I know people who only own semi-automatics. So, the bullspit you spewed GenEarly is just so absolutely false as to be considered merely propaganda, and nowhere near truth. That you can even get away with spouting such nonsense proves freedom of speech, Yet, you want my arms infringed, or even outright denied???

          • GenEarly

            Sarcasm? My friend, Sarcasm. Comrade Beard is not your ally, BTW.

        • imoffendedthatyoureoffended

          Technically that’s a rifle, not an “assault rifle.” There really are no specifically designated “assault rifles.” It’s the intention of the user that matters. According to liberal logic, my old Winchester 94 could be considered an “assault rifle” because it was used in battle. By the way, the “AR” doesn’t stand for “assault rifle,” contrary to popular liberal belief. That was fabricated by libby gun-grabbing politicians to make these rifles sound scary.

          • Herbert Dunwash

            thank you

        • Herbert Dunwash

          What is a “tactical grip”?

          • John Ash

            It’s a new GI Joe action figure enhancement.

          • Herbert Dunwash

            No wonder they want it illegal.

          • 2BRKnot2B

            It’s the tight grip any gal uses with motion to manipulate my “gun.” Of course, I’m not talking about my arms.

    • Herbert Dunwash

      If someone attacks you with a shotgun or handgun, wouldn’t they be assaulting you?

  • Walternator

    Well, I think you take his comments out of context and twist their meaning pretty “liberally”. Hit piece. Man has a D rating from the NRA, but he’s reasonable about it. The words “who are unstable” are totally ignored in this gross distortion. Bernie is against military style weapons, though, no doubt about that. I could care less, I’m a hunter. Don’t have any plans to wage war on the government, and for defense, the guns I do have have stood me in good stead for over forty years. If you can aim, you don’t need an AR15 or AK 47, in my experience.

    • Ray Heath Jr.

      An AR15 is a semi automatic rifle, no difference functionally from any other semi auto, 1 squeeze of the trigger fires 1 shot. No different functionally than a Ruger Ranch rifle, .223 caliber semi auto rifle. Same goes for the AK47 as sold here in the US, a 7.62×39 mm semi auto rifle, no different functionally than a Ruger Mini 30, 7.62×39 mm semi auto rifle.
      http://www.assaultweapon.info/

      • Mitchell Brown

        I want biological arms. The 2nd amendment says nothing about “small” arms. Freedom, right?

        • John Ash

          Biological weapons are not arms by definition. Maybe a dictionary would assist you, especially one from the early 1800s.

      • Herbert Dunwash

        I don’t think most here will know what you’re talking about.

        • Ray Heath Jr.

          Yeah, you can lead a liberal to knowledge, but you can’t make them think!

  • Scott Gibbs

    AMAZING. On a website called “Truth in Media” the headline of this article is an outright LIE. He never said anything about “outlawing all self-defense” firearms. Jesus H. Christ, journalism is dead.

    • RalphEaton2011

      certain types of guns used to kill people should not be sold…

      He said it.

      • Scott Gibbs

        Are you joking? You’re willing to leap from “certain types of guns” to “Sweeping Gun Ban That Would Outlaw All Self-Defense Firearms.” WOW.

        • John Ash

          It’s not a jump. Weapons of defense are only designed to kill people, and those are the ones he wants to ban. And, ironically, these are the most protected by the 2nd Amendment, the very purpose of it. It had nothing to do with hunting.

        • RalphEaton2011

          That was my point, Scott.

        • 2BRKnot2B

          First thing after all these are outlawed that someone fires a shotgun off their porch, and hits an innocent kid in a church, or schoolhouse, and they’ll want the shotguns, too. Don’t be delusional. Leftists think all guns are evil, and that no one should own them for protection from the state, as their belief is the state is all powerful.Only state actors should be armed, and even they will be eventually disarmed, as they are the only ones with the means to defend against the state.

    • dtownprof

      Did you listen to the video? He says “guns that aren’t for hunting” and “guns used for killing people” which are the ones you defend yourself…. you know, from people… with.

  • Donna Simone Plamondon

    The headline is a LIE

    • Herbert Dunwash

      How?

  • John Ash

    “Hi. I’m a socialist and I’d like to take your guns. For your own safety, of course”

    • Mitchell Brown

      Hi. I’m a “conservative” and I’d like to force you to undergo a transfer-vaginal probe. Because, freedom.

      • John Ash

        Before or after I kill someone?

  • Jake

    The differences between assault weapons and hunting weapons are purely aesthetic, unless it’s an automatic weapon which are already illegal

    • Herbert Dunwash

      And background checks already exist.

      • Banjolina Violetta

        they need improvement.

    • 2BRKnot2B

      Automatic weapons are not illegal. Just taxed. Which, in essence, makes the law demanding they be taxed, illegitimate, i.e. unconstitutional. Murdock v. PA

      Furthermore, Miller v. U.S. made clear than any weapons in current use by the military are the legitimate arms of the U.S. Hillary & Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama II, are/were arms dealers, which is exactly what Benghazi was about, dealing arms to the enemies of the United States, al-Qaida, and ISIS/ISIL which at the time was a branch of MuSlim Brotherhood in Syria.

      Barry Soetoro deposed Muammar Qa-daffy because he knew the aims, ambitions, and perceived threat that Soetoro posed to the whole Middle East region by his destabilization of Egypt. Why destabilize Egypt, and not Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan? Why depose Qa-daffy who was an open supporter of Palestinian terrorists?

      What does Barry have planned for himself after January 20, 2017? Might he wish to be leader of a MuSlim caliphate which he propped up using American tax dollars to create? Does he have larger ambitions by enjoining us with the EU, and running for the office of EU head where he become, “the Beast” of Revelations? Do most Americans not realize where this impostor POTUS, false as he is (not Natural Born Citizen as defined by our Constitution), is leading the world?

  • Marvin Miller

    if you listen to him he just wants background checks and certain types of assault rifles that have no use for hunting. hes not against self defense but he doesn’t believe someone convicted of violent crimes should be able to buy one. this is just corporate media changing the facts because of the attention hes getting and they know if hes elected he will break up the to big to fail banks. get the billionaires money out of Washington and stop the bribes. close the loopholes for the corporations who pay no taxes and stop the billions in oil kick backs and corporate welfare. hes pulling 10,000 or more in each state and Wednesday he had a grass roots thing that pulled over 100,000 people, he won’t take corporate money and raised his funds on 350,000 people with a average contribution of 35 dollars. his agenda is the american peoples agenda and if you took the time to check his history you would know. and no corporate coverage. now that hes showing he might win they are going to start making up all kinds of lies but hes a truly honest and open man

    • DRJ

      We citizens have the constitutional right to be armed with the state of the art firearms. I personally have no desire to kill animals for sport but insist on owning anything with a trigger that I desire and can afford. The whole idea of limiting certain auto loading weapons to only military and law enforcement is unconstitutional and the goal of a tyrannical government.

      There is no such thing as reasonable or sensible gun control at the Federal level.
      This is absolute and there are NO exceptions concerning small arms.

      • Steve

        So you think if you own an AK 47 you could take out a tank or a destroyer? how about a black hawk?

        • GenEarly

          Your progreSSive brain power could melt a tank, sink a destroyer, and cause a black hawk to immolate in sheer terror of
          the awesomeness of such a black hole of hyperbolic stupidity.

          • Mitchell Brown

            You got nothin. That much is clear.

          • 2BRKnot2B

            Oh, come now. give it credit for the big words.

        • RalphEaton2011

          Honestly, I’d let people own tanks after background checks. The average american would do less damage with it than the government does.

          • DRJ

            Amen..good point

          • 2BRKnot2B

            Why would you want them to submit to background checks? Seems a little insane to me. After all, infringe doesn’t defer to, “after a background check.”

            A background check is a hindrance, Infringe means, “to hinder” as one of its many definitions.

          • RalphEaton2011

            A reasonable man (a legal term) would understand that to be “well regulated” a militia ought not to allow weapons in the hands of the insane, the demonstrably criminal or traitors, for example.

