Everyone talks about wanting a ‘climate change’ debate for the Democrats. We also need a 2nd Amendment debate, where the Democrat presidential candidates can put forth their ideas on stage
Yes. If you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to buy and own a firearm. https://t.co/6dTQ3SGJcM https://t.co/FGwCL1fhFA
— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) June 29, 2019
See, the interesting thing here is that licensing would not have stopped the Parkland nutjob from shooting up the school. And Cory’s plan is focused almost exclusively on those who are law abiding citizens with firearms. There is nothing which would crack down on those who use/possess firearms illegally. Does anyone think that the people using them in places like Chicago (51 shot, 4 killed over the weekend) are buying them legally? Heck, Democrats are the ones who go soft on criminals, and even want to give them the vote.
Further, his plan goes after the NRA, a group made up of citizens engaged in employing their 1st Amendment Rights, including speech and petitioning for redress of grievance.
https://twitter.com/rightbrainkurt/status/1145545305749725184
From Cory’s plan
Here’s how it would work: Individuals could seek a gun license at a designated local office, widely available in urban and rural areas, similar to applying for or renewing a passport. They would submit fingerprints, provide basic background information, and demonstrate completion of a certified gun safety course.
The FBI would then verify submission of required materials and run a comprehensive background check before issuing a federal gun license, after which the license-holder could freely purchase and own firearms. The license would be valid for up to five years before renewal with regular, automatic checks to flag non-compliance with license terms.
Does anyone think criminals will do this? Further, the problem here is that this is not the end point, it is simply the beginning. Implement this, and then they make it tougher and tougher for law abiding citizens to comply, just like we saw in the District of Columbia, which led to the Heller decision. It was so burdensome and so restrictive that almost no law abiding citizens could obtain the permit. It’s why the Supreme Court has agreed to take up a suit against NYC and their restrictions.
Institute licensing, and not only will the gun grabbers make it harder and harder, but then they will want more restrictions. Bans on guns and ammo. Restrictions and bans on where you can carry them. Do away with concealed carry. Gun “buy backs” which turn people who legally purchased their firearm into criminals if they do not turn them in. Do away with Castle Doctrine and all self defense. Suing gun manufacturers out of business (which is part of Cory’s plan) so no one can actually purchase a firearm, because they aren’t being made.
This is why 2nd Amendment supporters won’t agree to anything, because we know that this will be death by a thousand papercuts.
One hears that Cory Booker is fiercely heterosexual. Is that true?
Yes he is did your bf tell you ?
I hope you are not disappointed
And you know this how? Gossip around the nervous hospital maybe?
Sounds like the bear suit wants us all to think he’s both tough and witty.
It already is a death of a thousand cuts because we have over 6,000 gun laws in the US and this is where they brought us. They want to eliminate the second amendment. Period.
I can’t understand the warped logic of lefties when they want a test and licensing foe 2A rights but think poll taxes and literacy tests are wrong for 1A rights. Or their illogical conflation of a privilege like driving and a God given Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Those two things aren’t even close to being comparable. It’s like how DemComs demand a photo ID to enter the Democratic Convention but scream “voter suppression” if we suggest the same to vote.
We have more guns than ever, the highest homicide rate of any advanced nation, and more mass killings of innocents.
Should there be ANY limits on the ownership of firearms?
Neurotic whiny little sissybitch getting it all wrong again. We try and try to set her straight on her contrived talking points but she just refuses to look at facts so…
LOL. Get f*cked.
The doughy, pasty c*cksucker is back on its knees worshiping TEACH again. No wonder TEACH keeps it around.
It never has anything to add. Rumor is that Lil is actually TEACH himself.
LOL. Get f*cked.
Aw, sweetie, no need to get them panties twisted into a knot.
Take away the 10 largest cities run by Democrats and we’re 4th from the bottom.
So the problem is either Negroes or Democrats.
I’m betting it’s Democrats.
How about a limit on the number of big cities run by Democrats?
When Republicans ran the big cities, this didn’t happen.
We could also disperse the Negro population out of said big cities where they wouldn’t be able to murder each other while the Democrat mayors ignored the problem.
Alaska might be a good start.
According to an analysis of FBI data by Jacob Paulsen in 2018, 94% of all mass shootings were thwarted by law-abiding armed citizens.
–Â Also in 2018, the Crime Prevention Research Center, reported that nearly 98% of all mass public shootings in the U.S. since 1950 occurred in a gun-free zone.
–Additionally, “of the 97 countries where we identified mass public shootings, the U.S. ranks 64th per capita in its rate of attacks and 65th in fatalities. Major European countries, such as Norway, Finland, France, Switzerland and Russia, all have at least 25 percent higher per capita murder rates from mass public shootings.”
Now what was that neurotic little sissybitch going on about?
lil — Can you provide a link to these stats?
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/30766-guns-saving-lives-study-armed-citizens-thwart-active-shooters-94-of-the-time
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-mass-shooters-russia-public-shootings-thousand-oaks-mercy-hospital-chicago-1121-story.html
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/20/study-97-8-percent-mass-shootings-since-1950-gun-free-zones/
But, you don’t need a licence to buy or own a car, just to drive it on public streets. And most states already require a licence to “drive your gun in public”. On top of that, it is already illegal to use guns to commit crimes everywhere. It’s already in the definition of “crime”. Obviously, someone out there isn’t following the laws. Maybe we should focus our efforts on them instead.
Maybe a short rope and a long drop is the answer.
Of course, when criminals govern the big cities, as is the case today, I guess you should include them.
The D.C. way is to just continue enforcing restrictive gun laws, knowing that most people can’t afford to take their case all the way to the Supreme Court, like Heller. The local courts and appellate courts continue to uphold enforcement because they don’t care about the law, only the outcome. Having a gun in DC is still deFacto illegal for 99% of the population.
The other factor, of course, is that this license will not be free. There will be some charge for it, ostensibly to support the additional buearacracy to issue and maintain the database, then of course the call will come to register each firearm (with more associated fees), and so on.
Short answer is NO. BFYTW
they have to know where to come get all the guns once they take back the white house…PDJT is the last guy fighting for America we will ever have…ammo up peeps…
I keep hearing this thing about “having the highest homicide rate of any advanced nation”. But that is a statistical fluke since the USA is not a homogeneous “advanced nation”. The truth is, we are an advanced nation with several non-advanced nations inside it. If you remove the homicides being committed by the African, Central Asian and Hispanic populations, the remaining population leads the world in safety.
It can be broken down even easier than that. If you don’t live in a neighborhood with more than 10% black, Hispanic, or 1st gen immigrant people, and don’t do recreational drugs or hang around people who do, your chances of being violently homicided are diminishingly small. Of course, it would be racist to disarm just the offensive parts of the population. A compromise would be, just disarm all the Democrats. As the Democrats have been telling us, political preferences are not constitutionally protected.
Once again Professor, you hit the nail on the head. I especially like your last line.
Trump 2020 Disarm all Democrats TODAY!