File this one under “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” slate.com’s headline proclaims Bernie Sanders, Gun Nut. The anti-gun agit-prop propagators have it in for the “far-left” (socialist) Democrat Senator from Vermont, a man who dares challenge Hillary Clinton for her party’s endorsement for President. The list of pro-gun “charges” against Sanders is guaranteed to warm gun rights advocates’ hearts – until they see his entire record on the issue. But first . . .

In 1993, then-Rep. Sanders voted againstthe Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks for gun purchasers and restricted felons’ access to firearms. As a senator, Sanders supported bills toallow firearms in checked bags on Amtrak trains and block funding to any foreign aid organization that registered or taxed Americans’ guns. Sanders is dubious that gun control could help prevent gun violence, telling one interviewer after Sandy Hook that “if you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.” (He has since endorsed some modest gun control measures.)

Modest, eh? The NRA considers Senator Sanders’ position on gun control — including support for the original “assault weapons ban” and a post-Sandy Hook bill banning “high capacity” (greater than 10-rounds) ammunition magazines and voting against national reciprocity twice — worthy of an F-rating. With friends like these?

Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern’s smoking gun/bee-in-his-bonnet: Sanders’ vote for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which shields the firearms industry from lawsuits related to the illegal use of their products. Stern goes on and on about how odious this law is, despite the fact that it is in no way odious. But before his indigestible digression, Stern acknowledges a few facts.

None of these views are particularly shocking for a Vermont representative: Sanders’ deep-blue state has both high gun ownership and incredibly lax gun laws, and it’s perfectly logical for the senator to support his constituents’ firearms enthusiasm. And a close friend of Sanders once said that the senator “thinks there’s an elitism in the anti-gun movement.”

Now if Sanders came out and said that, and explained his reasoning, pro-gun rights Americans would have something to cheer about. But Bernie’s a Democrat politician running for President, hoping that Hillary Clinton drops dead, either politically or literally. So he won’t challenge the party line. So it goes.

125 Responses to VT Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders: Pro-Gun Democrat?

    • Hillary is incapable of carrying on a complete dialogue without stepping in it. A debate between her and anyone is bound to be entertaining just because of the soundbites. An hour long debate would be a goldmine, punctuated by her finally losing it and asking how dare they question her.

      • This, this would be why I’m hoping with all my heart that Cruz makes the cut on the R side of things. Can you imagine a Cruz v. HeRod debate?

        She’ll blow a gasket on live tv… Hilarity will ensue, no doubt. 😉

        • I would like to see Ted Cruz on the SCOTUS and eventually Chief Justice.

        • We’ve seen a preview of how that would go back in January 2013 when Cruz got Feinstein to lose it and describe stabbing her fingers into a man shot by imploding bullets after talking about the Constitution and pistol grips. He would just smile at Hillary and pick her apart as she dug herself in further.

        • You guys are awfully optimistic. I don’t think Cruz or any other candidate can successfully debate Hillary, the moderator, the audience, and the camera crew, plus the video editor, and that seems to be the only setup where Hillary would show up.

        • I can’t wait for the general election debates, hopefully between Hillary and Cruz. Cruz is a world class debater. With masterful command of the facts and laser-like focus, he’d obliterate her arguments and humiliate her, without ever allowing her to come across as sympathetic.

          Hillary fears Cruz like Valentino feared the talkies: he had no voice and she has no substance.

      • Have you ever seen Hillary in a debate? The only way anyone could be MORE evasive would be to not show up.

    • I lived in Vermont for 25 years. I have met Mr. Sanders. He is an odd fellow, but brilliant. He will DESTROY Hillary in a debate. He will make her look foolish. She will be stammering, stumbling, and bumbling before it is over. I can’t wait to see the debates.

      • Lets see, socialist means free stuff, democratic means buy votes with free stuff, there is no such thing as free stuff, and I’m not inclined to waste the time.

        • Maybe it also means free education? If so, you should take pre-advantage of it. Learn some shit.

        • Hey, Swarf, tell me more about this “free” education. Do the teachers work for free? Do the contractors build the school for free? Do the utility companies provide free water and electricity?

          TANSTAAFL. Learn some shit.

