Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Sanders and gun control

TugarTugar Senior MemberPosts: 2,222 Senior Member
Bernie Sanders Calls for All Guns Not Used Specifically for Hunting to be Outlawed!

http://flip.it/8hs.2


Sent from my C6725 using Tapatalk
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill

Replies

  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    Wouldn't that all depend on WHAT you're hunting? I ain't sayin', just sayin'.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,128 Senior Member
    I actually thought the man had some integrity. Clinton has been beating him up on gun control. Now he will say anything to save his own butt Tuesday. Hunting is a privilege, self defense is a right. He is nothing more than a worm to me now.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,670 Senior Member
    Sanders WAS one of the few liberals that supported gun rights in Vermont. Guess that's out the window now.....wonder how he explains it to Vermont voters.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    Sanders WAS one of the few liberals that supported gun rights in Vermont. Guess that's out the window now.....wonder how he explains it to Vermont voters.

    No, that's not out the window, he's just got a different view of what "GUN RIGHTS" are than we do. But being from Vermont he's a little less threat than BHO or Hitlery.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    I actually thought the man had some integrity. Clinton has been beating him up on gun control. Now he will say anything to save his own butt Tuesday. Hunting is a privilege, self defense is a right. He is nothing more than a worm to me now.

    He's a politician just like the rest of them, and they'll say anything to get elected. He's from a pretty pro gun state. But he's running for PREZ now, and he has to appeal to people all over. Did you really expect him, being a Libtard and running as a Dummycrap, to come out with the NRA? What they say doesn't bother me near as bad as what they do later and that can be two completely different things.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • Murphy's LawMurphy's Law Member Posts: 313 Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    No, that's not out the window, he's just got a different view of what "GUN RIGHTS" are than we do. But being from Vermont he's a little less threat than BHO or Hitlery.

    Completely disagree with that statement. Never underestimate ones political adversary. One might just wake up one morning and find the Constitution gone.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,611 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    No, that's not out the window, he's just got a different view of what "GUN RIGHTS" are than we do. But being from Vermont he's a little less threat than BHO or Hitlery.

    I'm sorry snake, but that statement there seems to be 180° off from correct. If his stance really is for actual confiscation, then he is far and away the more dangerous of the three and is not to be trusted. If his stance is 'actually pro-gun rights', then he is a liar...AND NOT TO BE TRUSTED. It's funny (strange, not ha-ha) that you're able to equivocate here. I may personally WANT Hillary to go swimming with more chain than she ought to, and nothing would make me as happy as seeing her wearing orange, picking up roadside trash in the state of some federal judge's choosing, but she is still the better candidate of the two. Hands down.

    snake284 wrote: »
    He's a politician just like the rest of them, and they'll say anything to get elected. He's from a pretty pro gun state. But he's running for PREZ now, and he has to appeal to people all over. Did you really expect him, being a Libtard and running as a Dummycrap, to come out with the NRA? What they say doesn't bother me near as bad as what they do later and that can be two completely different things.


    The fact that you can type something like that and still believe that 'your' side is better than any other goes a long way toward explaining the problems we have, politically speaking. I'm sorry, but when did 'not near as bad' become the bench mark? How much 'bad' is acceptable, so long as it's 'R' bad?

    I really don't mean to bust your stones personally, there are plenty here who feel as you do and this question is posted to them as well, even though I quoted you.

    I guess I just can't make myself understand.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement