“There is no single or simple solution to this crisis. In my view, Congress must consider a comprehensive approach which includes a serious discussion about guns, the need for greatly expanded mental health services and ending gratuitous violence [in] the media.” – Sen. Bernie Sanders in Why the most liberal candidate for president opposes strict gun control [at washingtonpost.com]
What crisis?
The “government doesn’t have more control yet” crisis.
Well never let a crisis… nevermind
Saunders is something of an odd duck. This about ‘second amendment socialists’ is a valid point. A lot of gun owners I know skew populist, I do on the right for the most part.
And Saunders doesn’t seem to be a mealy mouthed greaseball like Clinton. The guy speaks out.
In the end, ‘socialist’ doesn’t even matter, I wont get past ‘democrat’ That’s enough for me.
Sanders is running to make Hitlery look more mainstream, so she can say “at least I’m not a socialist “.
Yeah, he’s a flimsy foil for the Hillary juggernaut
I think it’s fair to refer to the daily gang-related murders in large urban areas as a crisis, or part of a larger crisis of dysfunctional communities.
It’s not a crisis to be dealt with at the national or even the state level. The big liberal cities in this country have created their own problems, and the big liberal cities need to deal with them.
Unfortunately the only way they seem to be able to “fix” it is to pointlessly restrict those of us who don’t commit murder (or any other violent crime for that matter) or have any ties to gangs.
“What Crisis” is absolutely the best first comment. The moment I read the first sentence of Sanders’ statement that was my immediate thought.
Sanders’ (and the antis’) manufactured “crisis” is just fodder for demanding national, rather than local, 2A infringement legislation.
^ this
Park Sanders in a hug-me coat and this “problem” evaporates.
The freaks come out at night folks, the window is closing and the more extreme agendas are going to be pushed.
Push back harder.
Yeah, violence in the media should be less gratuitous – in that it should cost more and benefit the state.
“Second Amendment Socialist.”
“Jews for Jesus.”
“Klansmen for the Advancement of Colored people.”
“Dogs United for Feline Justice.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_for_Jesus
Actually real socialists all love the 2nd amendment. Marx himself advocated for an armed proletariat.
Only those who hijack and distort socialism for their own perverted ends (and in doing so end all relation to actual socialism) want to disarm the populace. Also Bernie ISN’T a socialist, hes a SOCIAL DEMOCRAT, there is a huge difference.
I think “strict” and “oppose” don’t mean what the Washington Post thinks they do…
This guy is a flat out Marxist, and we all know how well protected gun rights are in Marxist states.
Technically, Marxists are pro-second amendment until they are in power and the people become a threat to their regime.
“What is a left-wing socialist but a Marxist without a gun” – Don Feder
Marxists are all about gun rights, .govs gun rights.
Oh boy, the old “violence in tv and video games” scapegoat that both sides love to use. There’s never been a study linking watching violence on TV or playing violent video games to performing acts of violence. FYI the guy who started all that with Columbine and Doom was DISBARRED because of it.
Interesting Through the wormhole had a segment about how violent video games increase empathy in the player outside the game
Fun fact: Mobile Suit Gundam was taken off of Cartoon Network because of 9/11.
Please tell me why nobody has hung this commie yet.
Because it’s still a free country?
If he refers to “gun violence” as “this crisis”, then there’s no way in Hell he can be considered pro-2A.
Government and comprehensive. How’s that working out with comprehensive healthcare reform? BTW, Hawaii’s healthcare exchange system just failed irreparably.
I understand why politicians like comprehensive since it feeds their ego and sense of importance. It also allows them to claim they’ve done something while claiming the bad things in the comprehensive weren’t their fault or idea. If comprehensive is involved, it’s no good period.
The comprehensive part is easy, “shall not be infringed”. The crisis part is weeding out the progtards in office who refuse to honor their oaths to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.
How about taking steps to reign in our feral underclass that’s disproportionately responsible for gun related violence?
I initialyl misread your statement as federal underclass thinking you were making a point about federal politicians.
Then I realized that that does not really change your point in a substantive way. Interesting, that.
I dont trust him.
Voted against the Brady Bill.
Check.
Voted for gun manufacturer protection from lawsuits.
Check.
Voted against CCW reciprosity.
Hold on!
Supports AWB.
Nope!
Then voted for UBCs.
WTF?
Pfffftpt.
He’s open minded.
*gag*
Only a fool would even consider voting for someone who has gun control mentioned in their parties platform. If guns are your issue, than voting for a Democrat is a mistake.
So, you support single-issue voting?