        • DRJ

          How could you possibly infer that from my comment? I do believe the government should be required to take those measures when it endeavors to disarm its citizenry.

      • Herbert Dunwash

        I still want to know what an assault weapon is.

      • 2BRKnot2B

        There is no such control warranted, or legitimate, at the state level either.

        “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and
        independent of the lawmaking power.” – Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

        “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional (guaranteed) right
        cannot be converted into a crime”. Miller v US, 230 Fed 486,489

        “No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105

        “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because
        of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

        “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”
        Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama, 373 US 262

    • Herbert Dunwash

      What is an “assault rifle”?

      • Steve Weiss

        AR-15. The AR mean “Assault Rifle”. Do not try the argument that “assault” is an action not a thing. Pure and simple the AR-15, the G-36, and the AK-47/74 all are designed with combat in mind, and as such are NOT meant for hunting.

        • Herbert Dunwash

          AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today’s modern sporting rifle. The AR in “AR-15” rifle stands forArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. “AR” does NOT stand for “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle.”

          • DRJ

            Good job; Had I read your post, I would not have replied

          • Herbert Dunwash

            It’s all good. Carry on.

        • DRJ

          Nope; wrong again… AR stands for Armalite, the first company that built the weapon before they sold the design to Colt. Try doing some real research before you spew nonsense. Why is hunting any part of this discussion?

          • Herbert Dunwash

            You are absolutely correct. It’s funny how they just parrot what their rulers tell them without ever doing any research.

        • Herbert Dunwash

          I know many hunters that use the AR platform for hunting FWIW.

        • 7LibertyForAll

          Doesn’t matter; read the Second Amendment. Case closed.

      • DRJ

        Ugly black guns that are fun to shoot?

        • Herbert Dunwash

          Ugly? I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

          • DRJ

            Ok, you’re right. My narrow minded aesthetic filter rules out rifles that do not contain parts of dead Walnut trees. I like the looks of a M1 Garand or a 1894 Winchester or a Sprinfield Trap Door 45-70 etc The pistols with Ivory, Pearl, Bone or wood grips are more attractive than Glocks to me but I’d prefer a Glock anyday in a Sh!t storm. Good point though just the same. BTW; I trained with the M-16 44 years ago it it was the best target rifle I had ever seen at that time. Not the prettyiest but a helava fine shooter

          • Herbert Dunwash

            You’ve got good taste my friend. I was just being a little facetious in fun.

          • DRJ

            And the same good nature back at you.

    • 2BRKnot2B

      The SECOND AMENDMENT AIN’T ABOUT HUNTING!

      The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring
      him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

      In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.

      As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem. In this new form, the new registration
      provision was upheld. The court held: ” To eliminate the defects revealed by Haynes, Congress amended the Act so that only a possessor who lawfully makes, manufactures, or imports firearms can and must register them”, United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).[3]

      The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.

      Oh my! Lions & tigers & bear(ing arm)s! Oh my!

  • TweedleDee

    I’ll vote for Bernie right here and then call you a liar!

  • Steve

    dumbest article yet lmao nice try though

    • DRJ

      You laughing Liberals must have a lot of spare ass material to laugh off. Seems like every other one of you claims to spend an enormous amount of time “LMAO”
      Find a hobby like shooting or stamp collecting.

      • Herbert Dunwash

        That would take them out of “comfy zone”

        • 2BRKnot2B

          That’s because stamps are an evil tax.

  • RalphEaton2011

    Seems Bernie is not completely up on current law. It is comforting to see the degree of his confidence in the benevolence of government.

    • Herbert Dunwash

      Bingo

  • This headline is a LIE – Bernie did NOT say that. Stricter gun control yes, but NOT outlaw all self-defense firearms. Very irresponsible excuse for journalism. Truth in Media – NOT!

    • DRJ

      Stricter Gun Control by the Federal Government is a bad idea for a free people.
      We patriots don’t care how you choose to spin this. Reasonable gun control other than the use of both hands is like reasonable cancer.

    • Herbert Dunwash

      No this is not a lie. Politicians wanting to outlaw guns always start with stricter gun control. Do you have any idea how strict gun control is already?

      • 2BRKnot2B

        If speech control was as infringed as gun control today, or religious freedom denuded, these people would be marching in the streets, burning American flags. They haven’t a clue. They believe what their propaganda masters tell them. Actually looking into the truth would floor them, or perhaps they don’t care about the truth, only the fact that others are disarmed totally, which is what I truly suspect they want.

    • DRJ

      Only the dumbest of liberal gun-grabber politicians will use phrases
      like “disarm the public, total gun ban, ammunition ban, firearm
      confiscation” etc. You have to understand the the ultimate agenda of
      the pro U.N.One World Government leaders. Some of these imbeciles are
      only clueless puppets
      but others know fully well what they are attempting. Pelosi, Feintsein and Sanders
      are
      examples of the clueless puppets. Obummer and Hillary are dangerous.
      Those that don’t understand this but are able to find the voting booths
      are a major part of the problem. Where are you in this attack against our sovereignty?

    • 2BRKnot2B

      “Read my lips. No new taxes.” George H.W. Bush, just prior to raising everyone’s taxes.

      If you like your healthcare provider, you can keep your healthcare provider. If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan.” Barack Hussein (insane?) Obama II, aka Barry Soetoro, before signing ObamaCare (BarryCare, or PPACA) which genuinely altered every plan, and prompted many MD’s to simply give up. Heck, mine moved to Kenya, if you can believe that. When I told him Barry was born there he looked at me incredulous. Barry said it, tho’. His grandmother said it. His wife Moochelle (Michelle) Robinson Soetoro/Obama, said so. Should we believe what they says, or what his handlers say, or the media, or the other propagandists?

  • Sagebrush

    You are skating on thin ice Bernie. Most firearms savy people know self-defense firearms are what the 2nd Amendment is all about. Federal bureaucrats choosing what kind of guns citizens can or can’t posses violates that amendment.

    • Banjolina Violetta

      He NEVER said that he wanted to disarm people’s weapons for self-defense. This Barry Donegan article is a hatchet piece, a distortion nowhere near what Bernie Sanders has ever said. He just made that up, so if you’re interested in the truth about what this candidate is talking about, just watch the video and then see if you think this headline is fair or accurate? TRUTH IN MEDIA???? REALLY? BEWARE OF MEDIA political operatives who pretend to be your “voice of truth” who are counting on you not checking out their stories.

      • Herbert Dunwash

        What the hell is he saying then.

        • Banjolina Violetta

          He’s saying we need to close the gunshow loophole & whatever other measures we can agree on to (help) keep weapons out of the hands of people with violent histories.

          • Herbert Dunwash

            The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
            What part of this are you having trouble understanding?

          • 2BRKnot2B

            They do not misunderstand. They disagree. However, until they change the political dynamic through the public education system, getting a vast majority to agree with the way they see things, they cannot change the Constitution’s Second Amendment. Too many people today would consider that an assault on their freedom, and their God granted right which government cannot remove at any cost, and only at our own peril should we allow them to do so.

          • 2BRKnot2B

            I don’t agree there is a “gun show loophole.” I don’t agree with any of the current crop of laws regulating arms. So, how can we come to an understanding if those who have moved the bar far left are unwilling to move back to the center?

      • DRJ

        Only the dumbest of liberal gun-grabber politicians will use phrases like “disarm the public, total gun ban, ammunition ban, firearm confiscation” etc. You have to understand the the ultimate agenda of the pro U.N.One World Government leaders. Some of these imbeciles are only clueless puppets
        but others know fully well what they are attempting. Pelosi, Feintsein and Sanders
        are examples of the clueless puppets. Obummer and Hillary are dangerous. Those that don’t understand this but are able to find the voting booths are a major part of the problem.

      • DRJ

        They seldom do but that is precisely their goal.

    • Herbert Dunwash

      He already fell thru.

      • DRJ

        There are ABSOLUTELY NO Democrats and damn few Republicans that really understand and support the 2nd amendment.

        All a patriot that loves his guns can do his hold his nose and pull that Republican lever.

        • 7LibertyForAll

          By doing that, you’re still voting for evil. The lesser of two evils is STILL evil. You’ve got some great awareness and principles. Help us take back our courts–with common law and our common law grand juries back in OUR court we can stop this utter lawlessness at all levels. National Liberty Alliance.

          • DRJ

            Our country can no longer be saved at the ballot box.

            A third party conservative will mean a shew-in for the Socialist Party in 2016.

            It is true that the Republicans are another brand Authoritarians and nut-less but
            anti-gun legislation will be more difficult with a Republican in the White-house. At this point in my life, that is the most important issue. Our children and grandchildren will have to be armed to survive or become another sh!t hole like Greece.

          • 2BRKnot2B

            If are debts are called in, where already a sh!thole like Greece. That’s just those owed to foreigners, and foreign governments. If you consider the unfunded liabilities mandated by Social (in)Security, and Medi(s)care, the programs will need be discontinues, or taxes raised to the tune of triple current FICA take. Imagine paying 45% of your wages to prop up a Ponzi scheme styled program which will likely be bankrupt again in 30 years with the need to triple the, oh, wait, you can’t triple 45% in reality. With such no one would be able to afford anything, and government would be broke, too. Fact is, if we all stopped working today, and did nothing for several months but raise gardens, and feed off them, banks, and government would all be broke.

        • 2BRKnot2B

          Bernie doesn’t deny he is a socialist. How we allow someone of such persuasion to run for office in a republic astounds me. How he gets erected is even more astounding. Are freedom loving, republican minded, constitution favoring, individuals willing to run for political office that rare a bird in Vermont?

  • DRJ

    2nd Amendment if written in the 21st Century:

    A large, well drilled and well equipped standing army being necessary to
    national security but an undeniable threat to freedom; the people must
    always possess the means to oppose that army if required to maintain their
    freedom.

  • Banjolina Violetta

    Bernie has stated many times that he wants to be able to have a conversation to come up with saner gun laws. This headline is a flat out LIE. He has never advocated banning all guns..that’s a crock….but has said we need to have universal background checks to make it harder for insane violent people to buy guns at gun shows, and he as said we don’t need to have assault rifles. This might be a big problem for lovers of those multiple target high speed killing machines but there are a lot of mass shootings happening now, so many people think the ability for anyone to purchase these weapons needs to be limited. This article is just someone’s opinion of what they THINK he means even though it doesn’t match what Bernie has been saying forever. Sounds like a hatchet piece, maybe because this candidate’s populist message is resonating with people from all across the political spectrum…..and the powers that be would like to dampen that enthusiasm in any way possible.

    • Herbert Dunwash

      “This might be a big problem for lovers of those multiple target high speed killing machines”

      You made me laugh and cry at the same time.

      • DRJ

        I personally love those “multiple target, high speed killing machines” As soon as the weather cools down, I plan to enjoy a lot of high speed killing of multiple targets. That really does have a nice steel target ring to it…wouldn’t you say?

        • Herbert Dunwash

          Indeed brother. Carry on.

    • DRJ

      “saner gun laws” ?? Repeat after me… More armed citizens=less crime including gun crimes. Bad guys don’t purchase guns legally. They don’t care about the laws. Gun laws only place restrictions on law abiding citizens. Why is it so difficult for you people to understand this?

      • Steve Weiss

        Actually, there are people in my own neighborhood I would prefer not have access to firearms who have never been convicted of a crime, they are out of their damn mind, and have the paperwork to prove it. That said, a database with a simple go/nogo system so anyone can check to see if someone can own a firearm, mandatory background checks on ALL firearms sales (as I stated already private sellers are not required to do a background check, just firearms dealers, and then not in all states), and your permit carrying coast to coast are a few examples of what I consider “sane” firearms laws.

        • DRJ

          The problem with “feel good” legislation be it environmental, civil rights, firearms is that there is no limit or stopping point.
          The Federal Government needs to deliver the mail, protect the shores and leave the rest up to the states. History has proven this on many fronts.

          Like you, I agree that it makes sense that a permit should be valid everywhere like a drivers license but I am opposed to that legislation as I believe it is no business of the federal government. These are states rights issues and those of us that carry 24/7 should stay away from California or be willing to deal with their laws. I only mentioned the left coast but there are several other places in the USofA that are not gun friendly.

          • Jesse Seal

            Since it’s the federal government’s duty to protect our rights laid out in the constitution, no state should be able to make laws that deny those rights. There wouldn’t have to be federal legislation if the courts would do their job and deem all of these anti gun laws unconstitutional.

          • 2BRKnot2B

            Pistol permits like permits for the right to freedom of speech, are “unconstitutional censorships, or prior restraints.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham) Shuttlesworth justices went on to quote Supreme Court of the U.S. decision, Staub v. Baxley noting, “And our decisions (note more than one) have made clear that anyone faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it, and engage with impunity in the right..for which the law purports to require a license.”
            “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama, 373 US 262

            Murdock v. PA made plain that any licensing of a right makes it a privilege, and as such, said licensing is unconstitutional. Further, Murdock stated that paying a fee for that right is unconstitutional, yet, PA is passing out permits to carry to any state with which they are reciprocal so long as you pony up the money for the pistol license. Seems PA didn’t learn, or hasn’t yet been taken to court to assure that payment to license is unconstitutional. “No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105

            Walker v. City of Brimingham noted that, “By like reason, where a permit has been arbitrarily denied, one need not pursue the long and expensive route to this Court to obtain a remedy. The reason is the same in both cases. For if a person must pursue his judicial remedy before he may speak, parade, or assemble, the occasion when protest is desired or needed will have become history and any later speech, parade, or assembly will be futile or pointless.” The same can be said to apply to the right to keep & bear arms. If one is dead because they did not have access to a self defense arm, then one cannot pursue a remedy. One effectively disarmed by the state through unconstitutional licensing law(s) is/are as guilty of a criminal act as one who perpetrates the assault, or murder of another.

            “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” – Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

            I could go on, but is there a need?

        • 2BRKnot2B

          Why do you continue to live in a neighborhood of insane individuals. That seems, well……insane itself.

      • Tsmom
        • DRJ

          Why? Because you found an anti-gun article in Washington Post? Amazing!!
          If you believe the Liberal Media to be telling the truth, you are part of the problem.

          If you believe in “sensible gun control” move to one of the police states…. or one of our disarmed states. They’ll welcome you with open arms and a “yes we can” button.

          • Tsmom

            Where do you get your news? Fox? How is that any different. Fact is, we are one of the only first world countries with this amount of gun violence. Keep believing what the NRA tells you (which makes you part of the problem), but facts are guns do not make us safer.

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gun-science-proves-arming-untrained-citizens-bad-idea/

            http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-good-guy-with-a-gun-myth-guns-do-not-make-you-safer/

            http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/smashing-absurd-myth-more-guns-make-us-safer

            I’m not against guns, I have them in my home. I just feel it’s time to start caring more for our kids than guns. We need common sense restrictions, tougher background checks, longer wait times and limits to which guns average citizens can own.

            Problem is, the NRA crazies can’t stand any type of restrictions, and they have to keep the lies going. Wayne LaPierre is pretty notorious for that.

          • lakeside227

            It’s not gun violence, it’s violence period. The gun is only a tool, just like a knife, a car, a bat, fists, poison, fire, medications, etc.

            The reasons people commit crimes must be addressed, restricting one tool will not do a darn thing. Our ‘justice’ system is broken and the people running our government don’t obey our Supreme Law. Unconstitutional gun laws won’t do anything but give the illegitimate government more power over the People.

            You are misguided.

          • Tsmom

            Not misguided, realistic. Had the weapon in Sandy Hook been a knife, likely many less children would have died.

          • DRJ

            Had a faculty member been armed less people would have died. The nut might have avoided the place altogether and tried something else. He picked a school because it was a soft unarmed target. One of these days 200 people will die at a Hospital or High School Football game.

          • lakeside227

            No, not realistic at all. You are very misguided to believe the propaganda about guns, gun crimes, and gun laws.

            If the school hadn’t been a gun free zone, if any of the employees had been armed, likely no one would have died except the shooter. That’s fact. A gun free zone is nothing but a shooting gallery for a criminal.

            You think that without guns, violence would drop, not so. Violence would increase because nothing has been done to address the reasons people commit crimes and our best defensive weapon has been taken from us.

            So, we would still have as much, or more, violence as we do now. However, you have removed the People’s ability to defend themselves. And, make no mistake, defensive gun use is much higher than gun crimes.

            Mass shootings are rare, it’s the everyday violence that gets ignored. Rapes, murders, assaults, robberies, thefts, beatings – all with one/two/three victims. That violence is committed using all kinds of weapons. That violence would not be affected at all by stricter gun laws.

            You are misguided because criminals don’t obey the laws we have now. More laws won’t affect them at all.

            Not to mention the biggest reason of all. The government has no authority to even make gun control laws. The 2nd Amendment forbids them – ‘…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

          • Tsmom

            Obviously you will not convince me anymore than I will convince you.

            The idea that people think guns in schools would help astounds me. It would lead to more killing. Teachers could easily be overpowered by a student, guns could be stolen by a student from there. Homes with guns are much more likely to have a child killed by guns, this would be no different. What a crock of shit to say likely no one would have died. Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better and let you keep your guns. I guess it’s easy to forget Columbine had armed guards.

            Look at countries with strict gun laws (Australia is a good example) much less gun violence, very little mass shootings. The fact is, most mass shooting are from legally obtained guns.

          • lakeside227

            It astounds you because you have no idea what you’re talking about. Why do people have armed body guards, hmmm? Why do we arm our police and military??

            Teachers overpowered by students? Guns stolen? You’re not thinking rationally. People wear their weapons, they don’t store them where it could be stolen. It’s no different from police or armed bodyguards. Students are not going to try and over-power an armed teacher — they would get shot before they got close enough to grab the gun. Use logic and not emotion.

            Yes, please look at Australia and Great Britain. They have less shootings, but their violent crime rates are astronomical. People are defenseless in those countries. The people in those countries want their guns back, unfortunately they don’t have the same Constitution and recognized and protected Rights that we have in this Country.

            As I said in my other comment, mass shootings are rare. You are ignoring the everyday violence that is committed with all types of weapons. Guns are not the problem. Violence is the problem, our (lack of) justice system is the problem.

          • Tsmom

            Oh please, you can’t look at facts. Look at the murder rates based on population.

            If you think my 6’2 14 year old couldn’t overpower most of his teachers, you are fooling yourself. I have a lot of close teacher friends I’ve discussed this with, and not one of them would want to carry a gun in school. They worry about hormonal teens, distracted teachers, someone coming into the school and grabbing the gun was another concern. Then the killers don’t even have to bother obtaining guns, they can just take them from staff….. great idea.

            People are more in danger from family members killing them than someone breaking into their home. Numerous studies have shown increased risk of death when having one in your home.

            As I said, neither of us is going to change our minds obviously. Have a good night.

          • lakeside227

            Nonsense. We use armed people to protect ourselves for a reason. You think ordinary citizens aren’t just as capable, or more capable, as police or body guards? Ridiculous. Of course your friends wouldn’t want to carry a gun. Their fears are without merit. A loaded weapon in the hands of a trained person trumps a hormonal teen every single day – even your 6’2″ 14 yr old.

            You have no clue.

          • JTCoyoté

            If the teachers where your 6’2″ 14 year old son goes to school were armed against the more dangerous threat of a Virginia Tech or Columbine situation,your son and other students may have and show more respect for their instructors to start with… Think about it.

            Bernie is no more than a wolf in socialist cloth… like Trump, he’s merely a diversion for division early on.

            JT

          • DRJ

            Well put!! I have to wonder if Trump isn’t actually a plant for the Socialist party. His wealth and influence would allow him to “Perot” this election.

          • 2BRKnot2B

            What astounds me is the delusion you have about guns. Why are cops armed? Some would say to prevent violence, but as we’ve seen of late, some have them because they became cops so they could murder another, and hope to get away with it. Fact is, cops have guns to protect themselves, and, on occasion, the citizenry. Recall the cops who shot the guy in NYC? He killed someone, cops surrounded him, and when all was said & done, 9 surrounding people were injured by the cops bullets, not one by the shooter himself. Statistics say that the homeowner, or person using a gun as self protection is something like 9 times more likely to hit his/her target than the cop shooting of a suspect. And what of innocent until proven guilty? Facts are undeniable, and various authors have noted that a higher incidence of guns in the hands of the public not only prevents crimes hundreds of thousands, if not millions of times yearly, but also deters some from committing crimes. Jailed criminals have stated they look for the easy target, not the armed individual, when they ply their trade, whether it be rape, robbery, or murder. The guy recently killed in Charleston, WV, a serial killer, was making dates with women who he knew to be unarmed so he could better strangle, rape, and then dismember & bury his victims. Hundreds of women are missing in the U.S., many because they are not armed, and many of those disarmed by law. So, how can you justify your arrogance when your ignorance shows. You blatantly ignore the facts for your own mental well being? How crass must you be to think that a knife killed student’s life is any less valuable than a gun killed student? You wish to minimize casualties by denying all arms, but if one arm was available, the odds of a shooter taking as many lives is minimized. Your logic astounds because it is so……..illogical.

          • 2BRKnot2B

            If so, then, still, children would have died. There is some debate on whether Sandy Hook even happened. I believe it did. There are too many problems with a government conspiracy cover up, such as the dead mother, the dead shooter, the dead children, the funerals. The fact remains that people die daily, and by various means, not simply gun violence. Far many more people die inner city due to drug & gang violence brought about by societal ills, and in my opinion the fact that inner city youth have no outlet for their criminal activity, and by that, I do not mean midnight basketball. I mean parents with decent jobs, religion in schools when morality is not taught in the home, or when the home doesn’t attend regular religious instruction with their children. Teaching that killing is wrong is almost the opposite of what inner city youth learn today through media, peers, famil. Youths are not taught personal responsibility, and how can they when they see mst folks around them doing irresponsible things, including their parents. We learn what we are taught and see. If we see Mom rooting in bed with every Juvon, DaNickoDemon-as, and HariKrisKnuckle, then we can expect that they will grow up to disrespect the marital bed, as well. If Mom doesn’t know how to keep her legs together how is her daughter going to be any less inspired. If Mom & Dad, are doing drugs, is junior going to deny it, and be a straight arrow, or is the lack of discipline of the parents passed on to the children, who then see drug dealing, and other criminal activity as an option to stay alive in a society where jobs have been sent overseas, where education is weak, and where it is spurned, and decried by their peers who bully anyone who tries to better themselves. When government hands out candy (money) it has stolen (see thievery) from taxpayers to redistribute to inner city folks who can’t find work, and after a time, simply give up how does that impact the child who sees a slovenly parent who wishes to not better themselves, but whop survives on handouts from the government? Therein lies the true problem America faces. Whereas folks like DuShawn once were relegated to picking apples, peaches, pears, tomatoes in the fields, today, he gets to sit on his ass at home, screw whichever of the natives he wishes, and that will let him, father numerous children with numerous mothers, who will then use welfare as a means of support , and when their uterus dries up will teach their next generation how to go on the permanent dole, and support them with the money, we have a broken system. That leads to strife, desire, arrogance, greed, and licentiousness. Idle hands are the devil’s workshop, and the devil is very busy these days. It’s not the gun. It’s the society which prepares the inner city youths to use the gun as a means of intimidation, and furtherance of the self (selfishness).

          • DRJ

            I too care more about kids and all innocent people’s lives than I do politics. Gun free zones are killing fields for crazies that wish to murder a group of unarmed people. It worked that way in France a few months ago and it has worked here several times in the last few decades. More armed citizens=less crime. Compare Chicago to Houston if you don’t believe this equation. As for the rest of the world; move there but don’t fall for this common sense gun control rhetoric. The bad guys don’t care about your feel good legislation and those laws are only the beginning steps by an out of control government that intends to disarm its citizens. There is no good reason that a citizen should not be armed as well as law enforcement. Armed citizens stop more armed robberies and assaults than law enforcement will ever be able to. The cops usually arrive in time to fill out a report and clean up the mess. That is the best any police department can do.

