• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bernie Sanders Brags About His ‘D-‘ from the NRA

Texashiker

Texashiker

Lifer
Flipping channels while doing some work on my AR-15, I came across a news discussion about the democrat debate on gun control.

Bernie was bragging about his NRA D- rating on gun rights.

Why is it that democrats are supposed to be tolerate and progressive, but brag about taking rights away?

Example article of bernie bragging,

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...rs-in-dem-debate-i-stood-up-to-the-gun-lobby/
During the January 17 Democratic Debate, presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders bragged about his “D-” from the NRA. He also talked about standing up to “the gun lobby” when running for Congress in 1988.
Click to expand...

Why are demorats making a big deal out of bernies voting history? Shouldn't they be proud of supporting rights? That is what demorats do, right? They support our rights?

Anyway, I installed an OD green handguard on my AR with one of those new magpul sling attachments. Rifle looks good.
 
It is a weird deal when you think about it. They are upping each other on how much they want to take away a constitutional right. Imagine if this debate was centered around other amendments?
 
Texashiker said:
Flipping channels while doing some work on my AR-15, I came across a news discussion about the democrat debate on gun control.

Bernie was bragging about his NRA D- rating on gun rights.

Why is it that democrats are supposed to be tolerate and progressive, but brag about taking rights away?

Example article of bernie bragging,

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...rs-in-dem-debate-i-stood-up-to-the-gun-lobby/


Why are demorats making a big deal out of bernies voting history? Shouldn't they be proud of supporting rights? That is what demorats do, right? They support our rights?

Anyway, I installed an OD green handguard on my AR with one of those new magpul sling attachments. Rifle looks good.
Click to expand...

So, uhh, you'll be headed for Oregon, right?
 
Genx87 said:
It is a weird deal when you think about it. They are upping each other on how much they want to take away a constitutional right. Imagine if this debate was centered around other amendments?
Click to expand...

That's really not what they are saying. What they are saying is that they want to impose regulations on it that they (and Democratic primary voters) think are common sense. You don't have to agree with them, but they are not calling for a ban on the ability of people to own firearms that I have seen.

I would also say that candidates frequently try to up each other on how much they are going to violate the 4th amendment, they just put it in different terms. (keeping us safe! monitoring terrorists!)

All that aside, screw the NRA's ratings. They are a toxic influence on society.
 
Both parties want to take away constitutional rights. Neither party is truly for freedoms despite the tag lines of their campaigns.

Some democrats want to restrict guns to those who have or likely will commit crimes. Some republicans want to restrict marriage. Get over it. If you want to change it, stop voting for the same two parties.
 
Texashiker said:
Flipping channels while doing some work on my AR-15, I came across a news discussion about the democrat debate on gun control.

Bernie was bragging about his NRA D- rating on gun rights.

Why is it that democrats are supposed to be tolerate and progressive, but brag about taking rights away?

Example article of bernie bragging,

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...rs-in-dem-debate-i-stood-up-to-the-gun-lobby/


Why are demorats making a big deal out of bernies voting history? Shouldn't they be proud of supporting rights? That is what demorats do, right? They support our rights? ...
Click to expand...
The flaw in your logic is it presumes agreeing with the NRA is synonymous with upholding the Second Amendment, while disagreeing with them is attacking it. Given the NRA's often extreme positions, that's not rational.

To offer a counter example you might understand, the ACLU's mission is defending the Constitution. By your logic, anyone who ever disagrees with the ACLU supports taking our rights away. Do you sometimes disagree with the ACLU? Why don't you support the Constitution?
 
eskimospy said:
That's really not what they are saying. What they are saying is that they want to impose regulations on it that they (and Democratic primary voters) think are common sense.
Click to expand...

Kinda like how voter id laws are common sense?

Why would you vote form someone who brags about restricting rights? Whats next, maybe restrict religion, freedom of the press?

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-hillary-clinton-restricts-the-press-2014-7

A copy of the contract was released by the school Wednesday. Among other restrictions, the contract required no press presence at the event reception and no opportunities for members of the media to hear from Clinton apart from her speech and a moderated question-and-answer segment immediately afterward.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Texashiker said:
Kinda like how voter id laws are common sense?
Click to expand...

No of course not. As we've gone over before voter ID laws are the opposite of common sense. They are irrational because they attack a nonexistent problem.

Why would you vote form someone who brags about restricting rights? Whats next, maybe restrict religion, freedom of the press?
Click to expand...

You brag about restricting rights all the time so doesn't that make you a huge hypocrite?

Regardless, everyone is for restricting rights. Everyone. The only question is what rights and to what extent. I personally agree that our gun laws in the US are senselessly lax, so if someone wants to run on 'restricting' second amendment rights in ways I agree with I'm all for it.
 
Imagine that, first order of business on a day off is to start an ignorant troll thread.

Though I've owned guns all of my adult life, I never saw any reason to join nor support the NRA.
 
eskimospy said:
Regardless, everyone is for restricting rights. Everyone. The only question is what rights and to what extent. I personally agree that our gun laws in the US are senselessly lax, so if someone wants to run on 'restricting' second amendment rights in ways I agree with I'm all for it.
Click to expand...

Restricting one right should be good for all rights.

Background check on gun purchase:

Background check on voting?
Background check before going to church?
Maybe a permit to buy a bible, torah or quran?
Want to carry a bible to church, you will need a permit.
Want to talk about political candidates, you will need a background check and permit.
Want to post something in a online forum about politics, you will need a background check, permit, and waiting period.
 
