Bernie Sanders Bluntly Calls For Automatic Weapons Ban After Orlando Mass Shooting

[bemildred]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by George II (a host of the General Discussion forum).

During an interview on Meet The Press, Sen. Bernie Sanders reacted to the horrific mass shooting in Orlando by calling for automatic weapons not to be sold in the US.

Sanders was asked by Chuck Todd for his reaction to the attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, FL, and he said, “It’s horrific. It’s unthinkable, and just hopes go out to those who were shot that they can recover, and I’ve got to tell you for twenty-five years now, I’ve believed that we should not be selling automatic weapons which are designed to kill people, and we’ve got to do everything we can on top of that to make sure that guns do not fall into the hands of people who should not have them. Criminals and people who are mentally ill, so that struggle continues.”

Todd followed up by asking if the nation can ever have a conversation about terrorism and guns without politicization. Sanders answered, “I do, Chuck. Because I think that there is a very broad consensus in this country, not a hundred percent of the people, overwhelming majority of gun owners and non-gun owners understand that we have got to do everything we can to prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who should not have them. That means expanding the instant background check. It means doing away with the gun show loophole. It means addressing the strawman provision. I think there is a wide consensus to move forward in that direction.”

After each mass shooting, pro-gun extremists always tell the nation that now is not the time to have the discussion about the ease of the ability to purchase deadly weapons in this country. They said it wasn’t time after Sandy Hook. They said it wasn’t time after Charleston, and they will say that it isn’t time after Orlando, but if not now, when?

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/12/bernie-sanders-bluntly-calls-automatic-weapons-ban-orlando-mass-shooting.html

[linuxman]

1. He got his wish almost 30 years ago. Someone should tell him.

[safeinOhio]

5. 1939 and not a ban

one has to jump through lots hoops to purchase and own one. Registration, tax and major background check. Can be called at any time to check where weapon is at the moment. If constitutional for full autos, it can be applied to semi autos. Just need one or two more sane SC Justices. Go Dems.

[linuxman]

15. I was referring to the fopa.

[HooptieWagon]

9. Actually, back in the 30s.

When machine guns and sub machine guns were effectively banned. A license to own one is extremely difficult to get, and there's big fines and jail time for owning or building one illegally.

[63splitwindow]

49. Don't need to repeal the 2nd...

just be a "strict constructionist originalist" (as the right wingnuts generally scream they want) and allow the personal firearms in common use at the time the Constitution was written.

?v=8CC7F049EEA0190

?v=8CEEB2BD1374500

[Waldorf]

71. I guess your going to toss your computer out the window to stay in compliance with the 1st

when the Constitution was written?

[63splitwindow]

73. So then you DO believe that...

the Constitution is a living, breathing document that means exactly what the United States Supreme Court says it means in relation to any given set of facts?

[think]

53. Brilliant!

[bemildred]

2. Sanders: "ISIS must be destroyed" (video)

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders expresses ''horror'' at the Orlando massacre that left at least 50 people dead at a gay nightclub. Rough Cut (no reporter narration).

http://www.reuters.com/video/2016/06/12/sanders-isis-must-be-destroyed?videoId=368890214

[braddy]

3. LOL, where has he been for his entire life? They already are banned for the general public.

[passiveporcupine]

34. I have a feeling he was referring to semi-auto,

not just full-auto.

He's not an idiot.

[braddy]

37. I assume he said what he meant what he said, banning guns of the last 130 years would make no sense.

[passiveporcupine]

41. Of course you would think that.

Last edited Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Never give anyone in public the benefit of the doubt. Every word they speak is exactly what they meant to say. Always.

[braddy]

45. Who confuses machine guns with regular guns, and are you saying that he wants to ban 130 years of

guns?

A call to ban semi-auto, would be silly.

[passiveporcupine]

47. A lot of people will disagree with you,

And I'm one of them.

[braddy]

51. It doesn't appear that Bernie is one of them, he wants to ban the already banned automatic weapons.

[passiveporcupine]

57. Sorry, not playin

[63splitwindow]

52. I am also one who disagrees.

It is always funny, though, how the gun nuts mock and feel superior to anyone who is not as familiar as they with firearms. The important thing, that 50 people were just shot to death by one asshole with firearms, is not nearly as important as correctly identifying the weapons.

[Recursion]

39. You'd be amazed how few Congresspeople know the difference

Most Representatives voting on the 1994 ban thought it banned automatic weapons

[wallyworld2]

43. semi auto

that is rapid fire and nearly the same as fully auto

[Urchin]

63. If everyone who confused semi-automatic guns with automatic guns

were an idiot, that would make an awful lot of democrats and news reporters and politicians idiots.

[wallyworld2]

36. Incredible Bump Fire!

New ATF Approved stock for AR-15 Allows Easy and Safe Bump firing

[tabasco]

4. Ban semi-autos and handguns.

If you can't "protect your home" and have fun playing army in your imbecile militia with bolt action weapons and shotguns, nothing else is going to make much difference.

[bemildred]

8. I don't know really, I'm not sure where a sensible conversation about guns starts.

But I do agree that this notion that weapons of war are handy in civilian life to help you settle your differences has some serious drawbacks, and the conversation about guns seems polarized, some might suggest deliberately polarized.

I don't like having them around myself, guns, you have to keep an eye on them and they attract nitwits.

[Adrahil]

23. That didn't make any sense....

If you want to ban semi-autos and hand guns because they are too effective, then OF COURSE they would make a difference in a home defense situation.

If you're going to pursue such a ban, don't use that argument.

[tabasco]

46. Duh.

Protecting a home from intruders and gunning down people in a club are two different situations. A semi-auto has much greater value to inflict mass casualties than to protect a residence from intruders. You have to engage your brain bucket a little bit. I know you can do it!

[JohnnyRingo]

26. My first rifle as a teen was a semi-auto

It was a .22 Remington called the Nylon 66 and was not anything that would be used for mass murder. A 12 gauge pump shotgun is much more deadly in a crowd.

The useless cosmetic ban of the '90s is what happens when people who don't understand firearms try to restrict guns. Perhaps you meant to ban high powered semi-automatic rifles and high cap mags.

Unfortunately there are enough handguns and assault rifles out there that are unaccountable to last for generations. Nothing that fits on a bumper sticker is as easy as it sounds.

[dumbcat]

35. I still have my Nylon 66

That I bought as a teen in 1966.

[JohnnyRingo]

42. You indeed should still have it.

Those things were indestructible. I don't think I even cleaned mine.

I put thousands of rounds through it then gave it to my little brother. I don't know what happened to it, but it was a good rifle for a kid.

[Rex]

6. How about a ban on assault weapons?

Start with the AR-15. Seems to be the choice among psychopathic serial killers as of late.

[scscholar]

27. Plus, it is a 22 caliber...

which makes it extra-dangerous.

[JonLeibowitz]

33. A 22 caliber is extra dangerous??? Lol wtfbbq?

[Recursion]

40. God no. Dumbest law we ever passed

We ban the AR-15 and they sell it two days later as the BS-16. Idiotic idea; I'm amazed people still fall for that crappy law.

Ban the bayonet lug and the gunmakers file it off.

Ban the pistol grip and they change it to a monte carlo grip.

It's an idiotic damn idea because it goes after every aspect of the gun except how many rounds it can fire in a short time

And then people question my mental health for pointing out it's a stupid law...

[think]

59. How about you reiterate your previous solution rather than offer futility in this thread...

[Recursion]

64. I did. In this thread. Unfortunately step 1 in this has to be

to make people wake up and realize that the AWB didn't do what they think it did and is the absolute wrong place to start out. Ban the firing mechanism. Failing that, make it more expensive and more of a hassle to purchase. But people are so tied to their misunderstanding of a fundamentally flawed law from a generation ago that step 1 generally has to be to try to talk them down from that ledge.

[think]

66. The AWB did make a difference IMO. But I understand there are loopholes. Ban the mech makes sense

Thank you for your input.

[Recursion]

69. And what drives me up a wall is there weren't "loopholes" particularly

Rather than just banning the mechanism they said "if it has this mechanism it cannot have a bayonet lug, a pistol grip, a folding stock, etc." (And seriously I literally do not care even a tiny bit if somebody's rifle has a bayonet lug.)

That's not really a "loophole" if you then manufacture a gun without those things. It's a reflection of the fact that it was a law that just didn't actually do what people thought it did.

[msanthrope]

7. Indeed bernie.....then why can't we sue the manufacturers? nt

[xmas74]

11. This.

Over and over and over again.

[elljay]

17. Because we allowed the guns to be legal

and it is our society's fault for doing so. The guns are not defective- they are inherently dangerous products that do precisely what they are intended to do. We, as a society, need to ban them so the manufacturers will not be able to produce them.

[msanthrope]

31. Cigarettes are legal. A product need not be defective to cause a recoverable tort. nt

[elljay]

58. Differences

One difference is that there is no non-dangerous use for a cigarette. There is for guns- you can target shoot, for example. Second is the cigarette companies lied about their products' safety. If I, knowing full well that it will give me lung cancer, start smoking ten packs a day, the cigarette manufacturer wouldn't and shouldn't be liable. This is different from those people who arguably were misled about whether cigarettes were safe or addictive. The gun companies do not lie about what their weapons do; in fact, they publish full specifications. This is precisely why terrorists pick certain weapons- they know how many bullets per second they will be able to shoot. Instead of suing the manufacturers, we need to simply ban the assault weapons.

[fleabiscuit]

10. Need a gun that won’t work if they steal one.

ALL Guns should be computer chipped to only operate in legally designated areas, and able to be overridden by legal authority. All ammunition must be micro-stamped. All POLICE weapons should be fitted with iSight type cameras and audio. All guns should have a built in “find my gun” feature to disable and recover lost/stolen guns. It is way past time for a 700 year old technology to advance to the 21st century.

In addition:
Mandatory comprehensive background checks before guns are sold. Mandatory 6 month waiting period to purchase. All guns and ammunition should be required to be stored in/with approved gun safes or gun/trigger locks at home.
No minors under 16 should be allowed to own or carry/handle a gun.

Including:
* National buy back program of all civilian non chipped modern guns. (paid for by gun makers)
* $50K fine for possessing working non chipped modern guns.
* $50K reward for reporting owners of working non chipped modern guns.
* Antique guns cannot be loaded or used in public space.
* Mandatory liability insurance for gun ownership.

Help stop NRA=ISIS.

[jmg257]

14. Just revoke the 2nd and ban repeating arms with detachable mags...

It would be easier.

[elljay]

19. Easier on paper

But getting two thirds of the states to vote to repeal the 2nd just ain't gonna happen. Ever. There will always be 17 states that won't go along.

[Just reading posts]

22. Correct. Absolutely impossible from a practical viewpoint.

[jmg257]

24. Which makes these laws that can be easily challenged

Re: the second kind of silly.

[elljay]

60. The SCOTUS is the key

and the only practical way to effect change. Given that's the Constitution will not be amended, we need legal interpretations that do two things. Nfirst, they need to impose the "well-regulated militia"
requirement. If you want certain weapons, you must joins well-regulated militia, which vould have background checks, psych evaluations, gun lock requirements, etc. Second, even our conservative court agreed that regulations are permitted. The new SCOTUS must take a more liberal view mom what restrictions are appropriate. I see no other way to get weapons off the streets when we have a SCOTUS that guts gun laws.

[Adrahil]

25. Wait... ban REPEATING arms?

You mean, like revolvers, bolts actions and lever actions? Single shot only?

Did you mean semi-automatics?

[jmg257]

28. Repeating arms WITH detachable mags.

Add in "or fixed mags over 10 rounds."

[Adrahil]

30. So antique bolt-actions with detachable mags would be banned?

Seems like overkill. Who uses a bolt action rifle to shoot up a place?

[Recursion]

50. WWI veterans? IDK... honestly the magazine is a bigger issue than the action

A bolt- or lever-action rifle fed by a detachable magazine isn't going to be particularly slower than a semi-auto.

[jmg257]

54. Not many - what with ARs readily available. Nt

[passiveporcupine]

38. I am with you on this.

I'd prefer no mags at all. Just what the gun itself will hold, like two or three rounds without reloading. I'm not a gun fancier, so I don't know how many that would be...but magazines are made for holding more rounds, and why do we need that?

[ellennelle]

68. or finally get a SCOTUS

that will properly interpret the damn 2nd for what it was intended, a militia. and in fact, a militia that allowed the southern states to track down their renegade slaves, truth be told.

such insanity.

[jmg257]

74. Not enough, cause if we hold to the militia purposes Then that supports

The people possessing the very weapons - those that promote the efficiency of the militias - that would otherwise be banned.

[jmowreader]

16. Explain how this computer chipping technology would work

If this "override by legal authority" consists of a device carried by every cop that can turn off everyone else's gun, how do we prevent someone who's planning to commit a serious crime from starting out by killing a cop and taking his gun-turning-off device and unchipped firearms?

[fleabiscuit]

18. Location services.

There once was an Apple 1, and some got fabulously rich with updated models.

Steve Ballmer Laughs At The iPhone

[brett_jv]

20. Well, we could just cross that bridge when we come to it, couldn't we?

No 'laws' are perfectly effective prohibitions of undesired actions, are they?

I'm thinking the idea is that, over TIME ... we'd try to figure out solutions to such problems.

[pnwmom]

12. Hillary cosponsored legislation to reinstate and extend the ban.

From Hillaryclinton.com:

Hillary has a record of advocating for commonsense approaches to reduce gun violence:
As first lady, she co-convened a White House Summit on School Violence after the Columbine tragedy. She also strongly defended the Brady Bill, which instituted federal background checks on some gun sales.

As senator, she co-sponsored and voted for legislation to close the gun show loophole by requiring criminal background checks on all transactions taking place at events that sell firearms.

She voted against the dangerous immunity protections Congress provided gun dealers and manufacturers that prevent victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable.

She also co-sponsored and voted for legislation to extend and reinstate the assault weapons ban.

[bemildred]

13. +1. nt

[Scootaloo]

65. Cool!

Glad tio see you advocating your candidate's positions on stuff, pnwmom. It helps. I mean that.

[Rex]

21. Actually, what do we do about 3-D printers that can make firearms?

So many new problems, so few solutions.

[lancer78]

32. The solution

is to try and change America's culture of violence. Also, economic and social justice would give more people opportunities so they wouldn't have to resort to violence to make a living or have their voices heard.

[Rex]

55. Well in this case I was really thinking about folks that go on mass murdering sprees.

They make a living just like everyone else does.

[mwrguy]

29. Repeal the 2nd!

[bernie_is_truth]

61. France doesn't have a 2nd ammendment...

and yet concerts get shot up.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

44. That D- is showing.

[bernie_is_truth]

48. Laws don't stop murder, sorry

Citizens can't own guns in France yet concert halls get shot up.
Citizens can't own explosives in France, yet restaurants get blown up.
Hijacking planes is illegal, yet they still get flown into buildings.

The problem is that people hate each other, and you'll never be able to stop that.

And, unfortunately, the only way to defend yourself against a hater is to arm yourself.

I'm gay and haven't left my home without my weapon since 1993. Twice I've used it simply to scare off homophobic pigs. You'd rather I be unarmed and they have their way with me?

And what happens if that Fascist Trump becomes President and starts stripping us of our rights? One of the first things Hitler did when he came to power was strip the people of their right to own guns.

What we need to get rid of are gun free zones, all they are are giant bulls-eyes for mass murderers.

If you're gay or a woman in this world, never mind this country, you need to arm yourself because men by the millions hate you.

[LW1977]

70. Yet in Australia gun crimes have went down after restriction laws have been put in place.

Just sayin'

[bernie_is_truth]

72. except that you're wrong

Australians may be more at risk from gun crime than ever before with the country’s underground market for firearms ballooning in the past decade.

Previously unseen police statistics show that the number of pistol-related offences doubled in Victoria and rose by 300 per cent in New South Wales. At least two other states also saw a massive jump in firearms-related offences during the same period.

nsw-gun-charges

An investigation by The New Daily unearthed previously unpublished data for firearms offences collected from police and crime statistics agencies in four states – Victoria, NSW, South Australia and Tasmania.

The statistics detail the types of firearms offences police have pursued in the courts in the past decade and show some concerning findings, including a massive 83 per cent increase in firearms offences in NSW between 2005/06 and 2014/15, and an even bigger jump in Victoria over the same period.

vic-gun-charges

Taken together, the data suggests that despite our tough anti-gun laws, thousands of weapons are either being stolen or entering the country illegally.

Associate Professor Philip Alpers, one of Australia’s leading firearms researchers and a director of the Centre for Armed Violence Reduction at the University of Sydney, said the national ban on semi-automatic weapons following the Port Arthur massacre had spawned criminal demand for handguns.

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/11/10/australias-secret-gun-problem-exposed/

[CBGLuthier]

56. I bet I know someone who won't make this demand.

The polls aren't yet in favor of it enough for her to make a stand.

[Kaleva]

62. Shooter used a semiauto so this proposed ban wouldn't have done much

Also, prior to the shooting, the guy had no criminal record or history of mental illness.

[pnwmom]

75. Hillary was a co-sponsor of a bill to reinstate and extend the assault weapons ban.

And the original assault weapons ban was passed in Bill Clinton's administration, along with the Brady bill.

Your ignorance is showing.

[LW1977]

67. When will these right wing idiots learn that enough is enough!?!

How many people have to die before these gun-toting pricks get it through their numb skulls?

[King_Klonopin]

76. What I saw on National news tonight...

Someone asked the rhetorical question: "Will this tragedy cause the American
public to consider giving up some personal freedoms in exchange for safety."

I wanted to punch him in his face. Why?

Because, the "personal freedoms" he was referring to were all related to civil
liberties. More surveillance, more data bases, more erosion of Bill of Rights and
privacy rights, more Patriot Acts, etc.

BUT YOU CAN BET YOUR ASS WE WILL NEVER, NEVER, EVER MAKE ANY CHANGES
TO OUR GUN LAWS OR TO THE 2ND AMENDMENT!

FUCK HIM AND ANYONE WHO LOOKS LIKE HIM!

Somebody else can post the famous quote by Ben Franklin. I'm too pissed off.

[George II]

77. Locking - Please repost in GD - P