  1. I’ve said for years that if the Democrats decided to protect and expand gun rights, then the Republicans would have some serious, serious issues. There’s a lot of folks that think 1) taxing rich dead people makes sense. 2) any able-bodied adult should be able to marry any other able-bodied adult, 3) women have the right to do whatever they damn well please with their bodies, 4) institutionalized racism is a thing and 5) that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      • They might. While gun control is a plank of the federal platform of the Democratic party, it’s not a particularly important one for the voters, as evidenced at the polls. Yes, 90% of them will say that they support extended background checks or some such, but given a slew of other issues to vote on, gun control is generally prioritized way below most everything else. Which, to politicians, means that it can be thrown under the bus without endangering the core voting base if this means some fresh votes coming from the outside.

        The reason why Democrats are unlikely to do that is because they don’t really need those fresh votes. They already have a clear edge in popular votes on the federal level, and the only reason why this doesn’t translate to guaranteed wins in presidential and House elections is because of the electoral system in the former case, and the combination of that and gerrymandering in the latter case. But that edge keeps growing, and eventually it will spill over those barriers, as well (arguably, it already did in presidential elections – I don’t see how a Republican candidate can possibly hope to win in 2016, short of a really huge scandal that would taint Hillary; and no, the “email-gate” isn’t it, it would have to be far bigger than that). So at this point, it’s GOP that should be looking for fresh votes to turn that tide, or lose the game permanently in medium to long term.

        • You make a lot of good points, but I don’t think Hillary has the dominant lead the democrats have predicted historically. Many claim that American has taken a “hard swing to the left”, but it just isn’t true. The opposite was believed in the 90s after the conservative revolution retook the house but failed to beat Clinton in ’96. America just doesn’t take a “hard” swing towards either political ideology, it swings slightly. And then it swings back. History is actually against Hillary in 2016 because other than FDR/Truman and Bush 1, no political party has held on to the White House longer than 8 years. Also, the GOP has not been this strong since reconstruction. The democrats have lost 900 legislative seats since Obama took office. The GOP far out numbers the democrats in state assemblies and governor seats.

        • @AllAmerican

          There’s no “hard swing to the left”, of course. There’s a steady move in that direction, just as it always have been. Note that I’m referring to the overall political position here, taken in combination. What generally happens is that on social and political issues, society as a whole tends to become more liberal as time comes (just look at the attitudes regarding sexuality), while on economic issues, it does oscillate between fiscal conservatism and welfare state.

          So when the key differences between parties were primarily economic, the pendulum does swing back and forth. But when they bet massively on some social conservative cause, they can get a short spike of popularity as they consolidate all voters who feel strongly on that issue in a single block that votes in lockstep, but eventually the majority becomes too dominant for even such a block. Look at how Dixiecrats (who were conservative) have bet on anti-civil rights and lost hard. If you look at their rhetoric back in the day, it sounds uncannily like the rah-rah of the GOP today. Here, let me give you some quotes:

          “Conservatives of this nation constitute the balance of power in presidential elections. I am a conservative. I intend to give the American people a clear choice. I welcome a fight between our philosophy and the liberal left-wing dogma which now threatens to engulf every man, woman, and child in the United States. I am in this race because I believe the American people have been pushed around long enough and that they, like you and I, are fed up with the continuing trend toward a socialist state which now subjects the individual to the dictates of an all-powerful central government.”

          “A left-wing monster has risen up in this nation. It has invaded the government. It has invaded the news media. It has invaded the leadership of many of our churches. It has invaded every phase and aspect of the life of freedom-loving people. It consists of many and various and powerful interests, but it has combined into one massive drive and is held together by the cohesive power of the emotion, setting forth civil rights as supreme to all. But, in reality, it is a drive to destroy the rights of private property, to destroy the freedom and liberty of you and me. And, my friends, where there are no property rights, there are no human rights. Red China and Soviet Russia are prime examples. Politically evil men have combined and arranged themselves against us. The good people of this nation must now associate themselves together, else we will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a struggle which threatens to engulf the entire nation.”

          Sounds like something straight out of a Ted Cruz speech, does it not? But this is George Wallace in 1964…

          So that’s the main problem. So long as GOP brand remains associated primarily with hot button social issues, and only second with fiscal conservatism (not to mention that many people have not forgotten how Bush got elected as a quintessential Republican based on that promise, and then proceeded to loot the federal budget with impunity!), it will permanently be in circling-the-wagons mode: yes, it’s a powerful voting block that votes together with little deviation on most things, but it’s a minority block, and the majority keeps growing, slowly but steadily.

          With respect to Democrats losing seats, as I’ve noted earlier, this is largely the result of two camps distancing away from each other and consolidating, which means that you see fewer centrist, compromise candidates win, and more polarization – combined with electoral system that favors smaller states and counties (that tend to vote conservative), and gerrymandering (which is practiced by both parties, but with GOP getting more gains from it). If you look at plain popular vote – i.e. simply count the voters directly, e.g. in the last presidential election, you’ll see what I mean. And this describes briefly how that translates into GOP-dominated House: http://www.thenation.com/article/188801/republicans-only-got-52-percent-vote-house-races – but again, this won’t last forever, at some point the liberal popular majority will gain enough extra votes to get past those barriers. And after that, the only chamber that will remain solidly Republican for the foreseeable future is the Senate.

        • @int19h, yes, to an extent you are correct. But what you miss is the reason for the drift to the left – the acceptance of dependency on “other people” or as I call it, “godvernment”. Sadly, it has always been thus: success breeds laziness, contempt, and moral decay. Those who fight against evil like that will always be in a minority. It is just too easy for the majority to give in to evil. Americans, real Americans, have always been in a minority – from the days of the American Revolution until now. But a minority can still kick the majority’s ass when the time comes.

        • The reason for, say, people being more accepting of things such as same-sex marriage is due to their increased dependency on the other people? Can you explain how that is supposed to work?

    • I’m sure there are people who think that way. Whether there are a lot of them might be another question. BTW, what do you have against disabled people that you apparently don’t think they have the right to marry?

      • “what do you have against disabled people that you apparently don’t think they have the right to marry?” First of all I never said anything about that, neither did the person I was commenting on. Second I am disabled, TBI post surgical stroke among others, so I have nothing against any disabled person. I am very offended by your comment. I have spent the last 26 years fighting for people with disabilities. If you doubt me click on my name and look at my current site.

        • Frank, he was referring to what Losef said, not what you said.

          “any able-bodied adult should be able to marry any other able-bodied adult”

        • Frank, Art is right, I was replying to losef, not to you. I apologize for the misunderstanding. And, yes, it was that “able-bodied” part that struck me.

        • The word choice was a little sub-par, but I understood the general meaning of it. If you are a “legally consenting adult” would be, perhaps a better phrasing. I think the idea is that you would be perfectly allowed to marry someone under the law… why should the State get to dictate who or what gender that person is, so long as they are another legally consenting adult?

          As a conservative who doesn’t believe it is really my damn place to dictate whether Adam marries Steve, I can say with some certainty that I doubt the democrats will EVER embrace gun freedoms. They already despise them, they despise freedom of speech and religion too, championing riots and twitter lynch mobs against anyone who doesn’t exhibit Proper Goodthink. They scream “DIVERSITY!” from the rooftops and then destroy anyone who thinks differently from them, who DARES to disagree.

          If a Democrat was advocating for a repeal of all these onerous restrictions on firearms, I still would not vote for them, because I am almost CERTAIN that the ability to gain access to firearms under the new laws they would pass would be tied to Proper Party Affiliation and Goodthink.

      • Good catch. Its been a long day and I derped. I mean to say intellectually capable of making decisions of that magnitude. This is to protect an individual from being taken advantage of by another.

        • Sorry I jumped on you too. I didn’t think that you really meant that handicapped people shouldn’t be able to marry. I just wanted to give you a bit of a hard time. You do have a good point in that Democrats could pick up a lot of voters if they defended the right to bear arms instead of attacking it.

        • Don’t be sorry, I should have chosen words that better expressed what I was trying to convey better. It’s pretty awesome to see people sticking up for the disabled like that.

        • Well, why do you think Jesus spent so much time curing the lame and disabled?

    • taxing rich dead people makes sense.
      How does this make sense?
      Let’s take a scenario.
      Man sets up company, company grows. Man doesn’t take much in compensation, instead that money is put back into the company. Eventually, the company has hundreds of locations around the United States, pays an above average wage to each employee.
      On paper, the company is worth $10 billion, but the family that owns the company has never taken more than $500,000 per year. Outside of the company the net worth is only $5 million.
      Man dies in plane accident at relatively early age. A trust wasn’t set up.
      Outside of owning the company, the family wouldn’t owe estate taxes, because the net worth is $5 million, but the company is worth $10 billion.
      So, please explain to me how it makes sense that the family has to pay an estate tax of $5.5 billion?
      That is literally what you are advocating.