I will stand up to be counted as a single-issue voter. I take “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” very seriously. Without life, there is no liberty nor pursuit of happiness. And with a means to protect that life, you are at the mercy of any predator, be it a street criminal or the government. Any politician who does not respect my right to protect myself by keeping and bearing arms is my enemy, and a potential threat to my freedom and my life itself.
I do.
There are a number of “single issues” that adequately define the “character” of the politically philosophy of a candidate as a jackass, Marxist,, libtard etc and thus to be scorned. Anti 2nd is certainly one such “issue”.
That does NOT equal single issue voting. It equals rejecting a progressive POS.
It isn’t so much single issue voting as it is sample voting. A politician’s stance on firearms freedom is a proxy for their stance on a great many other of the most important issues. Firearms freedom reflects in large part one’s entire political philosophy. Pro-individual, freedom, accountability, responsibility, and, yes, respect for our culture and heritage.
Firearms freedom delineates the relationship between government and the governed. There are always exceptions, I’m sure, but if you get firearms freedom right, chances are you have a compatible stance on most other issues. Get it wrong, and we very likely have nothing left to talk about.
Make that “without a means” in the third sentence.
“…which includes a serious discussion about guns”
Discussion?
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Avoid Mr. Sanders like the plague. He is, at a molecular level, anti-gun.
Vermont is strange when it comes to gun rights. The population is weighted in Chittenden County, and at the center, Burlington sits. That city that tried to pass un-Constitutional laws against firearms in the past year (failed because, well, the proposals were un-Constitutional). In this “progressive” bubble, those supporting Mr. Sander’s politics are infallible. The rest of the state, not so much.
Vermont is a constitutional carry state, yet we have no indoor firearms ranges and our outdoor ranges are under attack from neighbors complaining about noise and using such complaints to press their anti-gun views. Our legislature recently passed a sanitized background check bill that accomplishes NOTHING and was signed by our governor who promised to not sign it.
Despite this, we are at the cusp (hours/days) from passing legislation to finally allow suppressors/silencers in the State (banned for over 100 years). It’s traveling through an economic stimulus bill (allows the manufacture of silencers, and thus the possession). I’m not picky about how it gets through, just let it get through. Fingers crossed on that one.
But yeah, Mr. Sanders is vehemently anti-gun, do not let any of his political rhetoric cloud this fact.
Is re-purposing an abandoned mine a possibility for a range?
Zero noise issues…
I guess a statist doesnt need “strict” gun control when he could spread out all that “strict” into media censorship and expanding the tent of mental illness.
Instead of taking 100% of his statism and lumping it onto guns he’s going to spread it out, 33%, 33% and 33%.
Of course all three of those percentages will creep up until they hit 100% across the board but lets not worry about that. Just know that in this particular soundbite at this particular moment Bernie doesnt want your guns. Sort of.
How many times has socialist Sanders been the deciding vote on anything? His is a junk vote, to show that he’s there, vote. With so many congressmen voting one way or the other, his ass is always covered.
Ewwww…an actual socialist-too left-wing to run as an “independent”. Yeah WAY left of the hildebeast.
Sanders is as pro-gun as Chris Christie.
So trample on the second amendment with gun control, the first with censorship and take a dump on due process with “metal health reforms” all in the name of ending your phantom “crisis” – no thanks Bernie.
We should elect Bernie just for the entertainment value alone. No one in Congress would do anything he asked for and the evening news would once again be must see TV.
The article ends by calling Sanders a “Second Amendment socialist”. What a joke. Only the most fervent anti-gun zealots could consider Sanders pro-gun. He wants more gun control, as stated elsewhere in the article:
If you support an assault weapons ban, and want to ban all weaponlike or military-style firearms, you don’t support the rights protected by the Second Amendment, period. It’s my opinion that the Brooklyn-raised Sanders is privately anti-gun, but being involved in Vermont politics his constituency has always been against more gun control and so he’s never pushed for it. Of course he doesn’t own a gun. The evidence article presents that Sanders is pro-gun is that he has not been outspoken supporter of gun control and has voted to prevent frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers whose products have been misused to harm people. That’s just common sense, and those lawsuits are only supported by extreme anti-gunners as a way to punish and erode the firearms industry which they view as evil. No other industry is considered responsible for the misuse of their products. These people don’t want car and plane manufacturers shut down because someone misused them to commit mass murder.
I respect Sanders, who has backbone, far more than I do the Clintons, who are craven focus-group robot candidates. But pro-gun he is not.
Congress should have nothing to do with it.
Congress should have nothing to do with anything.
Comments are closed.