Sanders takes heat from gun control group ahead of debate

[branford]

77. If you want to ban certain firearms or accessories,

you need to lobby the Congress and state legislatures (to the extent such restrictions are constitutional).

Moreover, a 100-round magazine ban seems to be a solution looking for a problem. Can you even identify how many people were killed or injured with or by them in the last few decades, and is the number statistically significant among the 300+ millions legally owned firearms in the USA?

If you cannot answer this question, or deflect by attempts at moral blackmail like "if it saves just one life" or "think of the children," you will have confirmed the suspicions of almost every gun rights advocate of their belief that such proposed restrictions have nothing really do to with safety, and are just a strategy for an incremental near to total ban on firearms. It's not like these types of discussions haven't been going on for decades.

Moreover, we do not ban products in our free country because some don't believe others "need" them, no less when such products are explicitly protected by the Constitution. I don't understand how a liberal could ever justify an argument which essentially justifies the belief that you may only possess or use what the government believes you need, and all else is banned. That is the definition of tyranny.