Bernie Sanders Calls For Totalitarian Gun Confiscation

Sanders will ban guns that are “primarily designed to kill people.”  

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (a pro-gun state, for the record) said on an episode of NBC’s “Meet The Press” that “we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America.”

“Coming from a rural state, I think I can communicate with folks coming from urban states where guns mean different things than they do in Vermont where it’s used for hunting,” he said.

Calling for a ban on all firearms “used to kill people” and “not for hunting” implies a ban on all guns, period.

More recently, Sanders appeared on the same show on 1/17 and touted his vote to “ban assault weapons” in 1988.  He claimed to have rethought certain aspects of that legislation but never rescinded his viewpoint on banning firearms.

The Vermont senator, like other anti-gun activists, failed to mention that Americans purchased 170 million new guns since 1991 and the crime rate has since dropped 51%.  He also never mentioned that “gun control” failed in cities like Chicago where someone is murdered every three hours.

Liberals have recently demanded more anti-gun rhetoric from Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate’s shift to the far-left on this issue is likely an attempt to placate to his party’s core voters as the 2016 election quickly approaches.

UPDATE 1/24 – The quotes in this article have been correctly attributed.

About the Author

Benjamin Knight
Benjamin Knight, the founder of We the Vigilant and host of The Maverick Podcast, was born in Engelwood, New Jersey. He is a Bible believing Christian, a right-wing Libertarian and a nationalist who is dedicated to fighting back against cultural Marxism and globalism. In his free time, Knight enjoys triggering leftists, shooting guns and being an American.

111 Comments on "Bernie Sanders Calls For Totalitarian Gun Confiscation"

  1. It seems obvious that President Bernie Sanders will be much harder on gun owners than Senator Bernie Sanders has been. Senator Sanders had to keep the voters in Vermont happy, and Vermont is very gun friendly.

    President Sanders will not have to care about that. He will be able to support whatever policy he wants too without having to worry about being sent home. He will do a single term and retire on a 400k pension.

  2. Under absolutely no circumstances has Bernie Sanders ever said that he would confiscate your guns. NO ONE has ever stated that they would confiscate anything from you. He supports a ban on the sale of assault weapons, as do most people. You are taking one sentence and letting your imagination run wild with making up things to fit around it. You may as well face it, with the clown show that the GOP is running this election cycle, Sanders is your best chance at some actual common sense on the matter of guns, rather than those who are willing to blame shop owners and manufacturers for the crimes of a murderer.

    • Rob,
      Sanders is requiring an ignorance of the Second Amendment. That is absolutely wrong.

    • WRONG Rob! Since all firearms are capable of killing or damaging people, they’ll all be on Bernie’s chopping block. Actions prove intent and since Bernie is in favor of “comprehensive background checks”, which is simply a back-door method of creating a national registration data-base which will allow government to know where every firearm is located, the next logical step in their devious little minds can only be confiscation. In fact, it’s being done right now in CA which I believe is the testing ground for a national program. In CA, which has gun registration for those that were stupid enough to comply with that law, all that has to happen now is for someone to report that they THINK someone’s crazy and a judge can issue an order for the SWAT team to confiscate that person’s firearms. (Most of us do things that could be considered crazy from time to time which has no bearing on whether or not we’re a psychopath.) And this all happens without due process just because of someone’s accusation. Then that person, if he/she survives the SWAT assault, has to spend the money to go to court and most likely and arbitrary psychiatrist to prove the negative that he or she’s not crazy to get their personal property (firearms) back. And all of this can happen because someone owns firearms not because they’ve damaged anyone. ALL gun-control IS tyranny and ALL politicians that would “infringe” in any way on the Second Amendment (an inalienable “SECURED” right) are tyrants and traitors, NO ifs, ands or buts… Bernie included! As for your unprovable conclusion that ‘most people’ support a ban on “assault weapons”, “assault” is an activity and any inanimate object is a “weapon” when it’s used to damage another. 99.9% of semi-automatic firearms will never be used to assault anyone until the tyrannical government attempts to confiscate them. (And you can’t actually believe that they’ll be coming with 6 shot revolvers and single shot rifles, the arms they’d relegate us to owning.) The Second Amendment assures “The People” arms equality with those we hire to represent our best interests. Holding them to the contract (the U.S. Constitution) is what our Second Amendment and semi-autos are for and even then we’ll operating at a disadvantage because they’ll be carrying full-autos. Thank God there are more of us than there are of them.

      • B. Zerker,
        All liberals seem to forget the Second Amendment. They do not listen to valid arguments on guns themselves but they try. The Second Amendment is brief and to the point. It made a specific statement based on existing arms of that time period, which were home owned weapons USED by the troops. That includes more specific weapons of the same hand held weapons. The would include all semi-automatic rifles, which all operate in the same fashion. I read tis morning that ISIS could damage our electrical power grid and attack us. As it stands right now we are better armed than they are.

