14-bernie-sanders.w529.h529.2x

Reader Matt writes:

Let me preface this message and tell you that I am a socialist, earth-loving, big government hippy. I believe that health care should be a right of all Americans, that there should be public colleges that anyone (regardless of income) can get educated in the trades or acquire a degree with little-to-no money out of pocket, and that Social Security needs to be expanded so that we can all retire at a decent age (and squeak in a few years before we meet our maker), and not have to worry about paying the electric bill. I believe that every American that puts in a 40+ hour work week should not live in poverty, and that the billionaire class and mega-corporations need to butt-out of our electoral process and stop buying politicians. I’m also a gun owner, and I firmly believe in our Constitutional and natural right to defend ourselves against those that wish to do us harm . . .

You can see where I’m going here; I’m a Bernie Sanders fan. After the terrible violence in South Carolina, I received the following email from the Sanders campaign and I was pleasantly surprised to see it devoid of any kind of gun-control agenda.

“What transpired in Charleston, South Carolina, last night was not just a tragedy, it was an act of terror.

Nine of our fellow Americans were murdered while praying in a historic church because of the color of their skin. This senseless violence fills me with outrage, disgust, and a deep, deep sadness.

This hateful killing is a horrific reminder that, while we have made important progress in civil rights for all of our people, we are far from eradicating racism.

The Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church is one that has been attacked, burned, and rebuilt throughout its 200-year history. While their community mourns now, they will rebuild, and they will emerge stronger than before.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and their congregation. But we can add our actions to our prayers. The families and the community that have been hurt so very badly by this brutality need our help. Let us stand with them in their time of mourning.

You can help by making a donation to the Emanuel AME Church community today.

Thank you,

Bernie Sanders”

I understand that a lot of TTAG readers probably don’t relate to Mr. Sanders’ brand of “Democratic Socialism” and that’s fine. I just thought it was nice of the guy to not use this tragedy as a talking point about gun control.

Recommended For You

159 Responses to Reader: At Least Sanders Didn’t Push Gun Control After Charleston Shooting

  1. Thumbs up to Sanders for that. I hate when “they” use the loss of life to further their bias and ignorent agenda. It feels cheap and its extremely disrespectful.

    Thanks for contributing Matthew

      • +1 he may not be saying it now, but if he was ever elected(Lmao), he’d have something different to say. Socialism and individual freedom do not mix

        • “The goal of socialism is communism.” – Vladimir Lenin

          The only good communist is a dead communist.
          – Any sensible American.

      • You are correct. Here in Texas that loser Wendy Davis said similar things. Lost the election gave a interview on how everything she said on gun ownership was a lie. Since she stood no chance of ever running again her true colors emerged.

    • Sanders will implement gun control if he is elected president, garunteed. If you’re retarded enough to think otherwise, than have fun standing in line to turn your guns in at your local police station. When that happens think of the choices you’ve made.

      • I just don’t get it.

        Why even bother blathering about what Sanders would do as Commissar-in-Chief of the U.S. when he has a snowball’s chance of it? What’s the point?

        Can’t we just let that slide for a day here and acknowledge that so far he’s been the only decent politician about this tragedy and didn’t wave the bloody shirt over the gun involved?

        I guess not.

        But I don’t see the point. He’s not ever gonna be President, OK? You can quit fretting over that and how we’ll all be standing in line to turn in our stuff.

        Field Marshal Rodham on the other hand…

        I’d rather be prepared for her actions against us than spend time beating on Bernie Sanders, but to each his own, I guess…

        • Well, first of all, which Bush? The clown currently running from that dynasty? Has he said anything all even close to what Sanders said?

          Hell, vote for him. Gee, maybe he’ll be even better than his brother and dad, eh? Save us all. Like they did.

        • How is Jeb a clown? Explain. Because he has the name Bush? Sure. This is America- lets judge everyone on who their father was. Your a disgusting monarchist pig. And to clarify, I’m not a fan of the Bush family. I’m simply calling you out on you foul leftist bullshit lies that your libturd professor taught you.

        • Yep, you got me, bro; nailed it; I’m a lefty monarchist. Jesus wept.

          (Where do they all come from…all the lonely people…)

        • I’m glad I made you so upset. Im not watching your stupid libturd video. Can’t respond to my question can you? You respond with childish behavior. Typical libturd. Go get in line early to vote for Hillary.

        • Yikes, son, you’re seriously bent, aren’t you? I’m upset? I’m just sad, that yet another generation of kids is all effed up with no place to go and get their jollies always on the attack, usually a leftist habit and tactic which you seem to have taken up with much enthusiasm.

          It’s really a wonder us gun owners have gotten as far as we have and been as successful as we have when we have to deal with characters like this; basically doing the work of the anti’s for them, divide-and-conquer. Good work, bro.

        • Blah blah blah. Dodge, deflect, deny and when in doubt lie. Typical liberal argument. But yet you have not once even attempted a true rebuttal, have you? Pathetic.

        • ” He’s not ever gonna be President, OK? ”

          Yeah, and who would have thought 7 years after 9/11 we would have ELECTED AN ISLAMO MARXIST who the NY TIMES gleefully reported has memorized the jihadi call to prayer and thinks its the most beautiful sound on earth.

          And the RE-ELECTED that turd in the punch bowl 4 years later.

          PHUCK Bernie Sanders, Hillary, Jeb, any RINOS, and the hell with anyone who thinks we need to give any of them AN OUNCE OF SLACK for ANYTHING..

          Marxists S*CK. ISLAM S*CKS. You “tolerant” types have helped flush America HALFWAY DOWN THE TOILET and we are NOT going to let you finish the job without a bloody fight.

        • Maybe people will continue to acknowledge that Hillary is untrustworthy and deceitful. A majority of Americans do not trust her, according to the most recent polls.

          I think if the truth got out about her nefarious dealings she would be in prison, not running for president.

          Some of the stuff she’s into makes Watergate look like hopscotch.

    • I’d wager that I’m more likely to be forced to use my firearms on the cohorts of this writer than I will any Russian or Chinese.

  2. I was fascinated to discover that Bernie has been consistently pretty level-headed on guns. I think it’s a Vermont thing.

    • thought he was way to the left. All those FREE things he talks about were already paid for by us tax payers. So yey they should be free. The fact that he is gun friendly makes me vote for him if it came down to Jeb, Hillary or him.

      • I have been lied to so many times by democrats, there is only one thing I trust about them, and that is most things they say have a shady motive.

        • …And, I believe, one of the very few who voted against invading Iraq with no solid proof they were in responsible for 9/11

        • There were plenty of people who voted against authorization of war in Iraq. The total vote was 297:133. Of Republicans, 215 voted yea and 6 nay; of Democrats, 82 yea and 126 nay. Sanders also voted nay.

          He also voted nay for Patriot Act (but also wasn’t alone in this).

  3. OK, why were you surprised that the object of your fandom did not use the Charleston shooting to push gun control? Because you actually realize that big-government socialism and individual gun rights do not mix? And if you believe that the 2A expresses an individual right to own firearms, why are you a big-government socialist? This is not necessarily rhetorical questioning, I would be interested in the explanation.

    • Because we already paid for all these things. They raided SS years ago. WE/I paid for this my/our entire working career. I want my share.

      • So you want to go hat in hand to the gov’t to ask them to give you back your share of the money the gov’t has been stealing from you for years? That’s pretty nonsensical. And it doesn’t have anything to do with individual gun rights.

      • The problem is, you squandered *yours*, so now you’re stealing from *me* to recoup what you squandered. Social security for anyone my age and younger is merely state-enforced redustribution of wealth, from the least wealthy (young) to the most wealthy (old). I won’t see a penny of it. It’s merely a tax. You’re not getting *yours*; you’re getting *mine*. I work damn hard for mine, and would rather give it to my children than let you use the government to steal it from me.

        • I Have paid into SS all my life If the Gvt. had invested as promised (which they did) there would be no problem, instead they stole the funds to pay for other programs..
          I want the money I was promised when I was forced to contribute to the program. I’m not stealing from your children or mine.
          Feel free to give up your benefits.

        • You let the government spend your social security. That’s not my fault, nor is it my responsibility to fund what you allowed the government to squander. Why do you think you’re entitled to my money to make up for what you let the government squander?

          And what benefits? I do not now, nor will I ever, see benefits frim my social security wealth redistribution tax.

        • Actually rereading your post It seems you have no clue what this is all about. I thought you were more intelligent
          I get the idea that you wanted me to pay all these years into SS so that you and the the rest of the freeloaders of your generation would collect what we paid for?

        • I pay for my own. Unfortunately you apparently say the same, or else you wouldn’t want the government to take from me to give to you.

          I didn’t vote for social security. I don’t want social security. I would be perfectly happy to opt out of social security. I have no need for vaporware social nets.

          I don’t want the “benefits.” I want the government out of my life, to the greatest extent possible. It’s not my fault that prior generations sold their liberty down the river for easily broken promises of government security.

          Forcing me to take responsibility for others’ bad decisions is immoral.

        • This discussion has been going on since the 70s. Clearly recall HighSchool in late 70s understanding WE weren’t going to see and SS because the thieving babyboomer progtards and marxist socialists were THEN using the income to buy votes and to finance their lifestyle. That is the Clinton generation lovechildren. These twits are now retiring and sucking up “their” SS income and “their” huge gov’t pension.

          Original author – growup. The Constitution is not about you right to own nifty loud toys.

      • The people who “raided” Social Security are your parents. The system is set up so that the current generation of workers pays for the previous generation’s retirement. As fast as your Social Security taxes (and your employer’s contribution) go in, they go back out in payments to retirees. By design, there is no pool of money accumulating to fund your retirement. If people stopped having children, the system would collapse.

        That wasn’t what FDR had in mind when he envisioned Social Security. He intended it to be a retirement account that each person paid into during his working life and drew out of in retirement. The more you paid in, the more you could draw out. Unfortunately, Congress changed FDR’s design to pay-as-you-go so that they could get credit with the public by making full payments to retirees who had contributed little or nothing.

        The system is in trouble now because of an imbalance between too few workers paying in and too many retirees drawing out. That could never have happened under FDR’s scheme because payers would necessarily match payees. Social Security is not in bad shape. Its problems could be fixed by removing the cap on income subject to SS taxes and making it more progressive at the highest income levels. The real fiscal time bombs are Medicare and Medicaid.

        • SS was fine until the Dems took it and made it a discretionary fund. It worked while people where actually investing the funds. Then LBJ put the SS funds into the general funds and Chip is blaming me for this. I was a teenager at the time and knew not the consequences.
          As a matter of fact we fought for the right to vote.(18)
          Since I was a Marine I had no say until then,.

        • The only thing I’m blaming you for is using the state to take what’s mine from me, and calling it “taking what’s yours.”

          I’m not going to blame the next generation for me not getting my SS. My retirement planning doesn’t include it. I doubt the system will even be solvent by the time I’m of that age, anyway. That’s why I call it a wealth-redistribution tax.

        • Exactly,
          there was plenty of money until Congress stole it.
          This was an insurance policy(forced saving) to make sure that everyone had enough to live on without public assistance.(because some people will not fend for themselves unless forced)

        • The very fact that it was a huge government program, whether it worked or not, meant you couldn’t rely on it. Trusting the government not to pilfer and pillage a pile of a few trillion dollars is like trusting a snake to babysit a mouse. You can’t even blame the snake, he’s just doing what snakes do. Taking citizens’ resources and pissing them away inefficiently is what governments do, so we’re just better off limiting the resources we let them take.

          Social Security was a shaky pyramid scheme from its inception, and the math only worked if there was perpetual population and economic growth – a condition that has never occurred in recorded history.

        • Socialist Security is the trust between generations.
          They sent Ponzi to jail for the same thing.

  4. Matthew, I know that some lesser thinkers around here are going to give you all kinds of grief for your political views, as though their keyboard disdain will cause you to instantly rethink your life, but I won’t. I would love to debate/discuss all of your beliefs (I am probably your polar opposite), but this isn’t the place for it, since this is The Truth About GUNS. Thank you for sharing.

  5. He will never wave the bloody shirt for gun control b.s. He may be a Dem Socialist but he’s always been a straight talker and has been instrumental repeatedly in getting help for veterans, particularly here in Vermont. He’s also the only politician I’ve ever seen who personally goes around to the Legion and VFW posts to sit and talk with us, and he holds hearings and meetings at the Snake House in Montpeculiar, and at area high schools regularly. He’s also a tall bugger, taller than you’d think; I’ve met both him and Leahy several times and they’re almost as tall as me; I’m 6’5″.

    Of course he has a snowball’s chance; we’re gonna get eight years of Field Marshal Rodham and she’s gonna outdo Obola in making our lives miserable.

  6. this fool says he believes in the rights in the Constitution but apparently not the right to private property. when the government runs things it always sucks have u ever been to a social security office they have people that make the disabled greeters at wall mart look smart same with the DMV

    • Oh cmon, I’m sure the government can decide whats best for me and to decide which single type of deodorant and sneaker we all should be allowed to buy as a nation.

      I’m sure Bernie’s 5 year plans will be much better than Kruschev’s because they will be new and improved with the latest progressive and socially aware concepts.

      • The inability of so many Americans to comprehend that there is a lot of middle ground between laissez-faire and full-on command economy socialism is rather amusing.

        • What’s worse is the inability of so many Americans (and Sanders) to not understand basic free market forces that spawns markets. Some people are so stupid that they believe that there is a fixed amount of money in the world and they want to get their “fair share of the pie” that Moo-chelle talks about.

  7. He does have his good points, I’ll grant you that. I imagine that Hillary is going to destroy him by any means necessary if he starts to really get in her way though.

  8. No, he didn’t use it at this time. But if you think he won’t go balls-out to ban guns, if elected (tee-hee), then you just don’t understand anything. I’m sorry, but socialist/big-government is synonymous with gun bans. I think you are being trolled.

  9. The only reason the repubs have me is guns. The party of Halliburton doesn’t call to me. If it wasn’t for the issue of guns. I believe in civil rights for all. And by all I include ofwg’s like me that wish to own and carry guns as is my civil right.

    • Whoooo that’s a statement and a half. I’ve heard it before.

      Just to play what if, what if the democrat party went solid pro 2a?

      • The only way that I would be convinced the dems were solid 2a is if barry, slow joe and company were to ask for and pass a law that made constituional carry the unquestioned law of the land. No permits, no ubc, no mag limits. Since there’s no chance of that……

        • I’m in a similar boat. Registered as an Independent, because both parties are a disaster, but if the Dems could pull a solidly 2A politician out of the woodwork, I might be inclined to firmly support them. I agree more with them on most “social” issues than with the Repubs. But the likelihood of finding a staunchly pro-2A Dem is about as likely as finding a winning lottery ticket in your morning shit. Alas.

        • Agreed. I was wondering how I was going to choke back the vomit and vote for Walker, if the Republicans nominate him. Then the Democrats floated their licensing proposal in congress and I found the Dramamine I needed. Ultimately both parties are traitorous anti-democractic organizations that see us as subjects to be managed for the benefit of their patrons. The Democrats are simply a little further along the statist road than the Rebublicans. In my assessment the Republicans, rapacious bumpkins that they are, can do less damage than the Democrats.

  10. socialism is the most evil system ever divisive responsible for 100s of MILLIONS of deaths in the last century. also other contires with so called universal healthcare actually have higher death rates than the US

      • Sorry, but you’re wrong. You sound like Obama saying ISIS isn’t Islamic. Yeah, the United Soviet Socialist Republic wasn’t socialist, and neither were those National Socialists (Nazis). If they call themselves socialists, they’re socialists.

      • The difference between socialists and communists is that socialist haven’t gotten around to building their camps yet. Flirting with socialism is a terrible idea. If you don’t believe me, ask a Venezualian how they like it.

      • You missed this above:

        “The goal of socialism is communism.” – Vladimir Lenin

        The only good communist is a dead communist.
        – Any sensible American.

  11. There may be more socialist/liberal/big government types who support the Second Amendment than are credited in the mainstream news media. Several of my friends and I are among them.

    • I’ll ask you, then. How can you do that? The 2A’s raison d’etre is to protect the citizens from big government, no? Or no? How do you reconcile the individual-freedom basis of the 2A with the central authoritarianism inherent in socialism?

      • Drive on the publicly-funded highways and think (this means turning of Rush). If you get far enough, you’ll come to the inevitable conclusion that black-and-white political philosophies generally fail miserably when confronted with reality. “Socialist” policies make these things possible, and by doing them does not mean an invariable side into the Soviet Union.

