• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie attends anti gun rally with armed security

vegas giants said:
Do people in europe not need to defend themselves with a gun 500k - 300 million times?
Click to expand...

Its 500k to 3 million (not 300 million), but no, they don't have the guns to defend themselves as well as we do.

That said, in most of these 500k-3m instances Americans who draw a firearm to defend their lives don't even have to pull the trigger, else the justifiable homicide portion of gun deaths, or gun deaths in general would be much higher here.

Fortunately, when faced with armed opposition most criminals flee, and most mass shooters turn their weapons on themselves if they're not already taken down.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Its 500k to 3 million (not 300 million), but no, they don't have the guns to defend themselves as well as we do.

That said, in most of these 500k-3m instances Americans who draw a firearm to defend their lives don't even have to pull the trigger, else the justifiable homicide portion of gun deaths, or gun deaths in general would be much higher here.

Fortunately, when faced with armed opposition most criminals flee, and most mass shooters turn their weapons on themselves if they're not already taken down.
Click to expand...

Yet crime is higher here
 
vegas giants said:
Yet crime is higher here
Click to expand...

Actually that is not true. The UK has a higher violent crime rate than the US, if you compare using the FBI's standard's. Also, where we have violent crime, its not a nationwide issue, more than half of murders are in 2% of US counties.

The fact remains, if you are not suicidal, engaged in the drug trade or live in one of those counties your chances of being killed is next to zero, your chances living in London are MUCH worse.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Actually that is not true. The UK has a higher violent crime rate than the US, if you compare using the FBI's standard's. Also, where we have violent crime, its not a nationwide issue, more than half of murders are in 2% of US counties.

The fact remains, if you are not suicidal, engaged in the drug trade or live in one of those counties your chances of being killed is next to zero, your chances living in London are MUCH worse.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Sorry

United Kingdom vs United States Crime Stats Compared
 
zsu2357 said:
And in order to disarm the whack jobs they seem to advocate disarming all. Except their bodyguards.
Click to expand...

I think I've probably made no less than forty or fifty statements on the gun issue here at DP, and nowhere have I EVER EVER said that I was in favor of "disarming all".

But by all means, don't let that stop any of you from putting words in my mouth.
That's why I stopped responding in the thread, there was no point in responding to what is essentially a circle jerk.
 
Doesn't sound like anyone is suggesting disarming the police. Nor should a popular politician be expected to show up without security. Get a grip, people! I've debated gun control until I've been blue in the face. I'm not for taking your Dad's shotgun or anything else in your gun cabinet away. But, the kid's are saying, they will be the ones to do something about gun control, if the people in charge now won't. So, if you want it to be something that's halfway reasonable; participate. Personally, I'd be happy with a really good tran-state background check system (that actually works) for now.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
What a damn hypocrite. Attends an anti gun rally with armed gaurds. What is with these anti gun politicians, always do as I say, not as I do. Have they no shame? Are their lives more important than yours? That is what their words and deeds say.

Bernie Sanders Called a Hypocrite by Gun-Rights Advocates for Armed Police Guard at Student Walkout

Senator Bernie Sanders joined students participating in a national walkout to protest gun violence outside the Capitol in Washington, D.C., Wednesday. But while his appearance was cheered by those in attendance, it garnered predictable criticism in conservative circles. It was not merely his surprise presence at the event, however, that attracted a backlash but rather the appearance alongside him of multiple armed police officers.
Related: Gun Control Protests Aren't Going Away This Time: More Rallies to Come After National School Walkouts
Videos and photos of the event showed students reacting with frenzied excitement to the arrival of the independent senator from Vermont, who was helped through the mass crowds, shaking hands and greeting protesters, via a police accompaniment.
Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now
The images led to calls of hypocrisy on conservative news sites such as the Daily Caller.

=====================================


Ya think?
Click to expand...

What's to get on about.

Everywhere BUT the excited states, that's the rule. The good guys get to have guns and the bad guys have to go away.

I don't see anything hypocritical here, the man has had death threats. And as long as whacked out gun owners insist on walking around with military grade killing hardware, so be it.

You know, the founding fathers voted in favor of the electorate having flintlocks. Period.

If that's all you could carry I'd have no issue at all.
 
Rosie1 said:
Doesn't sound like anyone is suggesting disarming the police. Nor should a popular politician be expected to show up without security. Get a grip, people! I've debated gun control until I've been blue in the face. I'm not for taking your Dad's shotgun or anything else in your gun cabinet away. But, the kid's are saying, they will be the ones to do something about gun control, if the people in charge now won't. So, if you want it to be something that's halfway reasonable; participate. Personally, I'd be happy with a really good tran-state background check system (that actually works) for now.
Click to expand...


I agree with a universal background check requirement including private sales as long as it's kept free or cheap (under 10). My fear is the check will be used as a work around ban by doing something stupid like charging 500+ to run a check. Also there needs to be a defined process of how one gets on and how one can get off any Do Not Sale to list. Agisn I can see localities adding folks on the no sale list over a Jay walking ticket if there isn't set qualifications.
 
Fearandloathing said:
You know, the founding fathers voted in favor of the electorate having flintlocks. Period.

If that's all you could carry I'd have no issue at all.
Click to expand...

That argument is weak IMO. The founders also didn't have TV radio or internet. So freedom of speech wouldn't apply to those outlets? The printing presses where all manual operated so only newspapers using that style of press get protection? The religions you can practice freely are only those established pre constitution the founders only knew if them. The founders had horse and buggy not cars so your only protected from illegal searches if you're on a horse not in a car?
 
Chillfolks said:
That argument is weak IMO. The founders also didn't have TV radio or internet. So freedom of speech wouldn't apply to those outlets? The printing presses where all manual operated so only newspapers using that style of press get protection? The religions you can practice freely are only those established pre constitution the founders only knew if them. The founders had horse and buggy not cars so your only protected from illegal searches if you're on a horse not in a car?
Click to expand...

Any of them responsible for mass killings?

Let's remember we're talking about innocent civilians, children, not just statistic.

Further, what happened to "well regulated"? You can't have only part of an amendment, and from what I read many places anyone can get anything simply by attending a gun show. If there were any "regulation" among the sane, it would and should be very difficult to buy a killing machine.

Instead you have this so-called "freedom" which anywhere else would be called madness.
 
A politician wants physical protection during an anti-gun-violence rally? Yawn. This is a nothing story. Moving on. :coffeepap
 
Fearandloathing said:
Any of them responsible for mass killings?

Let's remember we're talking about innocent civilians, children, not just statistic.
Click to expand...

Understand all that, however that has no bearing on the point you made about founders only meaning flintlocks. It's just weak IMO if you're not willing to apply that standard across the board.

Further, what happened to "well regulated"? You can't have only part of an amendment, and from what I read many places anyone can get anything simply by attending a gun show. If there were any "regulation" among the sane, it would and should be very difficult to buy a killing machine.
Click to expand...

I'm ok with defining what "well regulated" more. IMO is somewhere between one extreme of only applying military and the other extreme of Bubba on hist front porch looking out for commies.

Instead you have this so-called "freedom" which anywhere else would be called madness.
Click to expand...

A few of our freedoms are looked upon this way that's one thing that separates us from other countries, our freedom.
 
Fearandloathing said:
What's to get on about.

Everywhere BUT the excited states, that's the rule. The good guys get to have guns and the bad guys have to go away.

I don't see anything hypocritical here, the man has had death threats. And as long as whacked out gun owners insist on walking around with military grade killing hardware, so be it.

You know, the founding fathers voted in favor of the electorate having flintlocks. Period.

If that's all you could carry I'd have no issue at all.
Click to expand...

You are ignorant on firearms history, at the time the second was written, repeating guns already existed. I too have had death threats, does that mean I am exempt?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Some folks will toss out completely false nonsense just to deflect from replying to the point of post that they quoted.
Click to expand...

the anti gun side especially
 
Fearandloathing said:
Any of them responsible for mass killings?

Let's remember we're talking about innocent civilians, children, not just statistic.

Further, what happened to "well regulated"? You can't have only part of an amendment, and from what I read many places anyone can get anything simply by attending a gun show. If there were any "regulation" among the sane, it would and should be very difficult to buy a killing machine.

Instead you have this so-called "freedom" which anywhere else would be called madness.
Click to expand...

one of the most idiotic arguments we see are those who try to apply well regulated to the citizenry's ownership of firearms. Its idiotic on THREE LEVELS


1) well regulated is applied to the militia NOT the people. The right to keep and bear arms is not subject to regulation by the federal government since the federal government was never properly given any such power and even if it was, (and thus the tenth amendment no longer applies) the second precludes it.

2) well regulated meant a militia in working order

3) the bill of rights is about blanket restrictions on the federal government-the people who cite "well regulated" are arguing the idiotic position that the bill of rights-at least in terms of the second-was intended to EXPAND the power of congress beyond Article one section 8
 
Chillfolks said:
I agree with a universal background check requirement including private sales as long as it's kept free or cheap (under 10). My fear is the check will be used as a work around ban by doing something stupid like charging 500+ to run a check. Also there needs to be a defined process of how one gets on and how one can get off any Do Not Sale to list. Agisn I can see localities adding folks on the no sale list over a Jay walking ticket if there isn't set qualifications.
Click to expand...

This is what I was advocating and have BEEN advocating all along.
You're born with the basic right and it assumed that you're a rational being.
Your demonstration of responsibility is the thing that allows you to exercise your rights.
Nothing more complicated than simply being a good citizen with no criminal record, and no long list of psychotic episodes.

As long as you remain a good citizen and stay out of trouble, go ahead and enjoy your rights under the 2A. Advanced and high powered weapons will require that you demonstrate ability, responsibility and training.
Go off the rails, commit crimes and otherwise spotlight yourself as a danger to the public, and your right gets restricted.
But all in all, ordinary law abiding people should not be penalized or economically disadvantaged for simply trying to exercise their 2A rights. It should be no different than getting a fishing license, and local law enforcement must follow general rules accepted by a majority of states with regard to assessing a person's background, to eliminate the possibility of politicizing the issue.
PS: Self defense should never be a factor in restricting a person's rights...EVER.

Do Not Sell lists should not factor in ANY incident involving the exercise of self defense, or moving violations or financial issues like poor credit. The factors should be limited to incidents involving violence, threats, drugs and espionage.

Now watch as the usual suspects continue to paint me as a gun grabber anyway.
That's what always happens on these threads.
It's like talking to a brick wall.
 
Fearandloathing said:
What's to get on about.

Everywhere BUT the excited states, that's the rule. The good guys get to have guns and the bad guys have to go away.

I don't see anything hypocritical here, the man has had death threats. And as long as whacked out gun owners insist on walking around with military grade killing hardware, so be it.

You know, the founding fathers voted in favor of the electorate having flintlocks. Period.

If that's all you could carry I'd have no issue at all.
Click to expand...

the founders ACKNOWLEDGED that free men have a right to own whatever arms they wanted and the FOUNDERS decided to not give the federal government any power to change that fact
 
Fearandloathing said:
Dude, I stopped reading after "ignorant".

Have a good life
Click to expand...

It is not my fault you are ignorant on a topic you are posting about. Please walk us through how the founding Fathers only intended the second to cover flintlocks? Debate your position. If that is why you are posting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom