We need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, should not be sold in the United States of America.
Bernie Sanders
July 26, 2015
Bernie Sanders: Racism, Economic Inequality are ‘Parallel Problems’
[Don’t let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns. And don’t let Sanders become president.—Joe]
Communists always hate privately owned weapons, for good reason. Lenin expressed the reason well:
“One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”
And Stalin followed up:
“If the opposition disarms, all is well and good. If it refuses to
disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
So Bernie is merely traveling in the well-traveled footsteps of his heroes.
And don’t forget the follow up.
And let’s also not forget;
“Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.” — Joseph Stalin
When he says “guns that kill people shouldn’t be sold in this country,” he is EXPLICITLY STATING that the police — local, state, and federal agents — ought to buy their firearms from other countries. After all, those weapons aren’t used for hunting; they are exclusively used to shoot human criminals. I guess they have to import all those Glocks from Austria rather than buying them from Glock USA.
Sanders is a HUGE economic nativist. He needs to be pinned down on this, on camera, and made to specifically choose his poison: Does he want to kill industry within the US, or does he want to explain why some guns used explicitly to kill are all right, but others aren’t?
“Sanders is a HUGE economic nativist.”
I believe that the applicable term in this case is “National Socialist”.
Perhaps, but the point I’m making is we have him in a Morton’s Fork: Is he okay with making our police buy guns from outside the country? Or would he rather admit that one of the jobs of police is to carry guns specifically to kill people? Either one is likely to make him lose points with his base.
It’s very simple: he’s leaving unstated the — to him and his communist ilk obvious — limitation that of course such a restriction would only apply to the subjects, not to the government.
He’s an economic ignoramus, but so is everyone else who was or wants to be elected to office with (Dem) after his or her name, so it isn’t such a good identifier. He’s for “Third Way”, so he is a (National) Socialist.
So pretty much every modern bolt action rifle is banned, you know since they’re based on the infantrymans Mauser bolt action, I’m pretty sure they were designed for hunting people via government sponsorship (war). The derp is strong with Bernard!
I do so love that Bernie Sanders is letting the crazy-flag fly.
If he wins the Democrat nomination, they’re going to have to own that.
Not that he will win, but one can dream.
There aren’t a quarter of the people registered Democrat out there who recognize this as crazy. Certainly not my frothing-mouthed Leftist Sister-in-Law. Or my brother who, after Sandy Hook School asked on facebook why anyone would need the “little gun” with the 9mm bullet for protection.
So basically, every single one of my guns — including the semi-auto handguns, which Bernie is no doubt targeting with his statement — is just fine, since none of them have been used “to kill people, exclusively”.
How did he ever get elected in the first place?
Vermont.
If you want to get technical with parsing the language, no guns are to be banned at. If every *type* of gun used exclusively to kill people is to be banned, then any *type* of gun that’s ever been used for anything besides killing people is exempt from the proposed ban. Even guns that have been only in military hands would all be exempt because those TYPES have been used in training and recreation, or for just wounding people rather than killing.
The “not for hunting” clause is a throwaway because it is superceded by the exclusivity clause. It therefore appears only as an example, e.g. “not for hunting, target practice, collecting, etc…”
We can be certain this is not what he meant. He means to forbid the sales of certain types of guns. He may have said that in a way that ends up being nonsensical when interpreted literally. But his intent is clear and he would quickly correct someone who took his words literally. As would the courts should they be confronted with similar wording that would appear to give us a loophole.
Sanders has no business being the president, or any other type of politician of this country, when he is openly hostile to the Bill of Rights.
The funny thing is that he’s the senator from the state that brought us Vermont Carry, now more widely known as Constitutional Carry.
It would be comical to ask Bernie about that.
I believe he’d pull a Hillary*.
“He was for it before he was against it.”
——
* – Or a Pelosi, or a Reid, or a Schumer, or ….
I doubt he was ever for it. He most likely doesn’t understand it, he might not even be aware of it.
Vermont Carry, if I remember correctly, goes back to a state supreme court decision in the 1920 or thereabouts, which held that the state constitution meant what it said when it spoke of the people’s right to bear arms for self defense and the like.
Unfortunately, the same sort of language in the NH state constitution has not brought us constitutional carry there.