Texashiker said:
Restricting one right should be good for all rights.

Background check on gun purchase:

Background check on voting?
Background check before going to church?
Maybe a permit to buy a bible, torah or quran?
Want to carry a bible to church, you will need a permit.
Want to talk about political candidates, you will need a background check and permit.
Want to post something in a online forum about politics, you will need a background check, permit, and waiting period.
Click to expand...

Do you consider the Bible or Quran a deadly weapon?


....


you know, you might actually be onto something there, TH. And I bet you didn't even know it. :hmm:
 
Texashiker said:
Kinda like how voter id laws are common sense?

Why would you vote form someone who brags about restricting rights? Whats next, maybe restrict religion, freedom of the press?

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-hillary-clinton-restricts-the-press-2014-7
Click to expand...

Voter fraud is almost as rare as bigfoot primates. That can't be said for gun violence.

Like the rest of us, Clinton has the right to expose herself to the Media as she sees fit. It's absurd to say that's "restricting freedom of the press".
 
Texashiker said:
Restricting one right should be good for all rights.

Background check on gun purchase:

Background check on voting?
Background check before going to church?
Maybe a permit to buy a bible, torah or quran?
Want to carry a bible to church, you will need a permit.
Want to talk about political candidates, you will need a background check and permit.
Want to post something in a online forum about politics, you will need a background check, permit, and waiting period.
Click to expand...

That is an incredibly stupid idea. All rights and situations are not regulated the same way because of common sense.

For example:
Need a permit to march in a parade that clogs up major city streets? Sounds like a good idea. By your logic I guess you need a permit to open your mouth.
 
I heard only a couple snippets of the Democratic debate, and some of the arguments being made on firearms were ridiculous. Bragging about prohibiting firearms in national parks? What do Democrats who go camping in them plan to do when confronted with a bear, attempt to reason with him or bore him to death with the details of Bernie's "universal healthcare plan"?

And arguing against particular models of firearms without any logical reasons was stupidity in action. For example why would you make a big deal about how dangerous an AR-15 is and how it has no place in hunting, yet completely ignoring far more dangerous firearms also suitable for hunting? Do Democrats somehow think that a mass shooter using a Remington 700 rifle chambered in .308 is preferable so long as the shooter was prevented from using an AR-15 in .223? Pretty much Bernie and Hillary would both declare this first image a more deadly firearm than the second, but would have no intelligent explanation of why.

AR15a.jpg


0bd83cdb48dcc5a5cb50da8912186ce9.jpg
 
zinfamous said:
Do you consider the Bible or Quran a deadly weapon?
Click to expand...

Considering how many people have been killed in the name of GOD, those books might be a deadly weapon.

Quran says kill the nonbelievers. By its very definition that is hate speech.

If the democrats want to restrict guns, then lets restrict hate speech.
 
eskimospy said:
For example:
Need a permit to march in a parade that clogs up major city streets? Sounds like a good idea. By your logic I guess you need a permit to open your mouth.
Click to expand...

As the democrats say, if we can save one life then it is worth it.

9-11.jpg


So, when do we start restricting religion?
 
Texashiker said:
Flipping channels while doing some work on my AR-15, I came across a news discussion about the democrat debate on gun control.

Bernie was bragging about his NRA D- rating on gun rights.

Why is it that democrats are supposed to be tolerate and progressive, but brag about taking rights away?

Example article of bernie bragging,

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...rs-in-dem-debate-i-stood-up-to-the-gun-lobby/


Why are demorats making a big deal out of bernies voting history? Shouldn't they be proud of supporting rights? That is what demorats do, right? They support our rights?

Anyway, I installed an OD green handguard on my AR with one of those new magpul sling attachments. Rifle looks good.
Click to expand...

Reagan supported an assault weapons ban too, and the Brady bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html
 
eskimospy said:
If you want to start restricting the practice of religion that's your business.
Click to expand...

Sanders and hillary were bragging about restricting rights. If that came from the right the news would have a field day.

Where do you draw the line on restricting rights?

It is ok to restrict gun rights, just nothing else?
 
senseamp said:
Reagan supported an assault weapons ban too, and the Brady bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html
Click to expand...

A waiting period law exists now, and yet such measures have not and never will be sufficient to stop evil men. Indeed many recent mass shooters were successfully cleared to purchase during the waiting period. The left will have to reconcile themselves to the fact that a certain level of risk will always exist within a free society. Your desire to "feel safe" by imposing restrictions on things you fear and dislike directly hurts others like those who rely on weapons to help feed their family or protect them from predators. People in places like Alaska have actual dangers to protect themselves against, unlike Chicagoans who only have the boogeymen of being hurt by people with scary looking rifles.
 
Texashiker said:
Sanders and hillary were bragging about restricting rights. If that came from the right the news would have a field day.

Where do you draw the line on restricting rights?

It is ok to restrict gun rights, just nothing else?
Click to expand...

As I already mentioned ALL rights are restricted and literally everyone in the US is in support of restricting rights.

Speech is restricted in that you can't yell fire in a theater.
Guns are restricted in that you can't own exceptionally dangerous ones or own them if you're mentally ill. (sometimes! haha)
Religion is restricted in that you can't commit crimes in the service of it. (no human sacrifice, etc)

How is all of this not obvious to you? Your standard is stupid. Period. Hell, by your logic if we got the voter ID that you wanted then you will need an ID to speak. How does that sound?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top