        • Publicly funded means funded by me and other taxpayers, from the paychecks and profits of private business.

        • Oh, wow, another lefty who is sooooo much smarter than everyone else, operating on a totally unfounded assumption, as usual. I don’t listen to Rush, I don’t watch Fox news. and I can tell the difference between publicly funded roads (which, BTW, are primarily funded by the states, not the central gov) and central-gov’t socialism. Try another shibboleth next time.

      • The problem with the 2A is the mention of Militia
        That leaves the door open for interpretation
        I wish it was more clear. Not to be infringed after the Militia statement can and is interpreted to mean different things,

        • The BoR is meant to list specific (1A through 8A) and non-specific (9A & 10A) rights that predate the Federal Government in order to limit the aforementioned Federal Government (Congress) from restricting these basic natural, preexisting rights. So, the question is, how can Congress “regulate” a right that predated the Federal Government?

        • Agreed Karl…such great words, yet so vague in today’s society and existing technology. The problem is that founders could not possibly envision the technology, society, population, innovation that was to come in just 230 years. Would have been so great in hindsight if more words/definitions were added so we could more easily apply across the board.

      • Not all socialists believe in big government (see also: Luxembourgism, anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian communism). Furthermore, even of those that do, quite a few believe that such a government should still serve the people, same as you; and having the people armed seems to be a logical means to that end.

        The only fundamental difference between socialists and capitalists is the attitude towards private property. Everything else is optional. Statism vs anarchism, the specifics of the political system etc all vary.

        Oh, and Bernie isn’t a socialist. He’s a social democrat. Big difference.

    • Yeah, 4 instead of the 3 reported. And with them, it’s guns for me but not for thee (they understand that they are the elite!). In other words, after the revolution, they’ll have the guns and nobody else will.

  12. “there should be public colleges that anyone (regardless of income) can get educated in the trades or acquire a degree with little-to-no money out of pocket”

    Go get a job as an academic advisor at any public college and you’ll change your mind. I promise.

  13. The second amendment (as an individual right) and socialism are incompatible. You can have one or the other, but not both. Socialism is collectivism (by definition, though not in practice). Individual rights of protection against tyranny and self-defense are axiomatically unacceptable in such a system.

  14. Matthew, If you’re going to be a big gubment socialist Hippie, you better learn how to spell Hippie. I was one before I grew up and developed a brain so I know a thing or two about Hippies.

  15. The author and anyone here saying how not-utterly-totalitarian he is is seriously fu&<k3d in the head. "At least he didn't flip out about guns" isn't a huge selling point to me.

    • As compared to most of the other political hacks who did and do “flip out;” all members of either the Stupid Half of the War Party or the Evil Half.

      The guy put out a statement of grief and support for those folks and a means of helping the families, all without waving the bloody shirt.

      Yet some here feel some kind of visceral hate-thrill of dumping on him for being a “socialist,” a Dem, a “big government” guy, etc., etc. I’m probably WAY to the right of most folks on this board but for eff’s sake, can we at least acknowledge that once in a while somebody on whatever the other side is has decent and responsible motives? Or do we just issue knee-jerk fatwas to anyone not rigidly in line with our own Party discipline?

      • “I’m probably WAY to the right of most folks on this board but for eff’s sake”

        I’m thinking that’s a big no-no. You don’t even sound like you’re to the right of Che.

        The man is playing a smart politics here and nothing more. I think Obama was all about the ‘I’m not going after your guns’ thing until he was elected, amiright?

        • I’m slightly to the right of Patrick Buchanan; he still believes in elections and parties and voting. I don’t. I think it’s gone from us.

          Yes, Sanders is a politician; from what I’ve seen and heard from him over the years here, he’s a straight shooter and doing the anti-gun schtick is way down his list of priorities for the country. My big quibble with him, of course, among many, is how does he think we’re gonna pay for all the stuff he wants to see done? Soak the rich? That dog won’t hunt; the rich have battalions of lawyers and tax accountants and offshore holdings; they don’t live in the same dimension we do, let alone the same world, and they feel that way, too.

          All the initial post was concerned with here was that he reached out to offer some comfort and assistance while sharing in the grief, without, like all the others, waving the bloody shirt. That in itself was/is noteworthy, but instead we went down the road of ragging on him for his socialism, and what he might or might not do if he became President, which is totally moot, of course, and what is socialism versus communism, etc., etc. While ragging on other posters who pretty much shared and respected what he had to say.

          I don’t understand how that would make somebody feel better or superior.

        • I’m slightly to the right of Patrick Buchanan; he still believes in elections and parties and voting. I don’t. I think it’s gone from us.

          Purely out of curiosity, what do you believe in?

        • If this were a rational country anymore I’d hope we could reinstate the original Articles of Confederation and break up the national security state/empire once and for all. But that’s just pie-in-the-sky stuff now; we’re headed for eventual massive civil disorder, martial law, and the way things are going, probably another civil war and many years of it, too.

          Other than that, my belief is as a traditionalist Roman Catholic Christian.

        • As a traditionalist Catholic, shouldn’t you really rather be into that whole organic body corporatism (as originally defined by the Popes, not the modern meaning of the word) thing?

  16. If anyone doesn’t believe that a President Sanders wouldn’t ban every gun he could is simply a fool. Being from Vermont, he is smart enough to keep his mouth shut, but when the rubber meets the road he would sign any gun control legislation you stick in front of him, guaranteed.

  17. I’ll give Bernie this: He at least more honest and less despicable than most of his statist, socialist brethren. This is to say, I believe he is one of those well-meaning but genuinely confused brand of liberals rather than the plainly Machiavellian evil variety that makes up most of the current machine.

    Health care cannot be a right. Education cannot be a right. These people can’t seem to grasp that you cannot create an infinite entitlement to a service in limited supply. Or at least, you can do it on paper, but that means fuckall in reality.

    Things like “freedom of speech” and ” protection from unreasonable search and seizure” can be rights because there is no limit other than the laws of physics to the amount of speech a person can produce and essentially no cost to do so. Similarly, there is no limit of not-searches the state can perform.

    I don’t mind the confused liberals as much as the evil everyone-must-worship-at-my-feet variety.

  18. I like Bernie Sanders. I’d like it if he would get a bit more Libertarian on some issues, but keep the general socialism thing going for public good. When it comes to personal liberties and rights, I’m libertarian; when it comes to taxes and funding public health and education, I’m socialist. So, for now, he’s my top choice!

    My big question for Bernie would be, “If you don’t believe letting banks getting so big they can’t fail (which I agree with), where do you stand on ideal sizes of government and at what levels?”

      • A question for you, Chip. Do you believe that all taxation is immoral (since it’s “taking other people’s money”)? Or do some things, like, say, spending on defense or the justice system, justify taxation?

        • Two thoughts:

          1) Some government is necessary (see also: the Declaration of Independence); therefore, some taxation is necessary. Taxation to fund legitimate government functions is not inherently immoral. Taxation for the purpose of wealth redistribution, on the other hand, is immoral.

          2) In a federal union of sovereign states, the federal government should have absolute minimum interaction with individuals. The federal government should impose taxes only on the States, and not on individuals.

        • >> Some government is necessary (see also: the Declaration of Independence); therefore, some taxation is necessary. Taxation to fund legitimate government functions is not inherently immoral. Taxation for the purpose of wealth redistribution, on the other hand, is immoral.

          But all taxation is redistribution of wealth, by definition. When you fund some government function, like, say, defense or police or courts, everyone gets to enjoy the benefits, even if they haven’t paid a dime into it. What’s the fundamental difference between taxing the rich to fund military that will defend the poor, and taxing the rich to fund healthcare that will treat the poor?

          My point, primarily, is that once you have established that forcibly taking money from people under threat of violence (which, let’s face it, is what taxation is, regardless of whether you think it’s good or bad) for some reason is okay, and that some government functions funded by such money are legitimate, your only difference with Sanders is what is “necessary” – and that is not a fundamental difference, but only that of degree, and there is a sliding scale. As that joke goes, “now we’re just haggling over the price”.

          >> In a federal union of sovereign states, the federal government should have absolute minimum interaction with individuals. The federal government should impose taxes only on the States, and not on individuals.

          That’s not unreasonable, but the same question will arise on the state level. This also connects to the constitutionality point that you’ve brought up – yes, I am well aware that the Constitution authorizes the feds to handle defense but not healthcare; and I agree that if we do want federalized healthcare, it should require a constitutional amendment. But what if such amendment were to pass? Or what if your state – which is not limited by the federal constitution in how much it can tax its citizens, and how it can spend that money – establishes a public healthcare system?

          By the way, few people are aware of it, but the healthcare system in Canada actually originated on provincial level rather than federal (because their constitution explicitly assigned the full authority to handle healthcare to the provinces), and while it has a federal component today, that component exists only because the provinces chose to delegate some of their power. Any province can unilaterally withdraw from the system at any time, and handle its own healthcare the way it sees fit (including getting rid of the public option entirely, for example).

      • But but Chip! What about the children? And old people? Without a centrally planned government, they all will die!

        Seriously, people are so brainwashed about the role of government they have no idea what it’s supposed to look like as envisioned by our founding fathers. Everybody thinks the solution to every problem is a law or a government program. Nobody thinks the solution to every problem is to get off your ass and fix it yourself.

    • That is some serious cognitive dissonance. In what way is socialism compatible with personal responsibility and liberty?

  19. A socialist who supports an individual right to own guns, and to bear arms against a tryannical government? You clearly haven’t thought your position through very well.

    • If an all powerful government exists which is fed by taking most of what you have and redistributing said monies with bureaucratic costs and with strings attached, why are they going to stop with your guns and your other enumerated Constitutional Rights?

  20. Bernie Sanders will serve a very useful purpose in this election. He will peel off “progressive” bloc votes from Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and force Clinton to justify a lot of her weasel-grifter positions. Particularly on banking and Wall Street.

    Sanders has another purpose: To cast Clinton’s ethical and legal problems into sharp relief, because Sanders has very little in the way of “scandal” attached to him.

    The single most important goal of this next election is to defeat Hillary Clinton. She is the candidate of the Ivy League, the media and the banking sector. This is the cohort that is plundering the Republic, and they’re the ones who want to ban guns in a big way, because an armed populace is an impediment to their supra-national agenda.

    • Ding! We have a winner! Best post in this entire thread, thank you sir. I believe you are absolutely correct.

      • Yeah, he’s probably correct on this, but I don’t think Rodham can be beat; she’s been annointed; and one look at the clowns piling out of that Repub circus car is one illustration of the process. Her machine will roll right over Sanders eventually and that will be that.

        Get ready for eight years of doubling down on what havoc Obola hath wrought so far.

        • You may be right, but every time I see her speak now, she seems senile. Something’s off. Maybe she’s just being too cautious, but she sounds like an electronic speech generator, with the emphases and pauses in odd places.