          • 7LibertyForAll

            I believe in the Bill of Rights……..”……the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. I don’t see anything whatsoever in those words that allows any “sensible gun control” or ANY meddling with that right. Either we are a nation of laws or we aren’t and the Constitution trumps any and all the color-of-laws that are inflicted on those who accept them.

          • DRJ

            Yes, Sensible Gun Control other than the use of both hands is like a sensible heart attack or cancer.

        • DRJ

          Tsmom; Do you have any idea why the Washington Post closed your article to comments? I believe I know why. Just think about it for a few minutes.

          • lakeside227

            Hmmmm…the article is close to a year old and has no comments. Wonder why??? 😉

          • DRJ

            And all previous comments were deleted. Wonder why???

          • lakeside227

            I’m thinking we’re both thinking the same thing… 😉

          • DRJ

            Yep, We’re both thinking which is a major challenge for several of these clabberheads

      • JTCoyoté

        The sane gun law is the seminal law, the 2nd Amendment, which forbids government from infringing on the right of the people, as individuals, from keeping and bearing Arms. The people as individuals by definition comprise and therefore ARE the militia.

        I think most folks get the fact that more guns equals less crime ala Dr. John Lott’s research in the late ’80s and early ’90s. However…

        What most folks don’t get is the fact that there was a takeover of government in the early ’60s. a huge well organized “conspiracy” and coup that began in earnest with the starting shots that took off the back of President John F. Kennedy’s head…

        Everything changed after that… yet as Gary Allen points out in his book “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” all have been taught through the media and in the schools, churches, and the work place since the coup that if you question government you are a kook or a conspiracy nut and are marginalized as such… This long term environmentally induced mental block is what people must get passed if we are ever to return our rightful Constitutional government to center stage once again.

        JT

        • DRJ

          JT You have a right to your opinion as do I. I don’t believe that “most people” believe that more armed citizens= less crime.

          There are different opinions on what was considered “the militia”
          I believe that the framers intended for the people to be armed to prevent a takeover by the militia should the government go out of control. You believe the people are the militia and in out 21st century world, that is undeniably correct. I really don’t care to get into a debate supported by the various historians and statesmen.

          Our country had just been occupied by a military that was the “long arm” of a tyrannical government and I will always believe that was the reason for the 2nd amendment.

          • JTCoyoté

            The militia by definition IS the people… the Army is the Army, Conscripted and paid by the government,…

            My opinion is based in historical fact your opinion as best I can read it is based in contemporary talking points skewed and promoted after the coup…

            You should read a bit of Revolutionary war history… there is a distinct difference between the American Militia which is non military 99% of the time, and is invested in the country, with businesses and families and farms etc. they are the people.

            The Armed Military, which the founders were apprehensive of in a standing capacity, Is a conscripted professional army invested in the interest of who pays it, whether for good or for ill.

            The 27 word second Amendment as it was original penned is clear on both the interchangeability of the words People and Militia and when diagrammed this is proved…

            the word regulated in the 18th century has a slightly different implication than it does today… today it leans toward controlled…as a result of it’s use with pressure as the steam engine gained favor. Back then it meant balanced and the founders wrestled with this Amendment a lot in the Federalist Anti-Federalist debates finally agreeing that the military power would be in the hands of the people and the states. so the balance of power would be wide spread as it is today in Switzerland. –JT

            “The right of individuals in a free society to possess “military-looking,”

            or even actual military weapons, is essential if a monopoly of force is

            not to reside in the hands of government, where modern history shows

            the potential for far greater abuses and crimes exists than are possible

            for any deranged individual.” ~RKBA Summary excerpt;

            per, Halbrook, LaPierre, Rice, Simkin & Zelman, based upon

            court findings in (Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. Reports 154 (1840),

            as cited in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

          • DRJ

            We are on the same side of the argument for the people’s right to keep and bare arms. It is unfortunate that you insist on claiming to fully understand the 18th century definitions when literally thousands of scholars today argue about that subject.

            I saw this coming and tried to avoid a silly debate so that’s fine; you have the last word and in your world, that is important.

            The subject matter of which we do agree and is most important is that the people have the right to own the state of the art, military small arms regardless of what period of history they live in. The Federal government has no right to pass laws limiting the performance, capacity, ammunition or any other factor not yet invented or developed. We failed miserably when
            we allowed this to happen in the 1930s and I don’t give a rat’s rear what the supreme court or any other bought and paid for scoundrel says about this subject. The supreme court has proven that they are no longer the supreme law of the land of freedom. They have appointed themselves as an extension of the executive and legislative branches which was never meant to be and can not be undone at the ballot box.

            DRJ out

    • Perhizzle

      “people shouldn’t have guns meant to kill other people” This would involve any gun that isn’t specifically a hunting weapon(which to liberals means it isn’t brown or camouflage). That means, according to Bernie’s logic, people shouldn’t have self defense weapons. He said it, in his own words.

  • Herbert Dunwash

    Bernie’s either an idiot or a liar. Background checks already exist and there is no such thing as “gun show loophole”.

    • Steve Weiss

      Actually a private seller does NOT have to do a background check, thus the gun show loophole.

      • Herbert Dunwash

        All merchants at any gun show I’ve ever been to does DO background checks.

      • Gary Causer

        Criminals pay no attention to your unenforceable laws..

        Go Trump

        Molon labe

      • Herbert Dunwash

        Have you ever been to a gun show?

      • Gary Causer

        Criminals don’t obey laws!

        Go TRUMP

        Molon labe

      • 2BRKnot2B

        An individual selling to another is not a freakin’ gun show dimwit. Geesh these leftists are about dumb as poop.

    • 7LibertyForAll

      Either the Second Amendment is legitimate or it is not. “……the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” I see no ambiguity whatsoever in those words. ANYTHING they present as law, code, statute, regulation, etc. has no legitimacy on our inherent rights of which the Bill of Rights mentions a very few. None of the crap they’ve written is Constitutional, AT ALL.

      • Herbert Dunwash

        You are absolutely correct. I need to keep this in mind when I find myself getting sucked into these anti gun arguments.

      • David Nunez

        So when was the “well regulated” part taken out of the second amendment?

        • Manius

          This again? …

          What part says that a well regulated militia must exist at all times to justify firearm ownership?

          Common sense implies that the right to keep and bear arms is a prerequisite to forming a “well regulated militia” in the first place. It would be a little bit challenging to form a well regulated militia if everyone is disarmed, don’t you think?

          Even if the right they were documenting was ONLY to form a militia (very debatable of course), you need to be permitted to own firearms in order to do that–so the clauses are inseparable.

          Denying this is like saying, “You’re free to make an egg sandwich any time you want–but egg ownership is prohibited unless it’s in an egg sandwich!”

          (I guess this is where someone comes along to change the topic and say, “Well the Constitution is outdated, we don’t need militias anyway!”)

        • 7LibertyForAll

          So, what kind of a question is that?

    • DRJ

      Yes to all

  • Gary Causer

    Really enjoy this guy making a fool out of self…..

    Go Trump

    Molon labe

    • DRJ

      The scary thing is that so many clabber-heads think he is a patriot. Remember; this is the country that elected Dumbama twice.

      • Gary Causer

        He knows we don’t live in urban areas

        Go TRUMP

        Molon labe

      • lakeside227

        Dumbama…hahahaha…that’s a good one. Haven’t heard that one before.

        • DRJ

          I must confess to being the author of that disambiguation.

          It is more politically correct than others I’ve read.

      • Gary Causer

        I was surprised he stooped to pandering. I didn’t think it was necessary to be a rubber stamp for the left-wing loons…who lose more elections than they win!

        But, don’t listen to me Bernie. …

        We are going to put her in jail. .

        Go TRUMP

        Molon labe

  • 7LibertyForAll

    This does not surprise me at all; this collectivist has been spewing his unAmerican crapola for some time now. What a piece of work this gasbag is.

  • Banjolina Violetta

    This gun ban stuff is nonsense. Get your info from the man and his record if you have any interest in knowing what he thinks about gun rights, laws, control. This man is running to bring back economic balance to the working class and restore democracy by cleaning up corruption. http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

    • DRJ

      He is a self proclaimed, Pro U.N. Socialist. He also believes that the military and law enforcement should be armed better than the citizens.

      If you view this as any kind of restoration of America, you need to do your homework.

      • David Nunez

        The military and police forces are socialist organizations and they have virtually always been better armed than citizens…..

        Maybe you have some homework to do or maybe you can show me where to buy tanks, tomahawk missiles and nukes..

        • DRJ

          It is true that the military will always have the larger weapons that civilians can’t afford to own or even operate.
          There is absolutely no good reason that law enforcement and the military should be allowed more small arms fire power than the armed citizens. If the government decides to disarm the free citizens, they should meet state of the art small arms resistance.
          I really don’t understand your comment about me doing my homework unless it was an attempt at arrogant, smart-assery.
          That frequently is the anti-gun argument that we patriots can’t own the large scale weapons so why are we so interested in owning an AK47 or an AR15? I suspect you are not part of that crowd so I have to question your confusion on the matter.

        • 2BRKnot2B

          America never had a standing army of any means prior to WWII. So, your supposition is wrong. The military hasn’t “always” been better armed. In fact prior to WWII, they were wondering how to train our troops without guns, and ammo. They were drilling with sticks.

          • Doc Rob

            The US did in-fact have a standing Army prior to WWII.
            It wasn’t large, around 180 thousand, but it was still a standing Army.

        • Gene Harris

          Actually you would be incorrect on that statement. The original Military was armed by what the individual soldier owned they used the same weapon for defense and hunting. The Police were armed in the same manner. Remember most people were armed 24/7 not just during hunting season. They had a reason to always have their arms readily available it was called self defense from what ever they precieved be it an unruly neighbor and attack by natives or from their own government. By the time Tanks , Tomahawk missiles and Nukes were invented there were laws put in place to strictly control those types of armament so please do some homework of your own.

    • 2BRKnot2B

      I don’t want a restoration of some form of supposed democracy. If he has to institute a form of democracy, that means we are living in a totalitarian state. A police state, yes, but not quite totalitarian. Getting closer by the year, but not there yet. What I want is a return to republican form of government, where the people actually elect folks who represent them, and their interests within the bounds of the Constitution. The state’s rights must be returned by undoing the 17th Amendment, and the people have to be taxed less, so the 16th Amendment needs overturning, as well. Find me a candidate willing to do those two things, and repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and we’re gonna win some converts Otherwise,, write me in, because those are things I would work to do. Maybe even work on a Constitutional Convention, too where the people can work out how we intend to proceed. Maybe at that point they can overturn 16 & 17.We need to stop the spending, stop the government thievery resulting in redistribution, and stop the borrowing,pay off the debt, and stop creating inflation by cutting government overspending.Undo mandates to the states,, and then they can undo one’s on the counties, towns, and municipalities. Sanders is a socialist who either believes in the redistribution, or who would instead work to make all subservient to government, paid by them, working for them, and taxed by them. Same system worked so well in the Soviet Union that the people couldn’t find bread, even if they could afford it, and meat? Forget about it.

    • DRJ

      Economic balance is a veiled term for Socialism which is the entry level of Communism. Rob from the rich and give to the poor and the rich quit writing paychecks in a free society. This man if elected will be a study of corruption.

    • Gene Harris

      If in fact that be the case then why has he shown no such tendency in his voting record as a ranking Member of the Finance Committee instead he has voted for more taxation on the middle to lower class and not introduced anything that would restore the original intent of the founding fathers that Corporate, Industry Import and Excise taxes would fund the U.S. Government instead he has left it to the ones that he feels he has most control over the Middle and lower classes

  • teflonron

    2nd Amendment, Bern, choke on it.

    • David Nunez

      Can he cough up the “well regulated” part?

      • Manius

        Hmm. What part says that a well regulated militia must exist at all times to justify firearm ownership?

        Common sense implies that the right to keep and bear arms is a prerequisite to forming a “well regulated militia” in the first place. It would be a little bit challenging to form a well regulated militia if everyone is disarmed, don’t you think?

        Even if the right they were documenting was ONLY to form a militia (very debatable of course), you need to be permitted to own firearms in order to do that–so the clauses are inseparable.

        Denying this is like saying, “You’re free to make an egg sandwich any time you want–but egg ownership is prohibited unless it’s in an egg sandwich!”

        (I guess this is where someone comes along to change the topic and say, “Well the Constitution is outdated, we don’t need militias anyway!”)

  • Gary Causer

    He’s advocating taking guns away from…..blacks!

    Whitie don’t live in the urban area no mo!

    Go TRUMP

    Molon labe

    • DaveMan50

      Says who? Trump is a rich ass, all ego.

      • Gary Causer

        And your not….

        So, i ain’t voting for you!

        We win…we win…. Hillary goes to prison!

        Go Trump

        Molon labe

        • Doc Rob

          If you vote for Trump, you’re voting for someone who has said he supports the assault weapons ban, socialized healthcare, and has open called himself a liberal.

          • Gary Causer

            You keep bringing up info from many years ago and refuse to listen to the man. Keep voting like you did the last few elections. You will deserve it….

            We don’t Trump supporters don’t care what the propaganda is! Or if Rosie hates him….or the Kochs…lol

            Go Trump

            Molon labe

          • supergun

            You must have just woke up from a bad coma.

      • supergun

        So~ Sounds like you are an angry ole fart.

    • supergun

      The Black People are the most infringed upon people concerning guns in America. They should stand up for their 2nd Amendment Rights.

      • Gary Causer

        Well, we white guys in the NRA ain’t to worried about no more. Thanks to the Supreme Court and the Congressmen we bought…

        Blacks in those cities run by the Democrat political machines?

        Go Trump

        Molon labe

        • supergun

          I know what you mean, but there are a lot of good BLACKS that need and want guns for protection. Numbers mean strength for the NRA. Besides, we won’t ever be able to keep the bad guys from having guns, although the stupid liberals believe they can.

          • Gary Causer

            I’m convinced the Dems have lost twice as many voters over their incoherent stance on guns….

            The main fear is arming blacks to lead to open season on blacks and cops…

            Don’t confuse these people with the fact we have that now in many cities run by the Democrat political machine!

            Which simply translates as these people are crapping in their own yards..

            Go Trump

            Molon labe

          • supergun

            Only the stupid keep doing that which is stupid. Let them keep trying to abolish the 2nd Amendment. We may be weak in many parts, but America is strong in that department. That is why America remains FREE. As for the stupid voters that keep putting these morons in office, the Founding Fathers had no answer for that.

  • Faith Foster

    Show of hands for people who read the headline and not the article?

    • DaveMan50

      Not me!

  • DaveMan50

    It seems this is a hack job. The headline is a lie. The fight about guns is crap. If you take all the guns people will just use knifes!!! WTF is the argument?

    • Actually…no, as one crafty individual shows in a youtube clip titled “Why gun control will never happen in the United States” ( I think that’s what it’s called ) you can build a single shot, hand held “shot gun” that fires a single shot gun round. You build it completely from scrap pieces of threaded metal plumbing/conduit. Is it rapid fire? No. Does it produce long range shots? No. Is it effective at close range? Absolutely. It also demonstrates that in the U.S., determined, skilled, crafty people with access to materials and tools will be able to build their own weapons and even ammunition if they so desire. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmBXFK3id2A

  • DaveMan50

    Still Domboma is the second in stupid. No one can beat the “Shrub” (Little Bush) for stupid!

    • DRJ

      The last Commander In Chief this country had was George W Bush. Please enlighten us as to how he was intellectually inferior and to whom if you can.

    • kafir4life

      Did you forget about President Stinky (BO), the White House feces?

  • 2BRKnot2B

    Everything he mentioned in the article is already law, bogus, unconstitutional law (see meaning of ‘infringed’.

  • andyou

    This article is a load of crap. The author is either intentionally or unintentionally defining A position that is not true. Bernie Sanders is against assault weapons but he very strong on other types of guns. If you want to see Sanders actual stand on guns, go to http://www.feelthebern.org.

    • vanscott

      define “assault weapons”??? He is a Socialist old curmudgeon. He is wrong!

      • Tony

        There’s a clear definition you can look up, select fire capable of fully automatic fire. I doubt Bernie has a clue.

    • DRJ

      If he is against military style semi auto rifles that Libtards often refer to as “Assault Weapons” he is an enemy of freedom. Many of us don’t really care about hunting but will always remain armed with the current technology of small arms. Any politician or voter that is confused about this 2nd Amendment right is an enemy of freedom and liberty even if out of ignorance. There sure seems to be an ample supply of this ignorance going around these days.

    • supergun

      So called assault weapons are not assault weapons, idiot. They also account for less crime than any other weapons out there. The common pistols and revolvers are the most used weapons. IF YOU CAN BAN ONE TYPE OF FIREARM, THEN YOU CAN BAN THE REST. If anyone like bernie can destroy the 2nd Amendment, then all the rest of the amendments will fall.

    • Gene Harris

      in This article he said any gun designed to kill people and not for hunting. If in fact you do a little research they are all designed for the same purpose it really don’t matter what you are talking about. Assault rifles were designed to put more lead down range while a cartridge style Firearm was designed for the same purpose in a different time. Guns were designed to kill period they were not designed to hunt. And far as hunting goes the Military hunt for the enemy much the same as the individual hunt for their prey. So Bernie in one simple statement has said he wants to ban all firearms for Americans. He is nothing but a joke he is for bigger government and less rights of the people while pushing one industry over another. He isn’t for the advancement of the rights of the people but the rights of big Government and Big industry which promotes big Government.

    • Roger Long

      Define Assault. All guns are assault weapons.

  • McCabe

    How much blood is it worth, bat-shit Bernie?

  • supergun

    This man (so called man) is one of the anti-Americans that live amongst us in America. He is very dangerous to America’s freedom, liberty, justice and the pursuit of happiness. He comes from a long line of communist.

  • Ron Patriot

    This is not about protecting people, its about protecting the government!

  • Blaine Smith

    Bernie, eat shit.

  • FlCracker2

    The Dems and their geriatric “front runners” SMH Just take them to the rest home and keep them out of Washington.

  • Hey, Bernie…Idiot, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It’s is so we have weapons to use on people like you who would try to take them from us.

  • ExRadioGuy15

    Hey, Ray Williams!
    Where does it say, anywhere within the Second Amendment, that you can have as many guns and as much ammunition as you want? Hmmm?
    Where does it say that gun ownership is needed to stave off a future Fascist government (which is here NOW; it’s called the Republican Party)? US citizens levying war against the United States is one of three definitions of TREASON.
    The ACTUAL wording of the Second Amendment: “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. If you take a strict, literal interpretation of that, you would need to be a part of a “well regulated militia” to own a gun!
    Gun Nuts like Ray employ six logical fallacies to try and justify their gun lunacy. Those of us, like me, who possess intelligence AND sanity aren’t buying your BS, Ray. If you want unlimited ownership of guns and ammo, renounce your US citizenship and move to Somalia…..they’ve got a small and weak government plus the “freedom” you crave so much.

    • Ken Boyd

      The 2nd Amendment was here before you.

    • sgthwjack

      Regarding militia;

      “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
      — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

      As in “the right of the people…”

    • Perhizzle

      “where does it say, anywhere within the second amendment, that you ca have as many guns and as much ammunition as you want? Hmm?”

      Right here: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

      Unless you don’t understand what an infringement is, it’s pretty straight forward. You even put that quote in your own post where you questioned it. Queue Inigo Montoya, because I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Here, I’ll once again supply you with the facts you need.

      in·fringe·ment

      noun

      the action of limiting or undermining something.

      Straight from the dictionary… brah

    • David P.

      “Where does it say, anywhere within the Second Amendment, that you can have as many guns and as much ammunition as you want? Hmmm? ”

      The exact same place where you can find in the First Amendment your right to express your speech on the Internet.

      “Where does it say that gun ownership is needed to stave off a future Fascist government ”

      Easy: “being necessary to the security of a free State”

      “(which is here NOW; it’s called the Republican Party)”

      Right, because Republicans want to GROW government? Nope, that would be Democrats. Perfect example of fascism is the government controlling private companies: ACA.

      “US citizens levying war against the United States is one of three definitions of TREASON. ”

      I’m sure King George III thought the EXACT same thing when the Americans levied war against his government as well. See: Declaration of Independence. You’ve obviously never read it.

      “The ACTUAL wording of the Second Amendment: ‘a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’. If you take a strict, literal interpretation of that, you would need to be a part of a “well regulated militia” to own a gun! ”

      Nope, what is means, if you are into STRICT interpretation is that in order to maintain a free state, a militia is necessary and in order to form a militia, the people have a right to keep and bear arms.

      Oh, Hamilton explained that “well-regulated”, in context to a militia, meant “well-trained”. See: Federalist 19.

      English not your strong suite, bro?

      “Gun Nuts like Ray employ six logical fallacies to try and justify their gun lunacy. Those of us, like me, who possess intelligence AND sanity”

      Well, the intelligence part has just been proven false… and you’d have to be insane to think that it’s necessary to disarm people NOW because YOU are unable to see the future and a possible rise of an tyrannical state (which, you also claimed existed now with the GOP).

      “If you want unlimited ownership of guns and ammo, renounce your US citizenship and move to Somalia…..”

      Weakest. Argument. Ever.

      Do you always follow the KOSkid pact or do you ever find the time to think for yourself?

      • Mike Price

        You must have flunked history class or slept thru it in high school.

    • exsanguine

      Are you truly this stupid or do you have to practice?

      TheStupid™ It Burns.

    • Roger Long

      Hey there ex-radio guy, You need a lesson in English. In the original Second Amendment, this comes from the archives, you omitted two commas, which changes the meaning. The way the Second Amendment was written is as follows: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right
      of the people to keep and bear arms, shall no be infringed. The Second Amendment does not limit how many weapons we can own. Also the Second Amendment says that if a government gets too powerful, we the people have the obligation to throw the bums out and reform a new government. NOT TREASON. You make yourself look stupid, look before you leap.

  • ExRadioGuy15

    Despite the ACTUAL wording of the Second Amendment, I’d settle for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane, and that includes psychopathic cops. Don’t call it “gun control”…that’s a misnomer and Gun Nut propaganda. It’s “people control”, as in, there are two groups of people who should not have access to weapons.
    The only reason the Gun Nuts have a problem with denying access to weapons for criminals and the insane is that many of them fall into one of those two categories. So, I have some advice for you: actions speak louder than words… if you don’t want me to correctly call you “Gun Nuts” anymore, stop ACTING like Gun Nuts. Don’t be criminals, either.

    • Obi Sean

      Really?

    • Perhizzle

      Ah, you said the magic words, “people control”. You keep defeating yourself in your own posts. It’s quite hilarious. Everyone knows that Bernie Sanders and any other self proclaimed socialist, is all about controlling people. That is what they want. They will continue to try to sell it as helping out people incapable of helping themselves, and dumb lazy people will continue to follow them… it’s sad really.

    • davol

      You seem to think of yourself as someone the Government would never consider ‘criminal’ or ‘insane.’ May you continue to enjoy our sleep since I’m too polite to wish the rude awakening of the state for some asinine reason being wrong about you on anybody.

    • exsanguine

      Until the ‘State’ decides who is insane. You like hetero sex? Well that just isn’t normal. Sorry, give us your guns.

      Decide what level of criminality is unable to get a weapon. had a misdemeanor? Sorry, going to need you to give us your guns.

  • cargosquid

    So….ol’ Bernie wants to infringe the rights of people depending upon their zip code.

    Right….and since the majority of African Americans live in the city, Bernie will be infringing upon the rights of minorities…..which IS the historic goal of all gun control.

    Well done, Bernie! You’ve joined the ranks of Bloomberg and other closet KKK members.

    • infadelicious

      Bingo !

    • Geralt_0f_Rivia

      “…which IS the historic goal of all gun control”

      Exactly! For the anti-gun tribe it has always been about disarming Black people, and divesting them of their rights, but the GCZ can no longer just come out and matter-of-factly say so, since it runs contrary to the “champion of minorities” narrative.

  • John McMickle

    This is not about the control of firearms. IT IS SIMPLY ABOUT CONTROL!!! Make absolutely positive that no one can resist.

  • adburger

    This is necessary for the communist party to rule.

  • justavenger

    Bernie Sanders and his followers must be destroyed by all means possible. Tyrannical leaders like Sanders need to be disposed of like those in the French Revolution body and publicly.

  • Mike Price

    The government is scared of people with guns. They have to take them to rule over you. Simple as that. He who has the gun rules. They have control of the press. Just need control of the guns now. Which means no guns.

  • PoliticallyIncorrect2

    And THEN they came for my guns and there was no one left to speak out…then they came for me.

  • davol

    Wow, lost my vote there. He sounds too Jewish for my stomach anyway.

    • mrtapeguy

      And you sound like a bigot.

  • Jarrod Arnett

    What did you expect coming from a socialist, “ban guns that can kill people ” any gun can kill, and that will be the phrase they’ll use to take every gun

    • Banjolina Violetta

      Democratic Socialism, sir..it what built your roads, schools, hospitals, police & fire depts, and the social safety net programs that keep people from dying. You (and many others here) seem to be confused about this political philosophy. You’re thinking of communism, facism (we have that now in many respects/police state for some, corporate wage slavery for others). Take a look at the man’s platform, this article is misinfotainment for propaganda purposes! Looks like the masses need little encouragement to be sent running for their bunkers to hunker down and wait for the gun collector to come over. http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy

  • CombatVette

    Apparently this moron, like all the anti-gunners, doesn’t realize that the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting. It’s about preventing a tyrannical government from taking our guns (and other freedoms) away. What an idiot!

    • hihoze

      The Jews in Amsterdam could have made life in their narrow streets a real street fight against the 18 year old German boys who rounded them up for extermination. The Jews in Warsaw could have sent more Nazis to hell with more guns. All of them were victims of Bernie Sanders brand of big government called Socialism and the new Democratic Socialist Party.

    • Banjolina Violetta
  • WardDorrity

    To Mr. Sanders – it’s really very simple and direct. The Second Amendment exists to protect people like me from people like you. Modern history is strewn with the monuments of the achievements of you and your ilk: poverty, tyranny, the gulag, the execution pit and the mass grave.

  • hihoze

    Big Government Socialism has to be forced onto people “in order for it to work fairly”,that’s their reasoning and that force is always done by laws enforced at the point of “their gun”. The Second Amendment is about leveling that playing field.

  • mrtapeguy

    Uh…I’m 100% pro-2nd Amendment but this is a bullshit click-bait headline. Sanders said no such thing. Not even close. Did the author or any of the people commenting even bother to listen to the video? This writer needs to go work for Think Progress or some other liberal rag where they make shit up as a matter of course.

  • Banjolina Violetta

    TRUTH in MEDIA = NOT SO MUCH. Read the man’s own platform and look up his record. You have nothing to fear unless you are insane or have proven yourself to a (violent) menace. http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/

  • Banjolina Violetta

    BERNIE SANDERS ON GUN POLICY

    Overall, Bernie Sanders believes in a middle-ground solution in the national gun debate, saying in a recent interview:

    “Folks who do not like guns [are] fine. But we have millions of people who are gun owners in this country — 99.9 percent of those people obey the law. I want to see real, serious debate and action on guns, but it is not going to take place if we simply have extreme positions on both sides. I think I can bring us to the middle.”

    Gun Control: Gun control legislation should ultimately fall on individual states, with the exception of instant background checks to prevent firearms from finding their way into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, and a federal ban on assault weapons.

    Manufacturer Liability: Gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the misuse of their products, just as any other industry isn’t held accountable for how end-consumers use their products.

    Gun Control

    Bernie believes that gun control is largely a state issue, because attitudes and actions with regards to firearms differ greatly between rural and urban communities. Nevertheless, Bernie believes there are situations where the federal government should intervene. He voted in favor of requiring background checks to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of felons and the mentally ill, passing a federal ban on assault weapons, and closing loopholes which allows private sellers at gun shows and on the internet to sell to individuals without background checks.

    What examples are there to show this divide between rural and urban communities?

    The state of Vermont, which Bernie represents as senator, is the most gun-friendly state in the nation, while at the same time it boasts the absolute lowest rate of gun-related crime.

    How does Bernie believe gun legislation in the United States should be handled?

    Bernie believes in middle-ground legislation:

    “[C]oming from a rural state, I think I can communicate with folks coming from urban states where guns mean different things than they do in Vermont where it’s used for hunting,. That’s where we’ve got to go. We don’t have to argue with each other and yell at each other. We need a common-sense solution.”

    To what extent does Bernie believe that gun regulation should be a federal issue?

    Bernie has voted in favor of a nationwide ban on assault weapons, a nationwide ban on high-capacity magazines of over ten rounds, and nationwide expanded background checks that address unsafe loopholes.

    Bernie believes assault weapons, as well as magazines holding more than ten bullets, should be banned nationwide. Why?

    In a recent speech, Bernie explained that, in his view, assault weapons should be categorically banned:

    The gun show loophole should be closed to prevent private sellers from selling firearms without background checks.

    What is the gun show loophole?

    Federal law currently stipulates that only licensed firearms dealers are required to conduct background checks. The gun show loophole is a political term referring to the ability of private sellers to sell to private buyers without the need of any background check. Currently only ten states require background checks for purchases at gun shows. Moreover, according to theFirearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, a private seller is classified as any seller who doesn’t rely on gun sales as the principal way of making their living. Because of this, it is easy to imagine that many individuals who have a regular source of income, outside of selling firearms, can claim that they are not private sellers. This allows these individuals to exploit the gun show loophole and sell guns without requiring background checks.

    What does Bernie propose to do about this?

    Bernie has voted in favor of expanded background checks for all commercial sales with an exemption for sales between “family, friends, and neighbors”. Bernie has also voted in favor of a national instant background check system.

    How else does Bernie believe we can address gun-related atrocities such as those committed in communities like Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz., Chattanooga, Tenn., and Charleston, S.C.?

    Bernie believes that we have a crisis in addressing mental health issues in this country, saying in a recent interview:

    “We need strong sensible gun control, and I will support it. But some people think it’s going to solve all of our problems, and it’s not. You know what, we have a crisis in the capability of addressing mental health illness in this country. When people are hurting and are prepared to do something terrible, we need to do something immediately. We don’t have that and we should have that.”

    Given that 23 percent of the perpetrators of mass shootings have been found to suffer from mental health issues, Bernie believes that expanding access to mental health care can address some of the root causes of gun-related violent crime.

    Learn more about Bernie’s stances regarding access to mental health care here. Also, learn about his policies with regards to addressing other structural causes of violent crime here.

    Manufacturer Liability

    Bernie voted in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which prevents manufacturers and dealers of firearms from being sued for negligence as the result of the misuse of their products.

    Manufacturers and sellers of firearms should not be held accountable for the misuse of their products.

    What legislation has Bernie voted in favor of to support this?

    Bernie voted in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prevents firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence as the result of the misuse of their products.

    Why does Bernie support this?

    In a recent interview, Bernie said:

    “Now, the issues that you’re talking about is, if somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer, and that murderer kills somebody with the gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not anymore than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beat somebody over the head with a hammer. That is not what a lawsuit should be about.”

    In other words, the instrument itself cannot be held responsible for the being misused by the individual.

    © 2015 FEELTHEBERN.ORG