    • Any gun can be considered to be an assualt weapon when its pointed in your direction. The Second Admendment was important enough to our founding fathers that they put it second, just after free speech. The reason is clear…without the right to bear arms, the firepower necessary to ensure the government honors our rights no longer exsist. The Second Admendment ISN’T ABOUT OUR RIGHT TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM ANOTHER, ITS ABOUT OUR RIGHT TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT REGIME. Its part of the checks and balances put in place to keep government in line with the Constitution of the United States. It limits the power of the government, not that of the people. That’s why the Second Admendment also states that the government shall not INFRINGE upon this right. When our government gives themselves the power to determine by definition what types of guns we may own, the government is INFRINGING upon our rights. Frankly, the government has already infringed upon the Second Admendment far too much as it is. As per the Second Admendment, my right to bear arms does NOT require permission from any government (including states), but that’s exactly what we’re forced to get when we’re forced to apply for a weapons carry card. Second, the Second Admendment covers all 50 states, yet unlike my driver’s license (which is not a right), my Concealed Weapons Permit is not honored by many other states. Third, how I choose to carry a weapon is Constitutionally up to me, not the government. That means it should be my decision to carry concealed or open carry. Hitler was responsible for well over 30,000,000 deaths. The first thing he did while in office was to confiscate all the guns from the hands of the citizens of Germany. And he’s hardly the only one to follow such a course. The simple truth is, guns not only deter crime, but they keep governments in check. Governments know this and will do and/or say anything they can in order to get guns out of the hands of their citizens. Our current administration has shown just how low they’re willing to go. Of course, not everyone should be able to get ahold of and possess a gun. There’s already more than enough laws on the books to prevent this. Unfortunately, our legal system rarely if ever enforces these laws. More often than not, such charges are simply ignored or dropped. We don’t need more gun control. If anything, we need less. States should be forced to honor weapons carry cards from other states, just as they do driver’s licenses. Crimes committed through the use of weapons should have much stiffer punishments including forgoing any chance of parole… full sentences should be served by such individuals when they resort to weapons when committing their crimes. All too often we find that gang members have been in jail over and over…and over again, many with prior weapons charges, when they’re finally arrested for murder. Its time states crack down on gangs and put them out of business once and for all. How many murders need to happen in Chicago before that state finally declares war on the gangs and deploys the National Guard to put a stop to it? Everytime there’s a mass muder, the first thing out of the President’s mouth is about guns. He doesn’t talk about how inadequate our mental health care is or how insurance companies discharge mentally ill patients back out onto our streets before their treatment is completed. He goes after guns and how we need more “COMMON SENSE” gun laws. But laws only effect those who are willing to follow them…and that excludes the very criminals and mentally ill that do such horrific acts to begin with. If the President had “COMMON SENSE”, he’d instead push for laws banning insurance companies from cutting treatment to the mentally ill. He’d push for far stiffer penalties for those who commit crimes with guns. And he’d put in place a means in which the public can easily remove and/or hold responsible any sitting Judge, District Attorney, etc…which refuse to enforce the Constitutional gun laws already on the books.

      • Jeffrey,
        A court rulled in Maryland yesterday that the Second Amendment means what is says and “assault”: weapons were precisely what the Second Amendment is all about – weapons for defense. Yea!

    • Rob, what are YOU smoking? Bernie Sznders is a hard left Socialist/communist Jew who has stated, unequivocally seize guns owned by law abiding Americans. He doesn’t believe in private ownership of property, capitalism of anything else. What is this, ethnic solidafity? You’re a ninny.

      • John,
        Banning sales of guns and confiscating guns are two different issues, as was stated. But both are Unconstitutional. At issue is he right to have weapons that can provide better defense during a serious confrontation and have more equal firepower.

  3. He is welcome to lead the “stick” for my door breaching to confiscate. He will be the first to die.

    This dumb socialist confuses firearms with duck hunting. My weapons are ultimately there so as to shoot people like him if they try to set up a despotic government. Calling for confiscation is just such a criteria.

    ALL firearms can kill people so it is in fact a call for confiscation. Even the beautiful shotgun and deer rifle can kill government stooges so in fact they all fulfill his lame criteria. There is not a gun out there that is used exclusively for killing people. All firearms can be used for alternate purposes including self defense which is the permissible killing of a criminal, so he fails in his logic there.

    Who are the unpatriotic weasels who support this buffoon. Get out of my country!

    • Braden,
      Why is no one discussing ALL weapons that can be used for killings? That makes for a long list of items.

    • I happen to also be a Veteran(1970-1977) Bernie IS NOT trying to confiscate our guns.And are You trying to tell me to get out of MY country. Eat shit and die slow. And if you need a machine gun for deer you shouldn’t be in the woods. I was taught as a boy,’if You can’t make a clean kill,don’t take the shot’

      • Peter,
        Are you really that dense?

      • Braden Lynch | February 6, 2016 at 6:16 am |

        Incorrect. He wants us to not have firearms that can be used to kill. Again, gee-whiz they all can. So he wants to end our gun ownership if that is his criteria as noted above. Not hard to put two and two together.

        So you support an avowed socialist. Perhaps you should evaluate how socialism is incompatible with our Constitutional Republic. Supporting Bernie Sanders is unpatriotic. I do not care a whit if you served or not. If you want someone in the Oval Office who will trample on our Constitution, namely my Second Amendment rights, you are not patriotic and not a fellow American.

      • The Founding Fathers included the 2nd amendment precisely because they DID NOT trust a federal government which, over time, could become too powerful. The 2nd amendment is next after freedom of speech, THAT was how important their concern was about our right as a people to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.

        Peter plays verbal masturbation with the idea guns, weapons, arms were allowed only for hunting and using only technology that existed then. What a pinhead. No, the 2nd amendment was our protection against that despot who would enslave us and the Founding Fathers made the verbiage necessarily broad to encompass ALL weapons. All citizens have the inherent right to keep and own guns, machine guns included, as THEY choose. If I want to hunt Bambi with a machine gun I can. Almost ALL modern weapons are semi-automatic – hand guns, shotguns and rifles and ALL are allowed under the 2nd amendment. Many liberals try to be clever by equating semi-automatic and automatic as one in the same. A semi-automatic (as most here know) is one round fired per trigger pull while an automatic weapon continues to fire rounds until the magazine is empty or the pull on the trigger is released.

        Unless we have a felony conviction (and a very few other disqualifies) we can also own fully automatic machine guns. Requires a VERY hefty tax and a greater background check but you MAY own a machine gun. Most, if we choose p, can own a Barrett 50 caliber. It is capable of taking out a “bad guy” over a mile away. Anyway, Peter, you stick to believing whatever you like but the courts have spoken loud and clear on this issue.

        Semper fi

      • John,
        The very First Amendment provides us with freedom. The very next Amendment puts teeth into the First Amendment. AS a student of the Constitutional Convention, I know that was deliberate.

      • Absolutely! And guard that precious gift the Founding Fathers gave us vigorously against those who would seek to take it from us.

      • John,
        We recently had a bit of armed intervention in eastern Oregon. But the folks picked a wrong place to do it. The Oregon wildlife refuge was created by Congress back about 1900 and has been the same for a hundred years. There are better places in eh west to step into a fray with the gummint. But this was not it. There was no local support for it. Just the opposite. One sincere person was shot and killed over it. But he made a couple of wrong moves that ended his life. He was not shot by feds but two Oregon police officers. One of the two officers made a bad choice of a vantage point that could have gotten him shot also but luckily for him, no one remaining in the vehicle opened fire on him. All does not end well. But the bottom line is that we must choose such confrontations more carefully in order to be successful.

      • Braden,
        My sediments exactly.

      • Braden Lynch | February 6, 2016 at 6:46 am |

        One more thing Peter. I hunt with a bow and I only take ethical shots. Where in my post did I say that I needed a machine gun to hunt a deer? I said that all firearms, from the lowliest one to the most advanced can kill humans, so by the criteria of Bernie Sanders, they are equally subject to banning. You did not pay attention or read carefully because I stated that I need my firearms in case my government slouches into despotism.

      • Brayden Lynch,
        Peter is out in la la land. I was taught at age ten to take my game with one shot. My first rifle was a single shot .22 cal. I have never felt the need for a machine gun to kill wild game. They do have their place in combat but not in the woods while hunting.

  4. even in your own video as proof, you cant even keep on point. you’re dumb.

  5. This is fake and false info. Bernie said if a small gun shop sold ONE gun to someone and that person killed someone that shop owner should not be responsible because they did nothing wrong, however if a shop sold 1000 guns to one person with obvious criminal intention then that would be different.

    This article is fear based propaganda paid for by GOP or Hillary and is very fake.

    • That’s simply untrue, he said guns “that kill people” shouldn’t be sold in America. All guns kill people. Hillary Clinton is a rape enabler criminal who belongs in a prison cell, this website has no affiliations to her or anyone in the GOP.

      • Benjamin,
        At least two of the mass shooters did not used background checks of any kind to get access to guns. Most of the others should have been denied but were approved because they had no criminal background and had not been determined to be mentally challenged. Some used the permits of others, which gets around background checks.
        The guy who sells an illegal weapon to a bad guy could care less about background checks. He is only interested in illegal drugs to make the sale. So, is increased background checks going to reduce illegal gun use? Who in their right mind thinks that? Any gun sales outside of a dealer that already does gun checks is not going to abide by any laws, period. If I am a lone wolf and I want a gun I can get it on the black market anytime I want one. especially in large urban areas.

    • deedee,
      Who is responsible for this article? I am not sure that is what is intended here. The article is a rebuttal of Sanders’ remarks. Hillary is more on the left than Sanders. The GOP is on the side of the Constitution.

  6. The take away from this?

    Just one thing.

    We are under no obligation whatsoever to justify to anyone our desire to keep and bear arms.

    All men are created equal. There is no “special class” of people who have a right to own guns while denying others the same right.

    All the nonsense about “legitimate sporting purpose” or “30 round magazines” is just that, nonsense.

    Ownership of ANYTHING is not a crime. Only violation of another person’s rights is a crime.

  7. warning this thread may include misinformation.

  8. Roy. It’s BOLD face lies. Youre about as sharp as a marble.

  9. Roy. It’s BOLD face lies. Youre about as shsrp as a marble.

  10. Bernie sanders is a mad scientist and a crazy old fool needs to get off the drugs

  11. I have an idea. Along with getting rid of guns, let’s ban, knives, baseball bats, cars, and fatty foods. All of these kill people with the auto at the head of the list. I liked a recent comment I read somewhere that said if guns are to be banned because they kill people, let’s blame a pencil for misspelled words.

    • People blame computer typos as misspelled words. Why exclude not the pencil?

    • The fact is, cell phones alone are responsible for more injuries and deaths by auto than guns have caused in this country. In fact, the two aren’t not even close. If the government was concerned about the number of deaths in this country, surely cell phones would not only be illegal to use while driving, but the government would have mandated software by the manufacturers of such devices so they would become inoperable while in a moving vehicle. But our government hasn’t taken any such action. Yet everyday several more Americans are killed by inattentive drivers texting on a cellphone. The government wants our guns because they want to ensure that only they have all the power. Because when they have all the power, then they no longer have to listen to the people. That’s how dictators come into power. Don’t think for a second that it can’t happen here. The intent of the Constitution is to limit the power of Government, not the people. In a free society, government serves the people. But when there’s a tyrannical government in place, the people all serve the government. That’s why our Constitution starts with government for the people, by the people. And as a retired military Veteran, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That includes our Bill of Rights. I did not take an oath to follow the unconstitutional orders of any body of government including that of a sitting President. Therefore, I will defend my right to bear arms against anyone who thinks that their unconstitutional laws or orders supercede that written by our forefathers long ago.

      • Jerffrey,
        That has been a sore spot for me as I have lobbying for cell phone restrictions for several years to no avail. We did get a law banning texting but not cell phone use.

  12. I would urge every gun rights champion here to avoid adopting a defensive stance on gun rights.

    Do not scramble for justifications why you should be “allowed” or “permitted” to own this or that kind of gun.

    Instead, reject from the very outset the very notion that someone else has any right to dictate what you may or may not own.

    Remind yourself that “All men are created equal”, and reject outright the gun grabbers’ assertion that there is some “special class of people” who have a right to say what other people may or may not own, be it guns, drugs, whatever.

    You are a sovereign individual. No one has any right to tell you what you may or may not own. Ownership of things is not a crime.

  13. WRONG again ADOLPH (uh, er Bernie)! You are worse than the socialist you claim to be! Like many in government today, you are in fact a neo-fascist! The Second Amendment (the people’s SECURED right that IS a part or the “SUPREME LAW”) was NOT included in the Bill of Rights to ensure that we could hunt. It was included as a guarantee that we, the sovereign people of this Constitutional Republic, could defend ourselves and if need be, have a means to throw off a tyrannical form of government if one ever came to power here. (We’re damned close now, but if you or Hitlery are elected, I fear we’ll be there and the war [insurrection] will most likely be on.) Your false rhetoric regarding ‘guns used to kill people’ is mindless BRAVO SIERRA! The Second Amendment was to ensure that we could KILL those who threatened us and fascist usurpers such as yourself and the canon fodder (all people) that you’ll send to oppress us. By the way, constitutionally, we HAVE the right to ALL types of “arms” because OUR “SECURED” Second Amendment right does NOT differentiate the types of “arms” that we are allowed to keep (own) and bear (carry). And as of yet, you have NOT amended it to mean otherwise. (As if you could.) This means that if an “arm” has been invented, WE HAVE the right to ’keep and bear’ it! Therefore, EVERY law that government enacts to chill this right (outlawing any type of “arms”) IS unconstitutional and IS therefore illegal. This fact also makes ALL of those who propose, vote to enact and enforce these illegal laws in violation of their sworn oaths the “uphold” and “defend” the Constitution. This makes y’all traitors and enemies of the people. Don’t worry though, treason and sedition isn’t punishable by being shot, it’s punishable by the ROPE! And be warned, if the government continues to exceed it’s limited powers, someday we’ll be there with the ropes!

  14. I will give up my gun when i run out of bullits

  15. I’m a liberal. I believe in our rights not being violated.I believe we have a right to bear arms.I also believe in woman’s rights to get an abortion.Quite frankly, I believe in as little government interference as possible.Period.

    • John E Strom Jr. | January 26, 2016 at 3:47 pm | Reply

      Bernie, it ain’t gonna happen. EVER!

      Sent from my iPhone


      • John, you say it is a female’s “right” to abort a child—that philosophy has opened “Pandora’s Box”, and abortions have now been extended from the first trimester, upon until live-partial-birth, with reports now of many “after-birth” abortions. When sir, how long will abortions (taking a life) continue?—when little-Billy says his first swear-word, when little-Mary starts dating one of a difference culture or race? When someone (such as you) when persons stop saying it is OK to take a life for any reason? Wake up. All of the necessary “incredients of life” are “there” at the very instant of egg-fertilization and all that fetus needs is care and nutrition for it to grow—the very same ingredients, care and nutrition that are needed, as soon as a child is born. Also, it takes a male sperm and and female egg, to have an embryo—does not the male also have a “right” in this issue? I might suggest abortion might be appropriate for rape, incest, or for a minor non-consenting female, but otherwise, no!—and as you can see, some are now doing it for “profit”, including the female and the person(s) doing the abortions. That is equally as barbaric as the Muslim Islamic religion, wherein killing is accepted merely for “not-believing”—which is a seperate issue.

      • I have NOT said it’s a female’s right to abort her child – except [in my humble opinion] in case of incest, rape or the life of the mother is in danger and then it should be her choice and no one else’s. I am pro-life with those caveats.

      • I’d be in favor of “retroactive” abortion by rope in Sen. Sander’s case. Being that he holds one of our most important rights in obvious contempt, doesn’t that make him guilty of treason? And don’t we hang traitors?

      • I would support a retroactive abortion by Bernie Sanders mother as well! Ditto Barack Hussein Obama’s leftist mother, Nancy Pelosi’s and Harry Reid’s mothers as well.

      • Your comments are disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. I hope you don’t use the Bible as an excuse to promote anti-abortion viewpoint and then talk about murdering a man who is more jesuslike than you will ever be. He is a great, honest man who wants to help the citizens of our country lead happy healthy lives. He wants us to be paid what we are worth. He is not going to take your damn guns, but we do need more stringent background checks and waiting periods before handing some crazy a gun. There is actually a video circulating of a terrorist talking about how easy it is to acquire guns here in the US. So

      • Jennifer, YOU are a two faced disgusting feminist! Which is to say a HYPOCRITE. Obama’s mother, Stanley, was a HARD left atheist and daddy was an Afrikan who ran around with his fly open, bedding as many white women as he could. Bill Clinton’s “parents” were much the same – daddy was a sperm donor and mom was a bar fly. Not sure about Pelosi and Reid but they ARE fruit flies who support unrestricted abortion. I just wish their mothers felt the same – both are leftists. I guess it’s a liberal thing, eh? Buzz off

      • Remind me of the part in the Bible where Jesus promoted hatred and judgement. Please feel free to cite where in the Bible you find these things so I can better understand your justification for use of such vile statements. You are a Bible cherry picker filled with racism and hate. Do you think Jesus was a white republican? Pretty sure he was from the Middle East born to poor parents and a refugee to boot. Keep spewing hate…the devil is loving it!