        • Yes, I have noticed this too. Obama’s charisma combined with historical precedent is what got him elected for his first term; it surely was not his level of experience. Hillary has the “first woman in office” appeal going for her for those that vote in that way, but I do not believe she has the charisma to pull it off. She is dull, scripted, and her true elitist personality often shows when she speaks, plus her governmental experience is mottled with black marks. Sanders will be her foil. However, I don’t believe Sanders could win a general election. Call me an optimist, but I believe there is great potential for him to expose all of her ugly flaws resulting in neither of them being elected. Good for us, too bad for them.

        • I saw one small segment of her speech for about a minute where she was taking ridiculously slow and looking down at her written copy every 3-4 words and putting weird pauses of over-emphasis so she could look at her copy longer. She’s going to implode as the campaign heats up.

        • Yeah, I could be all wrong here; there may be some game going on that I haven’t been able to figure out. She may well be in the process of imploding, due to various factors, including obvious medical issues for a while now, but why would they run her out there in a campaign? Is she being run just to show that she can’t do the gig while they’ve had somebody else in mind all along? Certainly not Sanders. Are they positioning the Dem candidates to fail so that we do, in fact, end up with one of the RINO clowns?

          Or are they just gonna put her in there regardless of how badly she falters?

          How about this? What if it becomes clear that no one has any kind of chance at the office and Obola declares a state of national emergency and by executive fiat gives himself a third term, like Pharaoh Roosevelt II?

        • @Juliesa

          Gore was so wooden that people nicknamed him “tree” yet he came within a few hundred of winning the presidency (and as an aside to any left wing asshats reading this, Bush was the legitimate winner of that election). He had to be coached to move his arms around while talking, and was still famous for doing it at random seeming times rather than tying it in with what he said.

          Hillary CAN indeed win if the Republicans nominate a sufficiently stupid-sounding candidate.

        • Or are they just gonna put her in there regardless of how badly she falters?

          They are counting on the MFM ignoring her faults and dragging her across the finish line. It’s was their strategy the last two elections and they were right. I can’t blame them in thinking the MFM will help again. Makes me vomit.

        • She has appears to have suffered a lasting traumatic brain injury. One of the clues is to look carefully at the eyeglasses she’s been wearing in some occasions. If you look through the edge of glasses, you see a fresnel-like lens effect. Her speech pattern and the manner in which she’s been walking are two other indications of a possible TBI.

        • Yes, I’ve noticed that, too, as have other folks; for the few seconds I can stand to look at and listen to the fugly commie pig. But then again I have it on good information from several friends in Delaware over the years that our VP is probably bi-polar; they’ve witnessed some pretty serious behavioral outbursts from him down there.

          And look how bad the medical issues were with JFK; back then, though, the media cooperated 200% in not letting that get out. I wonder how cooperative they’ll be now with Lady MacBeth of Little Rock.

          And if indeed her “campaign” blows up because of this, who will they shovel in next? Is this a potential bag job so a RINO gets in? That won’t help us at all.

    • “The single most important goal of this next election is to defeat Hillary Clinton. ”

      Hmm.

      In 2008 the most important thing was ‘Anyone but Hillary’.

      And we got Obama.

      How’s that currently working for us?

    • The single most important goal of this next election is to defeat Hillary Clinton.

      As Prager says…..

      …the Republican party falls into the trap of running against the opposition by name instead of running against Leftism. Leftist ideas employed by Obama and Hilary have failed miserably. Make the election about Leftism versus Liberty.

  21. While I could never vote for any Democrat, much less a socialist, Sanders does seem to be of much higher character then the Clinton family of beak-dipping grifters. Plus, I do not relish having a rapist back living in the WH. Just a pet peeve.

    I’m enjoying getting to learn about Sanders.

    • I don’t give Sanders much credit for being able to clear the moral bar set by the Clintons. A box turtle could easily do that.

  22. The debates on the D side should be fun. No matter who wins in the end, our economic and social and societal problems are now too big for anyone(s) to solve in 8 years. All we can do is delay the inevitable. (Apology for the doom, but it’s my opinion)

  23. Rand Paul recently put it well. I’m just paraphrasing: if you think health care is a right, then you think that, at some level, you have the right to enslave people to provide it for you. Health care as a “right” is incompatible with a free society. Same with “free” education: if you have a right for your education to be free, you necessarily believe you have a right to enslave someone to provide it for you.

    • And to carry that thought just a little further…..

      On the other hand, if you believe you have the right to speak your mind, all you are asking of others is that they not try to force you to shut up. If you believe you have the right to keep and bear arms, all you are asking of others is that they not try to force you to disarm.

      That is the difference between a counterfeit “right” and an actual right.

      Leftists (including some of those here who are anomalously pro-2A) will never understand this.

  24. I see no reason for apologies for what appear to be socialist views. As for Bernie, hats off and good job. Would we all enjoy what the author suggests? You bet! A big part of the disagreement comes as how to get it without being taxed to death and becoming a Communist/Socialism. If we can have the best of both worlds and have our liberty, I’m in. But somehow I doubt this is where out Author and Bernie are coming from.

    • Individual ingenuity. Hard work. Not being a lazy dumbass. Anyone can get there if they stop doing all the dumb things called “nomal” today.

      You can’t shoot yourself in the foot until it heals… This is why socialism fails. It burdens the individual with no reward. It promises carrot, but delivers only stick.

      The root is in expecting “someone else” to pay for it all. That’s what socialism is and why it doesn’t work. No one wants to be the one being taxed the most. They all want to be the recipients. It doesn’t work. It defies human nature. And, like Gravity, you can’t break natural laws no matter how god-like you think your politicians are.

      The only people who praise socialized medicine are those who have never used it. The reason the argument seems one sided is because all those who would use experience to criticize it ARE DEAD from being subjected to it.

    • It’s not the drugs themselves, but the belief that they are socially worthless because they depend on those drugs.

      I’ve been there. I know what it’s like. The difference is I am not a damn animal being treated like a damn animal by shrinks who have forgotten that humanity is defined in higher intellect, not instincts and hormones.

      Dehumanization. Frustration. Anger… Most people are taught to be animals, the people “treating” them assume it and act accordingly… It’s layer upon layer of getting it wrong, but no one can tell the experts they’re wrong.

      Were I a man of lesser intellect, I could have been one of these “crazies.”

  25. Conservatives hate socialism until you remind them that their Medicare and social security would disappear without it.

    Socialism is a curse word in American politics. People hate hate hate it. They don’t know what it means. They don’t know that it’s a financial system and not a political system. They don’t know that you can love your gun rights and also love the idea that a corporation can’t buy an election.

    People are stupid. They’d rather hide in fear from collectivism and national services and the FACT, not opinion that that socialist countries like Sweden and Norway are the happiest, safest, most developed nations in the world, than accept the idea that socialism is the next step in political evolution.

    At the end of the day, OP, you’ve picked the wrong website to write an article to. Look what the readers did to Farago for protecting homosexuals? Look what they’ve done above to anyone that doesn’t buy the idea that socialists and liberals are all evil America hating bastards. Look at the holocaust deniers, and the 9/11 truthers, and the cop haters. This isn’t the right place to find middle ground as a liberal who supports gun rights.

    • Socialism has never worked, anywhere, ever.

      I don’t take issue with the ideal that everyone should live well. I take issue with the idea that everyone who makes bad, irresponsible decisions should live well.

      That’s the problem with the American Socialist. They refuse to foot the bill for their own behavior. They point the finger at everyone but themselves.

      Gravity is an evil Republican Conspiracy! They want to force us to buy oil and cars and plane tickets when they could just shut off their evil Gravity and we could all flap our arms and fly around for free! Utpoia! Al Gore invented it!

      Such extreme stupidity has consequences, and they refuse to step up to reality.

      I don’t want Roads. I don’t want Police. I don’t want Schools. I don’t want the Power Grid. Forcing me to pay for these institutions, which do not do anything which they claim to do, is wrong. Schools don’t educate. Police can’t be Omnipresent Superman. Roads are cheaper when built privately or not at all, no politician ever built a road, they just hire PRIVATE contractors and re-appropriate the remaining pork barrel. I can make my own electrical power better, cheaper, and more reliable than the power grid…

      Socialism doesn’t do anything that the individual can’t do 10x better; if they make an effort to get a clue and get off the couch. Socialism only looks like a good idea to the lazy and the stupid. In practice, it’s even worse.

    • “Conservatives hate socialism until you remind them that their Medicare and social security would disappear without it.”

      No, no, a thousand times no! Medicare and Social Security are a cancer on this country. The fraud that Medicare has wrought on the health care system has driven prices to insane levels. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, and it’s broke. The only thing they do is make sure you are dependent on the government, and a slave to the democrat party.

      • Unfortunately, however, there are entirely too many “rock ribbed Republican” types who behave exactly as Jake from Detroit stated, insisting that they paid in all their lives and are entitled to get paid back (ignoring the fact that the people forced to help pay them back aren’t the ones who stole their money and should not bear responsibility for it–the collective fallacy).

  26. Go ahead idiots, vote democrat, socialist, liberal, whatever. When you’re standing in line to turn your guns in don’t come crying to the rest of us who will be fighting on the frontlines. You’re like the Jews that turned their neighbors in. You’re gonna be on that train too eventually.

    • How ’bout we don’t vote at all and quit playing in the stupid charade? They take us for fools and laugh at us when we get all exercised over elections and voting nonsense.

      But hey, good luck fighting on the so-called front lines with your fellow Repub chickenhawk warriors and watching the rest of us being loaded into boxcars. I’m sure we’ll all be crying over how naive we were and how didn’t vote for the latest Repub savior, which, by the way, is likely to be one in a long series of Repub ass-hats who’ve betrayed us repeatedly while constantly lying to us. How are they any better, honestly, than the Dems, libturds, socialists and commies?

      • Jesus h tap dancing Christ you’re seriously an idiot. How about we don’t vote at all? Really? Wow. Go back to whatever New York leftist hell hole you came from. How old are you? You are seriously uneducated.

        • Yo, bro, keep voting and see where it gets you. What has it got you so far?

          By the way, I’m not from New York, I’m 62 next month, and have graduate-level study at the MA and PhD level in Renaissance and medieval literature, history and philosophy. Also a war vet and ex-cop.

          Looks to me like you’re the dude who needs to crack some books and SOON.

        • Sounds about right- you have a worthless degree in libturd arts that you wasted a bunch of money on (either yours or the tax payers) and you’re still an idiot. And I don’t care that your a war vet. So am I, and are a lot of people. That doesn’t prove you’re not an idiot.

        • Yeah that’s what I thought. No rebuttal, no intelligence. Just repeating of the typical liberal arguments. Go cry yourself to sleep weakling.

  27. “I believe that every American that puts in a 40+ hour work week should not live in poverty”

    Stop living a Champagne Lifestyle with a Beer Income.

    I make well below poverty level income, and I’m comfortable and happy. I don’t do stupid things with my money. Simple. There are people making 10x more money than I do who can’t seem to pay the bills…

    I agree with some of this fool’s rant, but I also agree that those who fail to live responsibly reap the difficulties they sow. All of what he demands and thinks should be possible, is already possible and always has been. The problem is stupid people living stupid lifestyles making demands for others to foot the bill for the consequences of it…

    Get rid of your spinning rims. Get outside of city limits. Stop paying rent and interest. Stop keeping up with the Jones’. Stop doing all the stupid crap that is considered normal. Conventional Stupidity is what screws you, and entitlement won’t fix it.