      • Nowhere in my post did I advocate for any particular tax percentage or codified system of determining taxable assets. So, no, your hypothetical example cannot be what I literally advocated for ESPECIALLY since I did not personally advocate for anything.

        • Nowhere in my post did I advocate for any particular tax percentage or codified system of determining taxable assets. So, no, your hypothetical example cannot be what I literally advocated for ESPECIALLY since I did not personally advocate for anything.
          —————————
          Since I used cut offs for the estate tax, and the traditionally level of the tax itself. Yes, it is what you are arguing for, unless you state otherwise.
          It’s also noted, that you didn’t even attempt to explain why you think it is fair.
          So, take that scenario and please explain how much tax you are advocating be paid.
          Remember, it’s what you are arguing for, so you have to have given it some thought.

      • What? “There are people out there that believe” does not equal “My personal beliefs are.” Please re-read the original post.

        • Once again, take that scenario and state how much estate tax you think should be owed, based on your personal beliefs.

        • Xanthro, once again, I’m under no compulsion to do as you ask, since my original post does not reference my own beliefs. It’s an observation of an anecdotal population sample.

          Seriously. Read the damn original post and try to locate the “I” statement in there.

        • There’s a lot of folks that think 1) taxing rich dead people makes sense. 2) any able-bodied adult should be able to marry any other able-bodied adult, 3) women have the right to do whatever they damn well please with their bodies, 4) institutionalized racism is a thing and 5) that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
          ———————————-
          So, now your claim is that you don’t necessarily support these 5 points, only that they are popular.
          The right to keep and bear arms is not based on popularity, and on right is based upon popular support.
          Nor does popular support mean it should be supported. Slavery had popular support. Judenrein had popular support.
          So, if you are saying that you don’t support from a philosophical perspective what you posted, which ones do you support and which do you oppose?
          People have the right to do as they please, able bodied or not, as long as those actions do not directly endanger others. Nor are others entitled to the labor of their neighbors simply because their neighbors die.

    • You don’t think that handicapped people should be able to marry? What the hell is this with “able bodied” people be able to marry.

      • Maybe it was meant to be “able mind”. Mentally disabled persons may not have the capacity to understand what they’re entering into. Just a guess on my part for intention.

    • That’s me to a T.

      I disagree with the Democrat’s knee-jerk reactionary pandering to gun control simpletons like the author of that Slate article, but I absolutely abhore the Republican’s “we believe in small government except for sweetheart defense and fossil fuel deals and stuff we think is icky and whatever else we think of!” line of crapola.

      Don’t get me started on the complete and utter failure/bad joke that is trickle-down economic theory.

    • Dems would have far, far, far more systemic problems if Repubs finally decide to endorse legal marijuana and run with it. A goodly chunk of Dem groups (Ecos, minorities, young, poor, and the bored) would be sorely tempted to switch sides in favor of antiprohibition or abated antagonism, and the Dem party, at long last, would have to admit it can’t give them all what they want at the same time as the favors are called in.

      Simultaneously, the Republican social issues crowd would become so shrill in opposition that they would lose all credibility, and at long last, we’d get to focus on long-ignored critical issues like structural economic inefficiency (taxes, corruption, artificial inequality, immigration, and regulation). They’d only get a voice once progress was finally made in those, and until then, the crowd most foreign and abhorrent to urban/democrat voters would be marginalized, if not absent. Hard to call Reps out of touch racists if the foot-in-mouth-Falwells never get the podium. It worked for Dems in the 60s, and it will work again.

      But this won’t happen, since republican leadership is invested in losing, after being bought by the Obama administration (if not since the Clinton administration)

      • Republicans supporting legalization (at least up until just before they lose big time to it) is a pipe dream.

        • I wouldn’t be so pessimistic. Look at the current batch of candidates in the Republican primaries: if I remember correctly, only Christie has said anything about being tough on drugs so far. Most everyone else is saying something along the lines of “weed is bad, but let the states regulate”, which for all practical purposes is as good as it gets. However, they’re not keen on making this prominent, either, for the fear of turning away the “tough on crime” core electorate.

        • Most of them have flipped in the last year in preparation, so I don’t consider that full support.
          Where else are the socons going to go? Vote D? LOL All the R has to do is stop legislating morality, say a few nice words about Jesus here and there, stop riding the dicks of big industry, and they’ll do great.

        • The Dems won’t push legalization, either, since that would remove a big reason people vote for them, if it was actually done.

