• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Bernie Sanders

Cosmic Trigger said:
As far as I know the second amendment doesn't state what kind of weapon one might possess. By your reasoning it could be determined that only single shot 22 caliber guns are allowed by the second amendment.
Click to expand...

When they wrote that amendment there's absolutely no way they could have ever envisioned that technology would advance in such a way that it would create weapons that completely dwarf ANYTHING of their time, and all in a package that was small and portable enough for a single person to use. What was the most deadly weapon on the planet in the 18th century? A cannon? Which do you consider more deadly: a cannon or a high-capacity assault rifle?
 
GenericMind said:
When they wrote that amendment there's absolutely no way they could have ever envisioned that technology would advance in such a way that it would create weapons that completely dwarf ANYTHING of their time, and all in a package that was small and portable enough for a single person to use. What was the most deadly weapon on the planet in the 18th century? A cannon? Which do you consider more deadly: a cannon or a high-capacity assault rifle?
Click to expand...

They didn't envision 2 ton automobiles either yet millions exist and for the most part used responsibly everyday.We don't call for banning them everytime a drunk gets behind the wheel and kills an innocent family or when some nut plows through a bunch of people intentionally.Not to mention the thousands killed every year in simple accidents.
My point is while they may not have envisioned specific technological advances, they were surely smart enough to know that the single shot muzzle loading musket would not be the state of the art indefinitely.
 
We did ban drunk driving. The other comparisons aren't accurate because nobody accidentally kills 50 people with a car just like nobody accidentally kills 50 people with a gun.

The point is simple: a high capacity high caliber assault rifle has the ability to kill more people quickly than a grenade or a rocket launcher, both of which are illegal for civilians to own for obvious reasons. People don't need assault rifles to hunt. They don't need them to effectively protect themselves, their property, or their families. They're literally the deadliest object a civilian can possibly own, and anyone can just walk into a store and buy one. That's crazy and irresponsible.
 
Yet drunk driving still exists.You don't think these weapons will still exist if you ban them ? What's crazy and irresponsible is letting someone on the terrorist watch list,as reports now claim this was the case,to be able to purchase these weapons.As I stated earlier,the 2A has nothing to do with hunting.And I disagree that grenade/rocket launchers can kill less people than a semi-auto firearm.This club was packed and I can't for the life of me understand why no group of people jumped on this fool.That option doesn't exist against a rocket launcher.
BTW, we ban certain drugs too and we've seen how that work's.
 
MMT said:
Yet drunk driving still exists.You don't think these weapons will still exist if you ban them ? What's crazy and irresponsible is letting someone on the terrorist watch list,as reports now claim this was the case,to be able to purchase these weapons.As I stated earlier,the 2A has nothing to do with hunting.And I disagree that grenade/rocket launchers can kill less people than a semi-auto firearm.This club was packed and I can't for the life of me understand why no group of people jumped on this fool.That option doesn't exist against a rocket launcher.
BTW, we ban certain drugs too and we've seen how that work's.
Click to expand...

Different laws would need to be enacted in order to stem the flow of guns. Banning them would not stop the problem.

The reason the second amendment was written is no longer pertinent. We no longer have the ability to stop our government with guns.
 
MMT said:
Yet drunk driving still exists.You don't think these weapons will still exist if you ban them ? What's crazy and irresponsible is letting someone on the terrorist watch list,as reports now claim this was the case,to be able to purchase these weapons.As I stated earlier,the 2A has nothing to do with hunting.And I disagree that grenade/rocket launchers can kill less people than a semi-auto firearm.This club was packed and I can't for the life of me understand why no group of people jumped on this fool.That option doesn't exist against a rocket launcher.
BTW, we ban certain drugs too and we've seen how that work's.
Click to expand...

Of course they'll still exist. What they won't do however, is be something that's easily obtainable for everyday citizens to get. And like fatalities from drunk driving when it was outlawed and enforced, fatalities from mass shooting will decrease when military-grade assault rifles are made illegal.

Drink-driving-accidents-a-001.jpg
 
Guns are part of the american culture, or at least of rural american culture. I don't think it is very realistic to ban them. However, it realy is nothing but pure hypocrisy from the pro-gun people, to pretend that guns make america safer. That is clearly not the case. I think that the NRA should simply come clean and openly say it: they love guns, and the fact that you statistically have more gun-related 'incidents' is simply the price they're willing to pay. Just like a certain amount of car accidents annually, is a price we as a society are willing to pay, for the comforts of having roads and motorised transportation. What trump and the NRA are saying is as absurd as saying that we ought to have more cars, to reduce the amount of casualties in traffic.
 
alasdairm said:
droppersneck: 4th time of asking. please post a few examples of where i have argued that the second amendment should be changed.

you made a claim. back it up please.

interestingly you say "In short I believe the constitution is concise and does not need to be changed..." but you posted this:

which one is it droppers? because they can't both be right. get your story straight.

absolutely right, gm. but republicans and the gun lobby have to keep repeating this lie to keep the myth alive.

my thoughts are with the families and friends of the victims.

alasdair
Click to expand...
I might take the time to search post history if you will openly declare that you agree our right as Americans to own all currently approved weapons including assault rifles shall not be infringed in any way.
 
GenericMind said:
Of course they'll still exist. What they won't do however, is be something that's easily obtainable for everyday citizens to get. And like fatalities from drunk driving when it was outlawed and enforced, fatalities from mass shooting will decrease when military-grade assault rifles are made illegal.

Drink-driving-accidents-a-001.jpg
Click to expand...

IDK,is it really everday citizens doing this shit.It's usually some head case that had already rang warning bells with someone in their lives.And my Libertarian streak doesn't like punishing others by banning yet something else,because of the acts of a few.I mean with ALL those guns out there,the stats just don't warrant it.With all their "spy shit" WTF are all these intel agncys doing,cyber-stalking ex-girlfriends,keeping an eye on the wife ? Where TF is all this tax money going to ? It's just easier to say fuck it, we'll just ban this gun. Where does it stop ?
 
Droppersneck said:
I might take the time to search post history if you will openly declare that you agree our right as Americans to own all currently approved weapons including assault rifles shall not be infringed in any way.
Click to expand...
way to move the goalposts, droppers. you made a claim and can't/won't back it up. i'll draw the only reasonable conclusion.

still interested in an answer to the second part so - 5th time of asking - you said that the constitution "does not need to be changed" but that the 14th amendment "needs to be revisited". you claim to be a big fan of logic so can you help us understand this apparent logical contradiction? which is it?

you seem curiously unwilling to "follow a logical line of thought", if you will.

alasdair
 
Dracarys said:
Guns are part of the american culture, or at least of rural american culture. I don't think it is very realistic to ban them. However, it realy is nothing but pure hypocrisy from the pro-gun people, to pretend that guns make america safer. That is clearly not the case. I think that the NRA should simply come clean and openly say it: they love guns, and the fact that you statistically have more gun-related 'incidents' is simply the price they're willing to pay. Just like a certain amount of car accidents annually, is a price we as a society are willing to pay, for the comforts of having roads and motorised transportation. What trump and the NRA are saying is as absurd as saying that we ought to have more cars, to reduce the amount of casualties in traffic.
Click to expand...

QFT. Very sage words my friend. The only problem is not everyone wants their or their families lives to be in jeopardy so others can own guns.

MMT
IDK,is it really everday citizens doing this shit.It's usually some head case that had already rang warning bells with someone in their lives.And my Libertarian streak doesn't like punishing others by banning yet something else,because of the acts of a few.I mean with ALL those guns out there,the stats just don't warrant it.With all their "spy shit" WTF are all these intel agncys doing,cyber-stalking ex-girlfriends,keeping an eye on the wife ? Where TF is all this tax money going to ? It's just easier to say fuck it, we'll just ban this gun. Where does it stop ?
Click to expand...

I had the same exact thought. We can monitor so much of everyday correspondence yet we cannot keep our country safe from crazies.
 
IMO,Bernie Sanders has no duty to support Hillary Clinton when, in fact,the whole DNC nomination process was a pre-determined theft committed via systemic election fraud,California being the last in a string of vote flipping and suppression. He owes her NOTHING and should run a third party campaign,hopefully winning but at the least, to keep the criminal cancer that are "The Clinton's" from ever setting foot in the WH again. An Independent run might even provide cover for the FBI to do the right thing and indict the witch.

http://www.justicegazette.org/bernie-defrauded-in-ca.html .
 
Wonder what his big "message" to his supporters is going to be tomorrow? We're going to get all this fucked up shit with the Democratic Party fixed up at the convention so a progressive can win next time...but for the time being Hillary Clinton is the best chance we have at defeating Trump?

Or perhaps a Stein/Sanders Green ticket? (yeah right, in my dreams...)
 
MMT said:
But then what ? Will he just sit on the sidelines and watch us elect a buffoon or a cancerous criminal enterprise.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes he will. It's called politics.

(I'm not following you around, you asked a genuinely prescient question).
 
mal3volent said:
but for the time being Hillary Clinton is the best chance we have at defeating Trump?
Click to expand...

If defeating Trump is your only goal then yes,go for it. Personally,I will go with the buffoon over a dangerous,power mad global war criminal if for no other reason than he most likely won't sell my country to the highest bidder in a quest for unbridled,maniacal power.She DOES NOT GAF about anything but her own complete political power. At least Trump beat her Republican ilk fair and square while her nomination was the most corrupt criminal coronation in American political history. Run Bernie Run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top