  28. Unfortunately, not many people in the democratic socialist party of America (DSA) agree with you. In the ultra liberal township where I live in Illinois, a group of about 10 to 12 DSA members convinced local legislators to pass a resolution asking for federal legislation requiring universal background checks for any sale or transfer. In speaking with this group briefly (pretending to be a gun control advocate) they openly admitted that the goal is to ban possession of all handguns and also to have a list of recent sales so that the now illegal hand guns could be confiscated by police. I think it’s great that you support the people’s right to own guns, but understand that your viewpoint is a minority in the party and many people are actively involved with pushing gun control legislation.

  29. OK, I’ll give him a smidgen of credit for not waving the bloody shirt.

    I’d give him more if I thought he were sincerely pro-2A. More, but not nearly enough to buy the rest of what he’s selling, which is unadulterated crap.

  30. My thoughts, only applies to my voting:
    > He would never get my vote, for so many reasons, but…
    > I’d rather have Sanders than Clinton. But then I’d rather have anyone than Clinton.
    > I have no illusions Sanders would stay “moderate” if he got elected. Socialism cannot long tolerate the Bill of Rights, especially 2A.
    > The OP is deluding himself if he does not see that being both a socialist and a supporter of gun rights does not have him on a collision course politically. At some point he will have to choose.
    > The OP thinks we should be impressed that Sanders didn’t “wave the bloody shirt.” So we should applaud him for doing the right thing? What no politician should do? I didn’t see that he condemned his Dem colleagues for doing it.
    > There is no chance Sanders will get nominated, much less elected. Yeah, we thought that about Obama, but Sanders is no Obama.
    > I don’t want someone “moderate” on gun control. Saying that does not impress me. I want someone who is unabashedly pro-gun rights and passionately anti-crime. Oh, and not a socialist. I believe in ALL the principles this country was founded on. They work. Our government, especially the liberal side, have made them not work.

  31. Guns have never been Bernie’s Issue. He is aware the gun murder rate here is the lowest in the US — and that a lot of his supporters own guns (the non-hippie supporters).

    Wealth inequality is Bernie’s Issue — unfortunately — he is not bright enough to see that Federal Reserve policies are responsible for 99% of his Issue. I am not sure he could pass a 3rd grade math class. He also thinks there is a “Social Security Trust Fund”. Either way — he won’t be President.

  32. From what I know of Bernie Sanders, he is a pro-gun Socialist who serves a state with a deep love of firearms and wonderfully tolerable gun laws.

  33. Almost all of the above comments seem to have neglected one important fact – the country is in the hole for about 18.15 trillion dollars (yes that’s a “T”, Mergatroid). By the time Barry leaves office it will be around $20 trillion. So let’s do the math and see how that works out. Since there are no trillionaires, let’s confiscate the wealth of billionaires to pay off the debt. It would take the wealth of 20,000 billionaires (assuming a billion is all each had) to eliminate the country’s debt. But they don’t exist! So let’s just include the millionaires, surely there are enough of them! – it would take the wealth of 20 million millionaires to reduce the debt to zero – unfortunately they also don’t exist. And these figures don’t include the unfunded liabilities such as Social Security (Ponzi would be proud), Medicare, Medicaid. and Obamacare. And this parasite wants more free stuff presumably paid for by higher taxes on “the rich”, additional borrowing, and the printing of more paper money – all of which will put the country into another recession, which will then reduce revenues. We’ve unfortunately reached the point of diminishing returns. We’re really flat broke and have painted ourselves into one hell of a corner – we’re Greece times 1,000 but we just won’t admit it. At this point, only severe (drastic) belt tightening will save the financial wellbeing of this country, and neither party seems the least inclined to do anything about it.

    “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”
    Margaret Thatcher

    “The main thing that every political campaign in the United States demonstrates is that the politicians of all parties, despite their superficial enmities, are really members of one great brotherhood. Their principal, and indeed their sole, object is to collar public office, with all the privileges and profits that go therewith. They achieve this collaring by buying votes with other people’s money. No professional politician is ever actually in favor of public economy. It is his implacable enemy, and he knows it. All professional politicians are dedicated wholeheartedly to waste and corruption. They are the enemies of every decent man.”
    H. L. Mencken

    “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    “Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”
    Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)

    “You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.”
    Ayn Rand

  34. Posts like this make me happy. 75% of the comments to posts like this make me sad.

    Rather than take it for what it is, and have a welcoming big tent mentality, the small minded just start calling people names.

    This is why we are where we are. Because hardliners push the moderates right out of the group because we don’t fall in step with their group-think.

    I guess there are more readers of TTAG that would rather not give an inch on any single belief or be open to hearing what others have to say, and go down with the ship, than to expand our base and win.

    Me? I want to win.

    • The concept of an all powerful state which ignores individual rights and the concept of private gun ownership which implies a state which serves the individual is an incompatible paradigm of government. Either you champion the individual or you champion the collective. You cannot champion both.

      • Amen.

        “We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
        Hillary Clinton

  35. I believe in the five freedoms laid down by FDR.
    Freedom from speech.
    Freedom from religion.
    Freedom from want.
    Freedom from fear.
    Freedom from freedom.

  36. Great-and for all you heathen Jesus is at the door and about to return And HE is not happy. Have a special night…

    • God help us – another “socialist, earth-loving, big government hippy” who wants free stuff. 18.15 Trillion dollars and counting……………

Leave a Reply

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