        • Democrats don’t really support “legalization” on the federal level either, at the most maybe “decriminalization” which a few of the Republican Presidential candidates hinted at supporting too. Ultimately that requires Congress to get involved, most of whom on either side of the aisle don’t view as a major issue to decide. So it really just goes to the individual states for that decision of enforcement, and both blue and red states have taken small steps to allow that, medical or otherwise. Than again, after some legalize it, it’s not uncommon for some to say they regretted it, like what the Governor in Colorado somewhat lamented.

          However, I am assuming people are just referring to Marijuana, because I don’t think any politician or bureaucrat has publicly supported legalizing hard drug use, but I could be wrong about that.

      • Confiscatory taxation merely approaches your fair share, just send it all in until further notice.

    • Perhaps many people do believe the things you list. How many of them would trust the Democratic, or any political, Party to stay flopped on the issue and not flip back whenever convenient?

      My belief is that we are a nation of mostly moderates who are being effectively disenfranchised by both D and R candidates, who find they have to take increasingly extreme positions to just get through the primaries in the first place.

      • You are correct. Let’s remember the last Clinton Presidency, when the entire campaign was about a set of issues, but as soon as the election was over, here came a set of proposals never mentioned in the campaign, gun control and “free” health care. They feel no obligation to attempt to accomplish anything you were stupid enough to elect them for. I don’t expect Republicans to be any better.

    • “1) taxing rich dead people makes sense. 2) any able-bodied adult should be able to marry any other able-bodied adult, 3) women have the right to do whatever they damn well please with their bodies, 4) institutionalized racism is a thing and 5) that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      **raises hand**

  2. Bernie is pro-gun rights while he’s a serving Senator from Vermont here; probably be a different story once the campaign b.s. gets going good. He has some common sense about firearms and gun rights but is also a socialist politician. He has also been very supportive of veterans, but we’ll also see how that may or may not change in the coming months.

    It’s all a massive charade anyway, a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing much at all. None of this matters. What matters is preparing for the regime to come and a possible second civil war.

    Local anecdote: I’ve bumped into Bernie here in Vermont and Mrs. davidx has ridden with him on airline flights; he comes home to Vermont every weekend from Mordor. He’s taller in person than you might think, easily six feet or more, but slouches a lot. The other Senator, Leahy, is also a very tall bugger, almost as tall as me and I’m 6’5″. I’ve literally run into him in the local Shaw’s market more than once.

    • I’ve literally run into him in the local Shaw’s market more than once.

      Too bad you didn’t literally run into him in the parking lot.

    • >> Bernie is pro-gun rights while he’s a serving Senator from Vermont here; probably be a different story once the campaign b.s. gets going good.

      Sanders is kinda like Ron Paul on the left – one thing that he does and does well, is speak his mind the way it is, without all of that political posturing and pandering bullshit. So I doubt that his views of guns, whatever they actually are, would suddenly change.

      If I had to guess, he won’t address that particular issue in the campaign, at all – he has bigger fish to fry in taking on Hillary.

  3. I enjoy how even the slate progressives tore this piece apart. It’s just a “protect Hilary from competition ” hit piece.

  4. His goal is to turn the US into a copy of the Scandinavian models of socialism. He commonly holds Norway, Sweden, and Finland up as examples, and I would not be surprised if he would want to copy their models of gun control as well. Even with that completely misguided ideal, I consider him the least odious candidate in the democrat caucus as he is easily the least corrupt.

    • I agree. I respect that he’s honest enough to plainly call his political views socialist, and that he isn’t a Machiavellian liar willing to do anything to be in power like the presumptive nominee. Bernie Sanders has never lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia either, so he’s already miles ahead in terms of character.

    • Other than tax rates, the Scandinavian model isn’t so bad. They have better gun laws than most of Western Europe, too.

      But the model won’t work in the US. The Scandinavian nations are far too homogeneous in comparison to the US. They don’t have as many divisive lines pulling politics in so many directions at once.

    • I’m a liberal and I agree. I’ve never met a pro-gun democrat. Ever. I’ve met democrat fudds and “you only need a gun for home defense and it shouldn’t be a scary black rifle with a 30 round magazine” democrats but I’ve never seen or heard of a democrat that 100% supports the 2nd Amendment openly. I just haven’t seen it.

      • Ever heard of the Liberal Gun Club? I think you’d fit in there.