      • Sorry to disabuse you but I don’t quote biblical passages and don’t really consider myself a Christian. You need to try your shaming tactics on someone who respects you. I don’t. You come across as a hypocrite judging others. Well YOU just got judged and I really could care less if that bothers you.

    • Funny, I see a right to keep and bear arms. I do not see a right for a woman to murder her child. It is a new human life, just a little too inconvenient for her, that is all. You may want to read the fine print of the Constitution a little closer.

      • Braden,
        My sediments exactly. But those who do not take the Bible seriously are going to learn one day that they are wrong. so, there is nothing that we can do for them. They have a right to their own thinking, flawed as it may be.

  16. This jackass needs to be dipped in shit and rolled in cracker crumbs.

  17. to·tal·i·tar·i·an
    adjective: totalitarian
    of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.
    “a totalitarian regime”
    synonyms: autocratic, undemocratic, one-party, dictatorial, tyrannical, despotic, fascist, oppressive, repressive, illiberal; More
    authoritarian, autarchic, absolute, absolutist;
    “a totalitarian regime”
    antonyms: democratic
    noun: totalitarian; plural noun: totalitarians
    a person advocating a totalitarian system of government.
    synonyms: autocratic, undemocratic, one-party, dictatorial, tyrannical, despotic, fascist, oppressive, repressive, illiberal; More
    authoritarian, autarchic, absolute, absolutist;
    “a totalitarian regime”
    antonyms: democratic

  18. Bernie proves that males also have menopausal dysfunction…..just increase his Xanax……fit him with a nice white strait-jacket and get him onto a Funny Farm.

  19. This guy is a whack job, I wouldn’t have voted for him anyway but I think he just lost a lot of votes!!

  20. They aren’t worried about us killing each other (I think they would encourage that) they are worried they will have resistance when they try to take over the U.S. If we have guns, we can shoot back.

    • dis aster,
      The value of guns are present at the Oregon standoff right now and was an issue when the Bundy standoff occurred in Nevada. No one in their right mind is going to start shooting civilians who are opposing government, especially armed ones.

  21. every statement that confiscators make can be easily argued against with facts..less than half of the 42000 suicides in the US is with a firearm..theres 10 towns around Chicago, all of them dont even have a fraction of the crime that Chicago has..their laws are more lax but Chicago has very strict controls..if gun control worked, Chicago would be a safe place…the U.S Virgin Islands is the worst..100% antique must be certified inoperable..may be for show only…population.110,000 …52 murders..42 with guns..anti’s know criminals will always find a gun..the proof is right there…no gun shops no gun shows and no ammo at walmart..its as easy as finding illegal drugs

    • freewilltwo,
      Again, I respect your data. The real issue is that any form of gun control is in opposition to the Constitution. I am a total supporter of the Constitution. That does not mean I am a total supporter of Supreme Court decisions.

  22. Just keep one thing in mind. The liberal, left wing Democrats either ignore or are totally confused by the facts. They have a single minded agenda on most things and really just do not care what anyone has to say about anything even if they are dead wrong. Its the primary reason they hate everyone else who believes in the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments in particular. Those things just get in the way of their agenda.

    • dprato,
      I am as concerned with the whole guns/people debate as anyone. Since we cannot fix the people yet, we turn to the only other choice and that is guns. Unfortunately for the liberals, guns are not an acceptable issue, thanks to our Constitution. The only recourse is to arm ourselves for now and hope for a solution to our mental health issues as soon as possible.

      • We used to have a solution for crazy people… The slang term for them was: “looney bins”. When an individual was adjudicated a psychopath or otherwise nuts, they’d lock him or her into a padded room and throw away the key. But I guess we’ve become too civilized (politically correct) these days to do that anymore. How can this be you may ask? Because the true crazies (psychopaths) or the libtard politicians are now in charge the “looney bin” (this republic’s government). Check out the book: “The Liberal Mind, The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, by: Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D. for conformation of this fact.

      • There was a time when a parent could have his or her child put into a mental institution for care. The government recognized that families were ill prepared or equipped to handle a mentally ill person. Nowdays that family is stuck with that mentally ill family member and is forced to deal with it the best they can. Such families find little to no help from insurance companies who just want such patients to disappear. So most often these patients receive little to no care under insurance policies, as these companies are notorious for putting profits over people. The only chance that the mentally ill have of being put into an institution is to go out and commit a crime with hopes that they’ll be found mentally incompetent to stand trial. Otherwise, they become just another of hundreds of thousands that are filling our prisons (America has the highest prison population in the world). The government needs to take back the responsibility they dumped onto the rest of us and reopen institutions for the mentally ill. Only this time, they need to treat these people with dignity and respect, something that was sorely missing in days gone by, when such institutions were better known for their barbaric living conditions and torture like conditions and treatments.

      • Great idea…….fewer snow-birds attempting to learn driving in the South. And the Halls of Congress without all that congestion. And fewer votes to count in Demonic Counties.

      • Jeffry,
        You hit a real so spot with me this time. Mental health is sadly lacking, to be sure. And the medical community is a long way from understanding the brain and chemical reactions such that the ability to understand and correct brain malfunctions is still lacking and is not going to be resolved anytime soon. Therefore the medical profession can only treat symptoms and not actual causes. Such treatment can be far more effective IF we had a program to actually insure that patients took their medications on a regular basis. I worked for five years with mentally challenged people who lived in an apartment under the guidance of a trained person who oversaw their needs and wishes. The person in charge of their household made sure they took their medications daily and recorded the completion of that task. That kept their behavior more normal and they were productive people, many holding jobs in the community or doing some type of managed community activities. Such a control would help thousands who are not insane but in need of help to keep them acting more normally. But such safeguards are naturally. more expensive and thus we do not have such a system.

  23. Let’s ban the ignorant. Bernie is first in line after Hillary and every other Democrat who believes that guns are responsible for crimes and not the person holding them. How ignorant can you be? Never mind he is a socialist demoncrat.

    • Dennis,
      I agree with your definition of Sanders. I am truly amazed that anyone cannot see where the real problem lies. Unfortunately we are yet sadly lacking in our understanding of the human mind. I have spent considerable time learning more about that issue from PBS, a neurosurgeon and a psychiatrist. We have a long way to go yet to fully understand the brain and how it worked as well as the chemical makeup and impulses that make our minds work like they should. as such, we are not capable of defining who is safe to own a gun and who is not. There are many who are afflicted with a brain malfunction known as anxiety (also anger) who can be dangerous but not all are. The same is true of those who are more seriously mentally challenged. Therefore, we cannot specifically say who is a threat to themselves or others. Anxiety is often the cause of individual killings, especially family ones not insanity.

      • Braden Lynch | January 29, 2016 at 6:21 pm |

        It’s called evil.

        Real simple. There are people with various mental defects that promote violence and that can be discussed. However, the vast majority of murders are carried out by quite sane people who are acting badly. They are called criminals and they are motivated by criminal desires. Don’t throw in the psychobabble bullshit saying that anxiety is the main problem when it is not the dominant reason.

        Of course, I bet you have absolutely no appreciation for the FACT that firearms deter or prevent a HUGE number of crimes and murders.

        Their ultimate value is in keeping our in check and that outweighs everything. I would gladly put up with a few murders here and there by criminals and psychos while we are preventing genocides that governments love to perform on unarmed populations. Try 250 million plus dead in the last century from despotic governments.

        Do some more research and get back to us.

      • Braden,
        Now I have to disagree. I watch PBS also and know that we have a long way to go to understand the works of the brain including the chemical imbalances that can cause misbehavior. As such, anxiety is a form gf brain malfunction but it does not always lead to “mental illness” or murder. But neither does any of the other medical claims of the present make anyone as killer. As for anxiety, if medication is faithfully followed it cases to be a source of killing. But no help can go either way. It is a frequent source of misbehavior that can lead to overreaction and killing.
        Currently the medical profession such as neurosurgeons and psychiatrists do not know enough about the function of the brain to make any clear decisions as to surgical or medical cures. Psychiatrists can only treat symptoms. They do that with medications but if the person does not stay on the medication, it obviously does not work. That is the current mess we have at present.

      • Braden Lynch | February 6, 2016 at 6:37 am |

        You are persistent that our poor understanding of brain neurochemistry accounts for the violent behavior of individuals. I have to ask, so what?

        Does that excuse them of their behavior? No.
        Do they still need to be punished by our legal system and incarcerated? Yes.

        Can we treat these mental issues better? I agree, of course.

        However, I asked you to research it. Let me spell it out. If you look at deaths with firearms involved, about 32,000 annually, it is about 60% as suicides, the rest as homicide. A small portion are justified self-defense and also a small amount could be attributed to people with mental issues. The VAST majority of the homicides are done by criminals, usually in gangs over the drug trade. My main point is that mental illness is not the all encompassing issue. It is a tiny fraction of the problem.

        Finally, you ignored the real point to why I am so strident about firearms ownership. It is the final and ultimate check against governmental tyranny. Despots like Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others killed hundreds of MILLIONS of disarmed people. They could not resist. So, frankly, I will accept that in a free society a handful of whack jobs will get a firearm and cause mischief.

        Please do encourage people to seek mental health support, do advocate for humane mental health treatment, but do not ever advocate that firearms should be strictly restricted or ever banned because a handful of people might misuse them. That is not a liberty-minded idea.

      • Braden,
        The lack of mental health is more the cause of mental failures because we have yet to know how to fix the brain. In the meanwhile, people will continue to act hey way they do.

        I have repeatedly said that we have the Second Amendment as teeth for the First Amendment. I know from my studies of the Constitutional Convention that that plan was deliberate in order to protect us from tyranny. These two Amendments were placed in the Bill of RIGHTS for a specific reason. A document used by the Continental Convention was the Law of Nations in 1758, only 29 years old at the time of the Convention in 1787. It was not an old worn out document of its time as some have claimed.

  24. First, define a gun that is “primarily designed to kill people”, because MY guns are “primarily designed to prevent people from killing me and my loved ones.” But you feel free to come get them Bernie. Anytime.. Really.. Come and TAKE them.

  25. Dont EVER VOTE for a dem.

  26. “THANK GOD”, this fool hasn’t a “Prayer”, of actually being ELECTED . . . were getting rid of the current “Fool”, so we don’t need ANOTHER ONE !. It doesn’t really matter anyway, the Democrats are going to get BEATEN, by a “Historic Level”. . . never to be heard from “Again” !.

  27. John E Strom Jr | January 25, 2016 at 10:54 pm | Reply

    Bernie, my response to your idiocy is what Charlton Heston said….. “I Will Give Up My Gun When They Peel My Cold Dead Fingers From Around It.” Bernie Sanders is a left wing, communist and all around fruit fly.

  28. Well there goes your chance of getting elected Bernie . Perhaps you should go back and read the SECOND AMENDMENT to the Constitution .

  29. Socialism is not the same as communism. A majority of the West European democracies describe themselves as “social democrats” – same as Bernie Sanders. They are close allies of USA, both politically and militarily.

    Lastly, most everything one feared about Communism (a la USSR or China) seems to be coming true within Capitalism, starting with excessive power concentration at the top. In the USSR it was the communism party that held the power over the national apparatus. In USA it is the super rich that control the Government apparatus and policy making. USSR wanted a perpetual global war to promote communism. USA promotes perpetual global war for profit. Pretty much the same thing when it comes to how all this affects the rest of the world, or the man on the street in USA.

    It is perhaps for this reason, that trying to tarnish Bernie Sanders with the “socialist” tag is going to backfire. There are more American voters today that would prefer to vote for a socialist than for a puppet working for Wall Street.

    • There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide. Ayn Rand

  30. Bless his heart. Every time I see Bernie Sanders, I think of a butterfly landing on a retarded kid’s head. He’s not going to get elected president, even if he wins his party’s nomination. He, Hillary, and O’Malley are all trying to out-Communist each other. They don’t realize that their form of government goes directly against the constitution and the American people won’t go along with it. If Trump does half of what he says he will, this country will taste a freedom that they haven’t had in a long, long time and they won’t want to give it up anytime soon, either. I hope Trump is able to end the reign of the two parties that have destroyed this country.

  31. Again Boobus Americanus of the Bernie zombie class. The 2nd amendment is for throwing off oppressive LAW BREAKING GOVERNMENT like the kind Bernie boy advocates . It’s not about hunting or self defense alone Booby ! Bernie by his very statements make him a traitor as he and others in igno land who violate their very oath of office at the state and federal level .A Bernie sticker on a car in front of you is a dumbed down dupe replicating their kind at your expense . They have protected individual rights too and it least it makes the stupid more visible .

  32. Trump/Cruz dream ticket – Conservatives don’t want a deal maker, but a conservative juggernaut to stop the liberal destruction of America

    Make the world America, NOT make America the world

  33. Looks like he really doesn’t want to be elected president for sure ! !

    • I don’t want either a damn liberal or a bible thumper living in the White House. And to top it all, I don’t want the likes of Donal Trump in office either. He screams about other countries such as China taking American jobs, yet doesn’t bother to tell Americans that Trump’s own personal label of suits and ties he sells is manufactured over in China. He cuts down Mexicans while quietly hiring them to work on his construction projects. He’s a two faced lier who specializes in telling you exactly what you want to hear. If you can’t do your own research on Trump, than shame on you, as anyone with half a brain can see right through him. Donald Trump only cares about feeding Donald Trump’s ego. The last thing we need is some egotistical maniac in the White House. I can just see Trump calling names at the President of Germany or France…or England for that matter, which Trump most certainly will do when he doesn’t get his own way. This man has no clue about running a government, let alone foreign policy or even who the players are. HE’S NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT, PERIOD!!!

      • Here’s how this whole sad situation lays out (and I’m only including the most likely candidates to get the nominations of their parties): On the “D” side, we are faced with the choice of supporting a pathological liar and fascist, Hitlery, or the socialist (socialism is merely the lowest form of communism) Sanders, both anti-Second Amendment (2A). On the “R” side: We have Trump and Cruz, both stated supporters of 2A. 2A is my personal litmus test when choosing a candidate for ANY office. If they’re not pro-2A, they don’t get my vote. The Bill of Rights guarantees us that government(s) are prohibited from encroaching upon our gun rights. If a candidate or officeholder will usurp powers that are guaranteed to us in a legally binding contract (the U.S. Constitution) between the people and those we hire to govern us, he/she is NOT worthy to hold ANY office. Therefore, if a candidate for ANY political office is anti-2A, he/she is anti-Constitution and will be/has been in violation of their sworn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. This raises the question: If they have such disregard and contempt for the Constitution and their sworn oaths, what other guaranteed liberties will they be likely to usurp? Maybe the next to go will our right to due process (5A)? What if they don’t like something we say (1A)? Might they then illegally search our home (4A) to find something they don’t personally care for, for which they’ll toss us in a gulag without trial (5A) and force us to fight naked in cages with rabid badgers (A6) for their amusement? This is why we have 2A which does NOT differentiate the types of “arms” that we HAVE THE RIGHT to ‘keep (own) and bear (carry)’. Any restriction on the type of “arms” we are “allowed” to own and carry is a clear violation of 2A. And remember, if 2A falls for us (the rightful sovereigns of this Constitutional Republic), those we elect (hire) and their enforcers will still have the same “arms” that they dictate that we can’t have. (And in many cases, “arms” superior to even those.) This usurpation completely nullifies arms equality, as I believe the Founders intended, and makes us second class citizens in our own country. The only way to remedy this is to vow to only vote for pro-2A candidates.

      • B. Zerker,
        As a kid I learned about sliding down slippery slopes. Often there was a bad ending at the end of the slippery slope Or the slippery slope was too long and too fast to maintain control. Loss of control often led to injury. Any attack on an obvious second Amendment is just such a journey. It puts appropriate teeth in the Bill of Rights that is absolutely necessary. It is a counterbalance to the slippery slope of placing controls on US citizens, which you describe to a good conclusion. Therefore, I have zero tolerance for any interference or bending of the Second Amendment.

      • The problem we face my friend is that the “bunny hill” the Second Amendment faces now will become a K5 run if either of these fascist gun prohibitionists Democrats is elected. The reason is that there could be as many as three SCOTUS Justices replaced by the next president in his/her first term and I don’t want either Hitlery or Bernie choosing any of them. If either of them is in position to do so, my prediction is that OUR Second Amendment rights will be on the chopping block, or as unconstitutional as this sounds, if not done away with altogether.

      • I am afraid of the same thing. I am actually more afraid of any liberal justices as much as any conservative and more afraid of that than anything going on currently. I am for stopping this mad state of executive orders that bypasses the Constitution. This began long ago, at least with Jackson, and has been a pain ever since.

      • Yes Jerry, the executive orders this president issues and the fact that the legislature and judiciary is lets him get away with it is alarming. You’d think that both Article I, Clause 1 and Article VI, Clause 2 complaints would arise and that the courts would shut this usurper down. It’s baffling to me that the judiciary hasn’t already weighed in on this in many instances. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional and because the other co-equal branches of government do nothing about it is a fact that points to a government wide conspiracy against the people. What’s more alarming is that it’s doubtful that this problem can be fixed at the voting booth because these usurpers are already too entrenched. It looks to me like armed insurrection somewhere on the near horizon will be the only hope we’ll ever have to restore our rightful constitutional government if the people don’t start electing constitution adherent representatives now. The ’16 election is do or die for the future of this republic and I have yet to identify one constitution adherent politician in the Democrat party. Democrats know that a lot of us have woken up to recognize them for what they are, fascist usurpers and that’s the reason they’re coming for our guns. Disarming us will be the only hope they have to remain in power when the revolution to restore this republic to constitutional rule comes to be.

      • B. Zercher,
        Believe me, the Dems frighten me. They must be defeated in 2016. I wish the GOP would suck it up and go after Hillary big time on her server dialogs for abusing her position on national security.

      • Jeffry Bohemier,
        I am on your side except on one issue. You do not seem to want to have a Christian president. You have had plenty of he already and didn’t know it ,apparently. I can agree that a so-called “Christian” is not desirable either. Many of our Presidents were Christians who were in both parties. Many of the freedoms found in our Constitution come from Biblical concepts. That is why we have a Second Amendment to provide support for those freedoms.

  34. next bernie stalin will want “big brother screens” in your home.

  35. I know I’m not the sharpest Tool in the Shed, but would not what he is calling for, cause more deaths ?, I mean people are not going to just let someone take something from them that cost thousands of Dollars with out a fight.

    • Well , if people already let the Corp/Gov suck the very life out of them now with barely a whimper why would you think they would not roll over for that ? When you have been conditioned to abuse as par for the course , only those outside of your sphere can see it clearly and is a major reason so many on the globe now despise the Boobus Americanus for not using their blood bought provisions to kick these oath of office violaters out .

  36. The one thing too many of you miss is the fact that Bernie Sanders is proud to be a socialist.They have taken control of the National Democratic Party.A socialist does NOT support the US Constitution.They hate most everything about it.These are very deceitful people and have already gotten school textbooks changed so that they no longer teach the evils of socialism and communism.Do people honestly no longer remember the USSR ? Sanders is the most dangerous person running for president and people should ignore everything that proceeds from his mouth.Those of you that can’t communicate without without half your words being profanity should remember the old saying.”Better to have people think you’re a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt! “

    • I agree 100% Johnnie; it’s astounding to me that America’s has a Communist running for president, America survived 8 years of Obama although he’s done irreparable damage to this country but no way can it withstand another onslaught by Sanders or Clinton there is only so much the Republic can withstand. I listened to Bernie today the man might be caring but he’s a left-wing lunatic, I ask you Bernie supporters what is it about Communism you love so much, is it because of it’s successful track record? something about Mao and Stalin you love just to name a few of the madmen of the past who murdered many millions of their own countrymen? Who pays for the free stuff ole Bern promises you? If he should get elected do you think the big companies are going to hang around so he can take all their assets. You Socialists are making it more and more difficult for the small business people to operate, who are the backbone of this country. It’s was a just a short time ago when people were risking life and limb to get to America so they had a chance to make good life for themselves and their families, I knew some Cuban immigrants personally when I lived in Miami, these people had something to offer, which was themselves unlike the Immigrants that the Democrats seek today for votes. Did you know that immigration is supposed to be for the good of the country not just for the immigrant. Much of this Socialist mindset today of the young people is due to their parents who worked hard themselves but skimped and saved all their lives only to leave to their unappreciative brat children who never learned their values, instead bought the propaganda taught at Max University. One more question why do some of you people call yourself Progressive there isn’t one thing about or in your agenda that relates to making Progress or remotely fits the definition of the word, if you don’t know why it’s because the Communist leaders in America cant tell the gullible for fear of losing their support even morons catch on eventually. The first time Marx’s ideas weren’t tried and true, so the people who bought his teaching had nothing to compare it with, but you idiots today are without excuse.

      • harpertqo,
        I second what you posted. The Constitution has outlasted communism in any given country. Communism, which come out of socialism, simply does not work and never will. It is no different than a Ponzi scheme.

Leave a Reply