Bernie Sanders Campaign Announces 1 Million Individual Campaign Contributions - Polidicks

[QUOTE=barttool;48804045]I don't get your post. he says "ban all guns not used for hunting" you say he's implying that the AR-15 should be banned. But then you also say that the AR-15 *is* used for hunting. What makes you conclude he's implying that?[/QUOTE] I'm saying that the AR-15 is used for hunting, but people like Bernie Sanders just assume its only use is to murder people which is not true at all.

[QUOTE=Hepburn;48805361]I'm saying that the AR-15 is used for hunting, but people like Bernie Sanders just assume its only use is to murder people which is not true at all.[/QUOTE] But Sanders has said he wants it to be a state by state issue with minimal federal bans, if anything he has this thing...its something that people used to have....oh ya a middle ground stance

[QUOTE=Sableye;48805407]But Sanders has said he wants it to be a state by state issue with minimal federal bans, if anything he has this thing...its something that people used to have....oh ya a middle ground stance[/QUOTE] "Minimal" federal bans still imply that there are going to be some bans. To anti-gun people he has taken a middle ground, but to pro-gun people, he is most definitely anti-gun.

[QUOTE=Hepburn;48805607]"Minimal" federal bans still imply that there are going to be some bans. To anti-gun people he has taken a middle ground, but to pro-gun people, he is most definitely anti-gun.[/QUOTE] So middle ground to pro-gun people is no middle ground? Read this, I know its Huffpo, but it's informative. Bernie realizes there's a difference between guns in and cities and rural gun owners.

[QUOTE=Sableye;48805407]But Sanders has said he wants it to be a state by state issue with minimal federal bans, if anything he has this thing...its something that people used to have....oh ya a middle ground stance[/QUOTE] I doubt that will happen, some states have very little regulation and mostly abide by federal regulations. My state requires you to register pistols and that's about it, everything else is free game until you hit federal regulations. Take away the federal laws and not only does the ATF lose even more of it's purpose, but it is now de-facto legal to own heavy machine guns and rocket propelled grenades, at least until states start putting up their own hastily written laws. And if he's anti-gun, I doubt unintentionally allowing more larger and stronger arms in the population is something he's in favour of doing.

[QUOTE=CreeplyTuna;48805763]So middle ground to pro-gun people is no middle ground? Read this, I know its Huffpo, but it's informative. Bernie realizes there's a difference between guns in and cities and rural gun owners.[/QUOTE] There was a middle ground and we've already passed it. Tell me, why is it so hard to buy a suppressor or an SBR or a selective fire rifle? "They make guns deadlier!" Bullshit. What is the purpose of banning certain guns and ammo from import other than "We're mad at that country"? Why are the vast majority of gun owners punished when a select few individuals try to murder people?

Because who the fuck actually uses ARs to hunt with? Have you? It's good for varmint hunting and coyotes and shit, but a standard 30-06 rifle is still plenty capable, and there are plenty of.223 rifles that are capable of hunting duties as well. He's not gonna get anywhere on gun issues, really. Too much cultural backlash. The entire Republican ticket is shitty this time, I've checked each candidate thoroughly and couldn't find one I liked. I disagree with Sanders gun stance, but his other policies I do agree with so at least there's a fair amount of common ground. [editline]2nd October 2015[/editline] ARs work for pest control, but hunting for food is better done with other rifles. Some fish and game departments in certain states restrict what you can use to hunt anyways. To be clear, my family owns an AR with suppressor and all that fun shit but it's not used for hunting. That would be the 12ga, Model 700, or one of the 30-30s. Varmint hunting is best, imo, with a good ol fashioned hunting rifle style. 22lr

I hope we don't elect Clinton because she's a huge fake. She says that she is for minimizing the effects of climate change while she accepts a ton of money from oil companies. When Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz says that they're repeal Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood, etc., you know they mean it and they will do it. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton says that she will minimize the private prisons and stop big banks from screwing us over when she receives a ton of cash from the PIC and big banks. In addition, Clinton has that email investigation still going on. If Sanders doesn't get the Democratic nomination, then I'm pretty sure Republicans will be winning this race because Hillary Clinton is the least trustworthy presidential candidate in the race right now.

[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;48807088]I hope we don't elect Clinton because she's a huge fake. She says that she is for minimizing the effects of climate change while she accepts a ton of money from oil companies.[/QUOTE] She also said she's in favour of limiting how much a single entity can bankroll a candidate, but I don't believe that either. If there was any doubts Hillary wasn't on their side, they wouldn't be bankrolling her right now. I think she's just trying to appeal to the Bernie crowd because they're the only notable opposition to her right now.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48807187]She also said she's in favour of limiting how much a single entity can bankroll a candidate, but I don't believe that either. If there was any doubts Hillary wasn't on their side, they wouldn't be bankrolling her right now. I think she's just trying to appeal to the Bernie crowd because they're the only notable opposition to her right now.[/QUOTE] This is exactly what I mean. She has been extremely hypocritical during the entire election so far and you really can't trust a thing that comes out of her mouth. The reason Trump is so popular is because Americans are tired of shady politicians, so why in the world do Democrats want to put the shadiest politician in the race up to represent the party for the presidency?

[QUOTE=Hepburn;48803691]He is very ignorant about it. He has said that we should ban all weapons "not used for hunting" which means he is obviously implying that AR-15s should be banned, except AR-15s are perfect capable hunting rifles and aren't even used in most gun related crimes.[/QUOTE] You're wrong buddy, I've heard his gun policy from him in person, after a classmate asked him about it. He said he supported background checks, but that gun control should be a state by state thing. He said that in his state, Vermont, there is barely any gun crime, but a lot of guns and relatively relaxed gun laws and he's totally fine with that. I'm sure by banning guns not used for hunting, he's talking about ridiculous shit like bazookas and enormous machine guns, which are literally pointless to own unless you're killing some humans. He was a cool guy when I met him btw.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;48809337]You're wrong buddy, I've heard his gun policy from him in person, after a classmate asked him about it. He said he supported background checks, but that gun control should be a state by state thing. He said that in his state, Vermont, there is barely any gun crime, but a lot of guns and relatively relaxed gun laws and he's totally fine with that. I'm sure by banning guns not used for hunting, he's talking about ridiculous shit like bazookas and enormous machine guns, which are literally pointless to own unless you're killing some humans. He was a cool guy when I met him btw.[/QUOTE] The average person can't legally buy a machine gun to begin with. You have to go through rigorous background checks, get direct approval from your local head of law enforcement, and then be able to pay for the gun, which had to have been produced before 1986, and will cost anywhere between $4,000 for an awful Mac-10, to 20-30k for an AK47 or AR15. Well beyond the reach of most anyone who wants it for crime. I would be doubtful that any legally owned machine guns in the US have been used by the rightful owner in violent crimes since the number is so small. At that cost, you are more likely to just buy an illegally modified or imported fully automatic weapon, which no amount of legislation would prevent from getting in the hands of criminals.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;48809337]You're wrong buddy, I've heard his gun policy from him in person, after a classmate asked him about it. He said he supported background checks, but that gun control should be a state by state thing. He said that in his state, Vermont, there is barely any gun crime, but a lot of guns and relatively relaxed gun laws and he's totally fine with that. I'm sure by banning guns not used for hunting, he's talking about ridiculous shit like bazookas and enormous machine guns, which are literally pointless to own unless you're killing some humans. He was a cool guy when I met him btw.[/QUOTE] also his policy is the only person with a true state-by-state policy, right now the NRA and the republicans they back believe that cities and states shouldn't be able to regulate their own firearms if they impose harsher gun laws than the federal ones, how is this? because they really don't care about states rights, they want to sell more guns, instead of letting places police themselves [editline]3rd October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Ajacks;48809392]The average person can't legally buy a machine gun to begin with. You have to go through rigorous background checks, get direct approval from your local head of law enforcement, and then be able to pay for the gun, which had to have been produced before 1986, and will cost anywhere between $4,000 for an awful Mac-10, to 20-30k for an AK47 or AR15. Well beyond the reach of most anyone who wants it for crime. I would be doubtful that any legally owned machine guns in the US have been used by the rightful owner in violent crimes since the number is so small. At that cost, you are more likely to just buy an illegally modified or imported fully automatic weapon, which no amount of legislation would prevent from getting in the hands of criminals.[/QUOTE] the problem with NFA is not that machine guns are banned, its that they don't license them anymore, something could be done about that if both sides were brought to the table, as it is, both sides are staring at each other from each side of congress and won't even conceive of working together unless their side gets 100% of what they want

[QUOTE=Sableye;48820513]also his policy is the only person with a true state-by-state policy, right now the NRA and the republicans they back believe that cities and states shouldn't be able to regulate their own firearms if they impose harsher gun laws than the federal ones, how is this? because they really don't care about states rights, they want to sell more guns, instead of letting places police themselves [editline]3rd October 2015[/editline] the problem with NFA is not that machine guns are banned, its that they don't license them anymore, something could be done about that if both sides were brought to the table, as it is, both sides are staring at each other from each side of congress and won't even conceive of working together unless their side gets 100% of what they want[/QUOTE] Yeah, I'm still surprised people don't realize the NRA is a Gun Manufacturer's lobby group.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48820544]Yeah, I'm still surprised people don't realize the NRA is a Gun Manufacturer's lobby group.[/QUOTE] Even more people forget where the basis for today's modern gun laws comes from, Regan himself signed in the last major federal tightening of gun laws which included the machine gun ban

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48797030]These things are very hard to predict but it's almost certainly going to be Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or Trump.[/QUOTE] Trump has no chance because of the electoral college; remember, pretty much none of the Republican party backs him as he's kinda "gone rogue", as Sarah Palin would have and did say. He'll do well in the popular vote because he is pushing the boundaries of the Republican party, however, it's the extremist approach. It has to fail.

[QUOTE=Nukefuzz;48821533]Trump has no chance because of the electoral college; remember, pretty much none of the Republican party backs him as he's kinda "gone rogue", as Sarah Palin would have and did say. He'll do well in the popular vote because he is pushing the boundaries of the Republican party, however, it's the extremist approach. It has to fail.[/QUOTE] The problem is the other Republicans don't really seem to want the job as much as him, rubio is a bit of a moron, jeb is sort of half-assing it right now, and everyone else is either brain dead, oxygen deprived, or rand paul [editline]4th October 2015[/editline] I mean Carson is considered to be the other frontrunner and his tax plan is just use the tithing system in the bible

[QUOTE=plunger435;48797035]I would be surprised if it actually did.[/QUOTE] Agreed. Hillary is the cockroach of american politics, if all the skeletons in her closet haven't killed her career yet, i very much doubt this email scandal will.