        Or if you’re more of a socialist then there’s the Socialist Rifle Association LOL

        • I checked out that LGC site on a few occasions because I like the concept, but I couldn’t find a damn thing going on of interest. IIRC a tumbleweed blew out of my computer.

        • I think I’m too much of a minamist to fit into those circles. Either way it’s good that people on either side of the spectrum support the 2nd Amendment without the “but” added after those words in a sentence.

        • Now I can’t get the idea of collectivist ammo redistribution out of my head. hehe.

      • My wife does. She’s 100% pro-2A (no “buts” or anything), and also a dedicated Democrat.

        I keep waiting for the cognitive dissonance to push her away from the dark side (like it did with me), but the problem is, the Republicans have so many stupid policies of their own that she doesn’t think there’s anyplace else to go.

        Me, I’m angry enough about the Democrats’ anti-gun platform and totalitarian behavior that I’ll vote against them for the rest of my life — but that still doesn’t mean I’m happy with the Republican party.

        • God give me strength here!

          It’s all One Party! There is the Stupid Half, i.e., the Repub cretins, and the Evil Half, the Dem spawn of Hades. Together they are destroying the country.

          Fretting about elections and voting and strategies involved with all of that is utter drivel.

          It’s F***ING OVER!

        • DavidX is right in the 10 ring there. Frankly, I can’t even comprehend how more people don’t see the truth of what’s really going on in this country. We the People were sold down the river a long time ago.

          I swear the country is mostly populated with ostriches. All with heads buried in the dirt.

        • Buried in the dirt, i.e., mass-market tee-vee, mass-market nooz papers, and the breathless recitations of various pundits, carny barkers, and marketing hucksters. After decades of publik skool indoctrination. It’s possible to actually root out what’s been going on in our history and what’s happening right now, but few can or will make even the minimal effort.

          To wit: the continued blathering here about this party, that party, elections, voting, etc, which was all de facto done away with generations ago.

          It’s over. The whole rotten mess is unsustainable. Do the math alone, regarding financials. Guess what happens when our lords temporal can’t pay their cops or soldiers anymore?

        • @Bdub Do you really believe that the true libertarian minded folk are going to truthfully influence anything, even if they managed to secure a few government postings? Much less manage to get elected in the first place? You do understand how stacked the deck is against them even being considered by the masses as viable candidates is, yes?

          Even if that were the case, & I’m fair certain that it won’t be, how long exactly do you think it will take to just remove 10% of what bad law, & phony legal precedent/opinion that is on the books? Further, within the current framework, how long do you think it will take with just amending everything to ensure that never can it get to this point again?

          The words for the barest hope of that premise ever coming to fruition is: absolute futility. The soap box, the ballot box, & the jury box have failed We the people because of the Houdini like misdirection, manufactured loopholes, & the public being sold outright lies *for your own good/think of the children ®*. The earlier we accept the facts as they truly are, the sooner we can begin to fix what’s broken.

          ^ Why do you think they deleted civics classes in school? So that they can raise ignorant, unquestioning, peasant subjects in the relatively near future. Hence the dumbing down across the board…

  5. This is the (sadly) current definiton of a pro gun Democrat. He will let you keep your hunting firearms, maybe even your revolvers, but kiss your semi autos goodbye. Oh and all that while they put the gun manufacturers and dealers out of business.

  6. Republicans should donate to his campaign, he may be the Nader of 2016, which would be very helpful.

  7. An outspoken and open socialist (see: collectivist)…

    Sorry but no. The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.

  8. Bernie Sanders is a gun-grabber socialist period, he may have voted against some legislation in the past, but that doesn’t mean he’s pro-gun.

    While he hasn’t officially run yet, Jim Webb is the only Democrat with an A rating from the NRA (Senator of Virginia until 2012) He is also the only combat veteran (USMC) of the Vietnam war running for president, and was Secretary of the Navy under Reagan.

    Even if he’s pro-union (I HATE unions, BAN them ALL!)and pro-“marriage equality” I’d still rather have him as president than any other Democrat and even some of the Republicans running, especially Christie’s fatass.

    • >> I HATE unions, BAN them ALL

      You hate freedom of association so much that you want to ban people from freely associating together to negotiate collectively?

      • What good have they done since the 50’s? Drive jobs overseas? Ruin Detroit? Bully employees? Reward laziness? Be linked to organized crime? Value senority over performance? Unions had their time, but that has long past. 

        Socialistic organizations such as labor unions have no place in society. Attempting to form a union should be punishable by jail time. Striking should also be outlawed, what’s more un-American than refusing to work? The government should intervene if a strike is to occur, these lazy Communist union thugs should think twice about going on strike if it meant the National Guard would open fire on them at the picket line.

        The sooner we abolish unions, the sooner companies will reshore jobs. We must take our country back from the union thugs and initiate a national rebirth of this great country.

        • I can’t tell if you’re trolling or serious. I do hope it’s just trolling. If not, you should really go and re-read the Constitution, and think about how many rights and freedoms explicitly listed therein you are inciting to infringe here.

        • “Attempting to form a union should be punishable by jail time. Striking should also be outlawed,what’s more un-American than refusing to work?”

          Jailing people for associating.

        • Well, I guess there is a tyranny of the majority argument where unions are concerned…

        • “what’s more un-American than refusing to work?”

          Uh, how about refusing to let people choose to make that choice?

      • People can “freely” associate all they like, what needs to be banned is the state forcing workers to give money to useless leeches.

  9. Just use him as a stalking horse, he isn’t on our side. Think of him as the cobra Bruce Lee encountered while infiltrating Han’s island underground opium prison complex and throw him in with the other loons to disorient them after you make sure not to get bitten. Then watch with an exasperated face while they freak out on each other..then whip out the nunchaku.

    I went a bit far with this analogy but Enter the Dragon is awesome.

  10. Bernie seems to be a freak show requested by the DNC to pull candidate election duty. If I was a demno-nat I would have to choose Hillary.

    • Hillary? Are you kidding? Bernie may be an avowed socialist, but at least he’s not a sociopathic totalitarian. He may actually be one of the most honest/least corrupt candidates in the race (even if his ideas are wrong).

  11. Hillary already has the DNC nomination, no doubt about that. Only hope is in people being sick of dynasties and pay attention to her many ethics violations. Not to mention her terrible policies. A good one to hammer home now is how “tough on crime” she and her husband were that helped get us the current situations in Baltimore etc.

    • That’s true. She’s the clear front runner and there can be no doubt that the 2008 campaign will be Clinton v. Giuliani.

      Oh wait…this is 2015. Pretend I said 2016 and Clinton v. Christie.

    • Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?
      See the løveli lakes
      The wøndërful telephøne system
      And mäni interesting furry animals
      Including the majestik møøse

  12. Let’s hypothesize for a moment that he is truly pro-gun. Remember that lovely gentleman Harry Reid who accumulated stellar marks from the NRA?

    What good are “gun rights” when the country is being destroyed? And when “rights” are being crushed via executive orders?

    • +1

      Exactly.

      And reinforces what I’ve been saying all along; this is all moot. It means nothing. Talking about this one’s chances and that one’s statements on whatever is a total waste of time, effort and bandwidth. It is like unto whistling past the graveyard; that dog won’t hunt no more.

      Our lords temporal give us a little show every four years and every two years and we hop about and dance and sing for them and once in a while they throw us a raggedy old bone. Soon they won’t even do that.

      I’d find a better use of my time, quite frankly, and one of those uses would likely be at a firing range or reloading bench.

  13. Bernie doesn’t like guns and would take them part and parcel if he could. No doubt.

    The Democrats love and encourage a kook like Bernie Sanders to run against Hillary. They are actively trying to avoid getting her run off the road by an Obama like candidate this time around. BTW, call me nuts, but I think Hillary is exactly the candidate that the Republicans want to run against too. They can beat her. They don’t want to deal with an Obama like candidate again either. I expect the Democrats will roll out a few more non threatening wingnuts to make things interesting. Either way, as an old coach of mine used to say, its gonna be a $hit show.

  14. I respect Bernie Sanders, because he admits that he is a socialist. I completely disagree with Bernie’s politics, but at least he’s honest about where he comes from.

    I’ve got a long list of Republicans and Democrats I wish were as honest.

  15. Looking at a few sites that actually have quotes from him on gun rights his position becomes more clear. He thinks that things should be handled at the state level. Personally I think that the NRA should have given him a C. Mitt got an A and he signed an assault weapon ban.

  16. Bernie Sanders could be a good thing for the Republican party. Provided that Sanders and Clinton actually debate, he is one candidate that could expose Hillary as a fraud that is posturing as an everyman/woman’s candidate while being in the pocket of the biggest, most “evil” corporations in the nation. This corporate issue is big for democratic voters, bigger than gun control by far. That said, I don’t believe many Democratic voters would vote for an openly socialist candidate like Sanders. Instead, it is likely that they would not vote at all when given the choices of a socialist, a corporate liar and a Republican. Once Sanders exposes Clinton for who she is, it could leave the door wide open for a good Republican candidate with a strong voter appeal to take the win. Of course, this is contingent on the Republicans not choosing a buffoon like Christie as the nominee.

    • If someone once effectively points out to Democrat voters that they have been voting for socialists and socialist policies for the past 50 years, the title will never bother them again.

  17. Ha. No socialist ever gonna be pro gun. Implement a program like socailism upon an armed and individual rights based society? No, collectivist systems are opposite of gun rights in every way, shape, and form.

    • Compared to 100 years ago, we are way far socialist already, and moving continuously in that direction, armed society or no.

  18. The socialist agenda (also known as the democrat agenda) can never be fully implemented with a functioning 1st and 2nd Amendment. Now matter what they say, their actions will always betray them.
    And FWIW, the death tax is immoral.

    • +1 Also, it seems that most death taxes can be avoided by hiring tax attorneys to plan trusts, gifts, etc. This tax, like most, hits the little guy the hardest. The tax planning and maneuvering results in unproductive professional expenses and allocations of resources.

      • I don’t think the appellation “little guys” is often used to describe people who leave estates worth the several million bucks to exceed the threshold of the death tax, but I take your meaning. Also, it provides a tiny percentage of the nation’s revenue each year, the whole reason for it is to appear to “stick it to the rich”, bring them down as opposed to building anyone up. Someone called that the “politics of envy”. Elect me, and I’ll screw over all the people who have worked harder than you, bring them right back down to your level.

      • ANY law can be avoided provided you hire the right people (see Clintons, Bill and Hillary), but the point is you shouldn’t have to. You shouldn’t have to jump through hoops which become more onerous every damn year.

  19. I have an idea. Why don’t we hold elections the way they were held when this country was founded? Second place gets the VP slot, first gets the POTUS slot. Then we would have a coalition government and nothing would get done, which sounds a helluva lot better than what’s going on now.

  20. Silly. Socialism is for the people, not for the Socialists in charge.

    Regardless, I doubt guns would ever come up in the debate if he actually makes it.

  21. If push came to shove and I had to pick between Hillary and Bernie, I’d be going for Sanders all the way. He’s been very vocal against the criminals on wall street that have been robbing all Americans for decades, and it shows in his campaign contributions:

    Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union
    Teamsters Union
    United Auto Workers
    National Education Assn
    Communications Workers of America
    United Food & Commercial Workers Union
    Laborers Union
    Carpenters & Joiners Union
    American Assn for Justice
    National Assn of Letter Carriers
    Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
    United Transportation Union
    Sheet Metal Workers Union
    Operating Engineers Union
    United Steelworkers
    UNITE HERE
    Service Employees International Union
    American Postal Workers Union
    American Federation of Teachers

    Now compare that to Hillary’s list of donors (or most mainstream politicians)
    Citigroup Inc
    Goldman Sachs
    DLA Piper
    JPMorgan Chase & Co
    EMILY’s List
    Morgan Stanley
    Time Warner
    Skadden, Arps et al
    Lehman Brothers
    Cablevision Systems
    University of California
    Kirkland & Ellis
    Squire Patton Boggs
    21st Century Fox
    Ernst & Young
    Merrill Lynch
    Credit Suisse Group
    Corning Inc
    Greenberg Traurig LLP

    Bleh

  22. All socialist like Senator Bernie Sanders are anti civil rights. Socialist do not believe in individual freedom and personal liberty. Nor do they believe in person accountability.

    They do Believe in shooting up crack and having in anal sex. Some believe in having sex with horses in Washington State since it was made legal by liberal socialist.

    Socialist also believe the police should stick a gun in your face if you try to drink raw milk or a 64 oz. soda. Socialist do seem to have an oral anal fixation.

    Socialist seem to be very concerned with putting things into their bodies but not concern with the freedom of firearms ownership. Why????

    • >> Socialist seem to be very concerned with putting things into their bodies but not concern with the freedom of firearms ownership. Why????

      Let me answer this, as a liberal: because firearms aren’t very well suited to shoving into various orifices, duh. ~

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *