Bernie on Guns

[Elisha 1]

Discuss (if you want).

Just saw this that someone posted on FB.

“People in urban America have got to appreciate that the overwhelming majority of people who hunt know about guns and respect guns, and are law-abiding people; that’s the truth,” Sanders said.

“People in rural America have got to understand that in an urban area, guns mean something very, very different. There have to be some compromises on both sides, and I don’t apologize for that vote,” Sanders said, referring to his vote on protecting gun manufacturers from being sued.

[rehmwa 2]

Elisha

Discuss (if you want).

Just saw this that someone posted on FB.

“People in urban America have got to appreciate that the overwhelming majority of people who hunt know about guns and respect guns, and are law-abiding people; that’s the truth,” Sanders said.

“People in rural America have got to understand that in an urban area, guns mean something very, very different. There have to be some compromises on both sides, and I don’t apologize for that vote,” Sanders said, referring to his vote on protecting gun manufacturers from being sued.

I like that he recognizes that the demographics definitely are different.

Groups need to understand that a one size fits all philosophy is not a solution at all.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[nolhtairt 0]

Elisha

Discuss (if you want).

Just saw this that someone posted on FB.

“People in urban America have got to appreciate that the overwhelming majority of people who hunt know about guns and respect guns, and are law-abiding people; that’s the truth,” Sanders said.

“People in rural America have got to understand that in an urban area, guns mean something very, very different. There have to be some compromises on both sides, and I don’t apologize for that vote,” Sanders said, referring to his vote on protecting gun manufacturers from being sued.

He's got it nailed down on that issue.

[normiss 723]

Most accurate explanation I've heard so far.

[tonyhays 86]

Any chance you got a link to when/where he said that? Would love to use that in some of my online debates.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[quade 4]

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/7/10/bernie-sanders-spars-with-arlington-gun-control-activist.html

The important thing to understand is he is advocating a middle ground.

Unfortunately, to some people that's a horrible thing. I personally don't understand that, but . . . it's easier for some people to live in a black and white, binary world.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[GD64 1]

He's a politician in an election year, and he's acting like it. If memory serves, I think he recently also said "sure, you can sue the gun manufactures" (I think it was in The Hill).

I don't believe in any compromise on the second amendment. Because once politico's (mostly lawyers) get their foot in the door.......they are arguing about the meaning of "is". They can't help themselves. In a short period of time the second amendment would be unrecognizable from it's original intent.
Then the interpretation would be totally based on "who's ox is getting gored".

The dee-cee crowd has proven time, and time again, to have major credibility issues. Say anything to get elected, then do what ever you want (of course big donors have priority), after your elected.

[quade 4]

GD64

In a short period of time the second amendment would be unrecognizable from it's original intent.

The original intent is pretty clear from the language at its very beginning, "A well regulated militia . . . ."

As the Second is currently applied, it's already unrecognizable from that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

quade

***In a short period of time the second amendment would be unrecognizable from it's original intent.

The original intent is pretty clear from the language at its very beginning, "A well regulated militia . . . ."

As the Second is currently applied, it's already unrecognizable from that.

your second amendment ignorance is overwhelming

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

rushmc

******In a short period of time the second amendment would be unrecognizable from it's original intent.

The original intent is pretty clear from the language at its very beginning, "A well regulated militia . . . ."

As the Second is currently applied, it's already unrecognizable from that.

your second amendment ignorance is overwhelming

Tell me again which "well regulated militia" you belong to?

None? Hmmm...

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

As I posted, your ignorance of the Second Amendment is overwhelming. You are very wrong. I do belong to a well regulated militia. As do you. Read the following and be enlightened.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/fgd-guar.html

And this isn't the only link you can find this. There are many many sites that will pretty much expressed the exact same views. many of them very liberal laws sites. Take your pick. I know though all you will do is attack the site. But this is one of the best and cleanest explanations you can read if you care to learn

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Rush, have you ever considered anyone could ever have a different view of a topic than yourself? You should give it a try someday.

Seriously.

Just because people hold a different opinion about something doesn't mean they're ignorant.

Yes, I'm fully aware of some people's arguments we're all part of a big happy "well regulated militia."

I completely disagree with the definition being purported, nor does it carry any legal weight that I'm aware of. Plenty of opinion by gun proponents, but no legal precedent regarding it as far as I've ever found.

It's a bit like those nut cases who claim they don't have to pay taxes because they interpret the law a different way and since they aren't paid in some goofy definition of "dollars" income tax doesn't apply to them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

Well right now I agree with the Supreme Court. You?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

rushmc

Well right now I agree with the Supreme Court. You?

Really? What case decided you were part of "a well regulated militia"? None. The Scotus has interpreted (fairly recently BTW) that in one case (Heller) the average citizen were allowed guns, but that is NOT what we're talking about -- at all.

We're talking about original intent.

As I stated a few posts ago (post #8 this thread), that is different than how the Second is currently being applied.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

Yes Paul, we are talking about original intent. Have you read The Federalist Papers? Somehow I doubt it based on your views. I would have to look again but I think it was the Heller case that determined that the right to bear arms was for the individual as stated in the 2nd Amendment.

It also determined that the well regulated militia spoke about in the second amendment was the people. Consistent with the other amendments. Hence, my comment about ignorance of the Second Amendment stands. This is an opinion deal.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

rushmc

It also determined that the well regulated militia spoke about in the second amendment was the people.

Nope. Heller absolutely did NOT do that. Not one damn bit.

Read the thing you just freaking linked.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JerryBaumchen 1,260]

Hi Paul,

Quote

Read the thing you just freaking linked.

Are you completely out of your mind?

Since when does he do that?

Jerry Baumchen

[rushmc 18]

Ah. You need to read what you just quoted

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

***

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Let's try it this way.


[url]http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Let's try it this way.


http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

rushmc

Ah. You need to read what you just quoted

Here, let me make it easier for you to find.

From the link you posted;

Quote

However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.

Emphasis mine.

It does NOT equate the two.

It was a modern interpretation. How do I know that? Because "a well regulated militia" has never been defined by Federal law or the Supreme Court.

Heller very specifically doesn't speak to original intent. It may be consistent with some people's interpretations of it, but that doesn't carry any legal weight whatsoever with respect to the phrase "a well regulated militia."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[GD64 1]

quade

***In a short period of time the second amendment would be unrecognizable from it's original intent.

The original intent is pretty clear from the language at its very beginning, "A well regulated militia . . . ."

As the Second is currently applied, it's already unrecognizable from that.

Quade, I will respectfully disagree with you on the "unrecognizable" point. In hindsight I should have stated that "it was my opinion". It's my current opinion that the totally litigious age we are living in will never allow agreement on this matter. The agitation industry both pro and con are making to much money for any meaningful agreement.

When I step back and try to imagine what the founders may have been thinking, it leads me to the thought of armed citizenry period. No matter the reason. That no doubt, is a simplistic view, but it how I see it.

[turtlespeed 212]

quade

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/7/10/bernie-sanders-spars-with-arlington-gun-control-activist.html

The important thing to understand is he is advocating a middle ground.

Unfortunately, to some people that's a horrible thing. I personally don't understand that, but . . . it's easier for some people to live in a black and white, binary world.

You mean like the binary that allows the conversation to happen?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun