David Horowitz once said, “Inside many liberals is a totalitarian screaming to get out.” It’s the capital-T Truth, and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) is just the latest presidential candidate who promises to usurp our right to bear arms should he become president. Watch:
And in an earlier gun-control proposal, he offered this:
‘The biggest thing in the proposal is a national gun licensing program, which would force [emphasis added] Americans to apply for 5-year gun licenses before obtaining a firearm. The process would include fingerprinting, an interview, gun safety courses, and a federal background check,’ Booker said in a statement announcing the proposal.”
Oy…where do I begin?
“Weapons of war?” Yeah, but no. Sure, they resemble military rifles and were indeed used back in the day. But you might want to ask a service member what rifles they use these days (hint: one is full-auto, the other is semi-auto; aaaaand therein lies your true goal, Cory: ban ALL semi-autos, am I right?).
And speaking of AR-15s, Cory Booker, you might want to read the Heller decision regarding guns “in common use.” AR-15s—“AR” meaning ARMALITE RIFLE, not “assault rifle,” Captain Conflate—are as common as a head cold. Or a Ford F-150:
In 2012, the sales of the most common pickup truck, the Ford F-150, was 645,316 units. In 2012, the number of the most common rifle, the AR15, was over 1,200,000 units. The most common rifle is nearly twice as common as the most common pickup truck. The reason I am using 2012 figures is that it takes 18 months or more to gather and tabulate the production figures from the dozens of AR15 manufacturers. Ford does not have that problem.”
And even IF you somehow convinced a judge of the “dangers” of the commonly-used AR-15, you still wouldn’t stop gun owners from attaining them, thank you, First Amendment.
And on your tired ‘ol magazine capacity proposition: Yeah, California already tried that. Even the Nutty Ninth found the ban unconstitutional, at least for now. Not to mention, if one is so inclined, guns can be acquired without jumping through your ineffective hoops, like those who flout the heavy-handed laws already imposed in your own home state. Wink wink nod nod.
Oh, and “force?” We’ve had this discussion more than once in our history, dude. Tyrants always lose. But if you want a second Civil War, Cory Booker, this would be the way to start it.
And by the way, care to have a substantive discussion about the number of lives your “weapons of war” have saved, Senator Spartacus? I’m betting you don’t. Exhibit A, from the Heritage Foundation, “based on empirical data:”
Mr. Booker—if we are to infer that he agrees, given his lack of a full-throated rejection of imprisonment for those unwilling to comply—would have either disarmed this hero, or jailed him if he refused to turn over his rifle. And more innocents would have died as a result.
Next: Most Americans agree? Firstly, have you polled us? Secondly, and yes I’m yelling: WE’RE NOT A DEMOCRACY! And we are NOT New Zealand. So I couldn’t give two rips what “most Americans” think even if your stat is accurate. We’re not ruled by the majority mob; we’re protected by this thing called the U.S. Constitution, you know, that document you swore an oath to uphold when you became a sitting U.S. senator. In fact, wannabe tyrants like you, Cory Booker—who grotesquely support abortion up until the moments before and after birth whilst screeching through a megaphone about SAVING LIVES!!!—are the reason we HAVE the Second Amendment: to prevent an overreaching, rule-by-force federal government, like the one you’re promising, from usurping our constitutional rights (can you say “red flag laws?”).
Criminals and gang members aren't going to be required to do anything in order to keep THEIR guns. The Democrats are coming for your guns – and they couldn't care less about the Constitution. https://t.co/ti98isuWC8
— GARY WROBLEWSKI (@WROBOCOACH) May 6, 2019
Fact check: true. Just about every single one of the Democratic candidates has promised to trample all over our constitutional rights should they become president. They’re not even pretending anymore. They’re flat-out telling us, “If you make me president, I’ll take away your rights,” starting with gun confiscation, which will, of course, topple all of the other constitutional rights our Second Amendment protects.
Detail of a mural in the museum at Gonzales, Texas, featuring the Come and Take It flag. Public Domain.
So when those who are trying to shove Socialism—also known as people control—down our throats tell us they’re willing to round us all up and put us in jail (read: Chinese-style re-education camps, you know, for the good of society) for disobeying clearly unconstitutional “gun control” edicts, we should believe them. After all, they are the party who placed law-abiding American citizens in internment camps and (illegally, Atty. Gen. Barr?) spied on their political opposition with the full weight of our federal intelligence and justice agencies. So why would they NOT round up all the constitution-loving patriots they’ve been increasingly demonizing and dehumanizing for more than two years now? The answer is clear, and we’ve only to look to Venezuela to see what the consequences of a disarmed citizenry looks like:
They should have a Constitution that empowers the people to throw-off by Force…a tyrranical government. https://t.co/gbhEHsrsY0
— scadden (@scadden) April 30, 2019
Indeed.
America loves its freedom. So molon labe, Comrades Booker, Harris, and Swalwell…
@CoryBooker my federal gun license was issued in 1791, that is all thank you #2a
— sceptic dogo (@Eber20918782) May 7, 2019
…the millions of law-abiding gun owners like me dare you.
John C. says: Why do these entities always call mandatory insufficiently-compensated gun confiscation “buy-backs” when the government didn’t sell the gun owners the guns in the first place?
GWB says: Because they think that makes it comport with the 5th Amendment. Of course, there’s a little clause in there about “for public use”……..
(I wouldn’t mind giving up – for adequate compensation – some firearms to the gov’t, if it suddenly found itself in dire need of extra arms to fight a just, Constitutional war. Of course, in that case, we’re probably fighting here at home, and I’ll need them myself to fulfill my militia duties. [‘Cause I don’t have a lot of spares, like some people. 😉 ])
GWB says: The principal public safety concerns … mass shootings.
Well, you see, it’s not about actual safety, it’s about emotions and scare tactics. Your likelihood of being in a mass shooting, compared to your likelihood of just being the target of some thug who needs a quick score so he can get his next high, is pretty low, too. But Kids! Little old ladies at church/synagogue/mosque! Bloodbath! Unsafe anywhere!
Higher rates of gun ownership
Aside from the “more people with guns often equals safer community”, I wonder if anyone has done a study on the density of gun ownership as it relates to community safety? By that, I mean how many guns individual owners have. Is it safer in a community where nobody is a “gun nut” who owns an “arsenal”? Or in the places where a 500lb bomb dropped would set off significant secondaries? (Because they love to trot out the guy’s “arsenal” when they catch some guy about to commit some heinous act.)
(And, yes, I realize the problem with that study would be everybody lying about how many guns they used to have, before that tragic canoe accident….)
can you say “red flag laws?”
I wish we had another way to talk about these, because proper ‘red flag’ laws can exist. I certainly want to be able to adjudicate away Jimmy’s right to bear arms if he’s a true nutball or stalking someone or grotesquely ‘incompetent’ (that is, he can’t even comprehend “Keep your booger hook off the bang switch”). The problem is, how do you do that without tipping your hand to a small number of those folks who will actually go out and do something evil in the interim.
Socialism—also known as people control
I’m going to say we need to talk about this differently, too. Socialism is not inherently about “people control”. A voluntary socialist community can work (for a time, anyway). The problem is that human nature ends up requiring the people control.
And, honestly, most of the people crowing about socialism don’t really want socialism. They want control – and socialism is merely boob bait to get people to vote them that level of control. The problem with the politicians (and others) is a desire for a technocracy (and these people think they’re smart enough to be in charge). The problem with the electorate is a desire for socialism (and other stuff – plenty of them want to be ruled by an elite, as well).
They should have a Constitution that empowers the people to throw-off by Force…a tyrranical government.
Yes, along with property rights, personal liberty, and equality under the law. If your culture doesn’t have those things, you have no business trying to install any form of ‘democracy’. (Which is why “nation-building” has always been such a horrible disaster, until we finally simply install our dictator.)
John C. says: Re: Mass Shootings
Something that never seems to occur to people about mass shootings: The relevance of the level of media coverage. Something that gets nationwide above-the-fold coverage for a week, more coverage inside the paper for a month, and a retrospective a year later (this specifically refers to the Stockton Schoolyard Shooting in 1989, the one that started the “Assault Weapons!” convulsing, which had this level of coverage) is a RARE event. If something, however horrendous, happens every day, it’s not news; see homicides in Chicago. Like the “gun epidemic” that is on everyone’s lips as gun violence has dropped to half of what it was when Clinton was President, fear of mass shootings is a PERCEPTION, fostered by the media for clicks and other means of garnering advertising money, and to push their well-established political agenda. And even if, by some magical means (which is what it would take, as they would have to not only remove guns, but home workshops and various types of processed metal; see “Paltik Guns”) they could remove guns from the population, motor vehicles (New York Truck Attack, 2017, 8 dead, and we won’t mention 9/11), gasoline (Happy Land Fire, 1990, 87 dead), and fertilizer (Oklahoma City Bombing, 1995, 168 dead) are still out there.
Scott says: Now John,
Don’t go using things like facts and logic..that’ll just confuse the low information FSA (Free Shit Army)… and the leftist wanna be dictators that are pushing this crap, they already know them, they just ignore them to push their agenda..
GWB says: Yep. Much like child kidnappings and other events that used to get mostly local attention on the half hour of evening news, but now get nationwide coverage on the 24 hour ‘cable’ news cycle.
Jodi Giddings says: Can’t argue with any of that, GWB!
John Sanford says: I wish we had another way to talk about these, because proper ‘red flag’ laws can exist. I certainly want to be able to adjudicate away Jimmy’s right to bear arms if he’s a true nutball or stalking someone or grotesquely ‘incompetent’ (that is, he can’t even comprehend “Keep your booger hook off the bang switch”).
No, proper ‘red flag’ laws CAN. NOT. EXIST. I have little doubt that you’ve said or thought in response to one or more of the myriad of gun grabbers “what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand”? Well, what part do YOU not understand? An individual incompetent enough to not understand the Booger Hook Rule is incompetent enough to be legally declared incompetent. Otherwise, she’s just a fool, and fools have INALIENABLE rights as well. INALIENABLE, i.e., not subject to “adjudication away.” If the fool HARMS somebody, then you punish them for the harm. A free society DOES. NOT. DO. “PRE-CRIME.”
The ONLY “arms laws” that pass the “shall not be infringed” test where keeping (i.e. owning) is concerned are those prohibiting incarcerated persons and minors/legally incompetent from having weapons. One could make the argument that AS A CONDITION of parole, a parolee may not have any weapons, but that would only apply if the parolee ACCEPTED/SOUGHT parole, not if she was set loose because of overcrowding or such.
That’s it.
Respectfully.
GWB says: WTF? You make no sense here, decrying infringement, except those infringements you accept.
An individual incompetent enough to not understand the Booger Hook Rule is incompetent enough to be legally declared incompetent.
You’re really not making a good pro-2d-AMendment case here. You’re basically saying “nature, red in tooth and claw” when there’s someone who has just now evidenced signs of incompetence or impending violence. Because, unless you live in a different universe, scheduling someone for an incompetence hearing will take much longer than needed if they truly are a danger. So “they should be judged incompetent!” is a really pointless argument.
That sort of thing is EXACTLY WHY the current ‘red flag’ laws are so damn popular – even when almost all other gun control measures poll very poorly. And your answer to those folks is “suck it up, buttercup!”?
A free society DOES. NOT. DO. “PRE-CRIME.”
Oh, fer cryin’ out loud. You’re thoughtless.
(Oh, BTW, justify to me how the latter of the two conditions you posit actually pass the “shall not be infringed” test? Because I’m betting you can’t make that argument without turning back on yourself.)
I actually mostly agree with you, but I think your knee-jerk reaction to ‘red flags’ is going to hurt our cause a lot more than it helps.
Sam says: Are you quoting someone without quotation marks? Otherwise what you say makes no sense. First you say “proper red flag laws can exist….” then you say “Red.Flag.Laws.CAN.NOT.EXIST!”. It first paragraph is a quotation of someone else you are refuting, you need to put it in quotation marks, or us ignorant readers cannot tell the difference.
Sam says: A small town in New England used to be in many ways a “socialist” government. The town as a whole considered themselves responsible for taking care of the poorest and elderly. The people met together in Town Meeting to discuss and enact needful laws. Social pressures and mores made sure that everyone for the most part worked together as a whole, for the good of all. The “economy” was mostly barter and work-for-work. It was a beautiful system, with some flaws, as all have. Any system of government can work and work well provided the scale is small enough. town of 2,000 people can live as a truly communal society, with common ownership of the land and property, and a rotating or elected council siting in ‘leadership”. If they chose to live that way, anyway. But as soon as the society grows larger, and impersonal, it doesn’t work. Governments only REALLY work when you know everyone more or less by sight. And over time, as you say. even your voluntary 2,000-person commune is liable to be taken over by some sociopathi cult leader with a magnetic personality, who bends a large portion of the community to his personal cult and will. They in turn begin to repress and persecute those who arein’t inclined to follow. The cult leaders buddies set up a church in his name and a power structure that can be passed down, and there’s the end of your voluntary, utopian commune. Or as an alternative, in a time of emergency or divide between the people, a “temporary emergency leader” is set up as dictator. He sets up a maintaining power structure of privileged elites under him, and boom, you are no longer a commune, but an autocracy.
Hell, the repressive, murderous “Communist government” we all know so well, in Marxist theory, is just the “emergency State”, which “will only be needed to prosecute the war against the capitalist powers until the while world is converted and all the imperial capitalists are crushed”. Then, of course, the State will voluntarily disband, set aside all their power and privilege and become normal members of the Commune like everyone else, and we will all live in Happy Workers Utopia afterwards. What’s the problem with that, right? By the way, I have a bridge for sale in New York….
Of course the duties of the “temporary state” are to not only wage war against the evil counter-revolutionary Capitalists still in power outside the Commune, but also to organize all the labor of the workers for the war, and provide leadership for the conscript armies (all voluntarily conscripted, of course), and to crush out all counter-revolutionary elements within the state…..free-thinkers, capitalists, decadent types, those who don’t work for hte Good of the Commune with all their will and spirit, those who spread discouraging or negative rumors about the State. Again, all purely “temporary” and a regratable necessity until the Revolution is complete: I.E. until the whole world is dominated under Communist control. Then there will be no more need for a State to prosecute the wars, or to organize the labor, and all the Evil Counter-revolutionaries will have been liquidated by then, and all the children brought up from birth to love the Commune with all their hearts and willingly dedicate their whole lives and deaths cheerfully to the good of the whole, etc.
This is really what Marxists believe.
Joe R. says: It’s not about “mass shootings” or “gun violence”, it’s about satan’s-suck evil blue house of POS (D) not being able to do tyrannical communism with impunity while the rest of us still have the power to vote “NO” capitally, according to our GOD given right and “duty” to do so under the 2nd Para. of the Declaration of Independence.
The evil, MONSTROUS, (D) don’t give a flying F* about human life. They happily take campaign $$$$$$$$ from PLanned Parenthood people willing to kill you before [or after] you clear your mother’s birth chute because it pleases their god satan when they get you to use the dead babies body parts for food/medicine/cosmetics/testing, etc. [If that offends you, it’s because it’s damned offensive, and we think so too. Welcome to the party.]
Further, let’s have some capital prosecutions of the Communist Control Act of 1954. We could all benefit from watching some hangings in the public square.
“Kill a commie for mommy” — Johnny Ramone.
zenman says: The old adage goes “Gun control isn’t about GUNS, it’s about CONTROL.” Those who want more gun control prove this every time they open their mouth.
David Lentz says: I suggest that Mr. Booker do one of two things. One, promise to make his first act as President to disarm the entire Secret Service by executive order, or two, STFU,
Joe H. says: Booker needs to go to JAIL for VIOLATING the 2nd amendment of the USA Constitution or proposing to do so! The Constitution is the ESTABLISHED LAW of the country for 242 years now.So because this LawLess JERK doesn’t Like ESTABLISHED LAW in 2019 we should ignore it and CONFISCATE every gun violating gun ownership rights in this process.GO TO JAIL BOOKER!
Jodi Giddings says: Great suggestions!
Kathy says: Every time I see mention of surveys, polls, or studies on gun ownership, I laugh. I don’t know anyone that would honestly answer any of those questions. TRUST anyone that might tell the GOVERNMENT? Never! Not anyone else’s business anyway.
BTW all of mine were lost in a terrible boating accident.
Jodi Giddings says: I had that same misfortune, Kathy! What a coincidence.
GWB says: Back when HotAir had its own registration system, we had an interesting coterie of commenters, one of whom went by the nom de pixel of “Bishop”. Almost all of us had gone on a boating outing with Bishop at some point with our firearms and had it tip over. There was a lake somewhere with a LOT of firearms at the bottom!
Sam says: Don’t worry. It will soon be a serious crime to “loose” your guns. When each sale is carefully registered in a national database along with the owner, and transeral can only be done with government permit, the penalty for “loosing” a gun will be severe. After all, this si to prevent CRIME, and if you cannot lock your guns up well enough to prevent thieves from accessing them, or if you can’t care for them well enough to prevent them from falling into a lake, you must loose your Gun License, at the very least. What is come CHILD got ahold of that gun you lost, after all? Tsk, tsk. For shame. No, gun owners will have to start being very careful about whether they loose a single gun licensed in their name. Being caught with an unlicensed gun will be a felony crime, as will using a gun not licensed in your name (maybe witjh exceptions when on a shooting range and with the gun owner present…if they haven’t mandated fingerprint “Safety locks” and storage of all guns at the shooting ranges, like in Europe). And of course to make licensing easier and to “prevent gun crime”, all owners will be restricted to 4 guns, total. The license fee will be $200 every two years, to cover administrative costs for keeping the database, etc
This is all totally serious, very plausible “gun control” we might well see within 20 years. In Europe (the model state for some many liberals), there are numerous places where all guns are registered, licensed, fees paid, ammo restricted (subject to more paperwork), and all guns are required to be stored locked up at the shooting range. They are only to be used for target shooting, after all. Using one for defense, or even planning to do so, is admission of intent to commit murder.
Jim says: To add my little bit from the state of Victoria in Australia: we have just had another series of shootings by people who have been out and about at night clubs or in the streets with their fancy cars and fancy[?] girls around Melbourne. They would fit under point 4: ”Gun-related murders are carried out by a predictable pool of people.” In other words they are usually of eastern origin from cultures that are male [macho] dominant and known for forming family-based gangs. None of them have a licence to own a firearm and never will because they would not get a character reference and probably have a criminal history. They get them from the black-market imports brought in with the drugs they also import. Some will be made by illegal gunsmiths. They operate in a criminal subculture and are quick to draw and shoot where-ever they are and follow up with revenge killings and drive-by shooting of homes and business. The current legislation is irrelevant to them, though the Greens/Left anti-gun people want more and more rules imposed on gun owners, but we are the ones who operate within the Law and not outside it on the streets like these moronic thugs. In part the Greens/Left use gun legislation as an excuse to impose their socialist agenda on all.
GWB says: And, if it were to be properly analyzed, the right solution would be to arm the regular, law-abiding citizens so a ‘macho’ display of violence would be met with immediate and like violence, thus ending the problem in short order.
An armed society is a polite society. In the converse, a dis-armed society is a fearful society.
Scott says: “would be met with immediate and like violence”….Would be met with immediate and OVERWHELMING violence.. FIFY
SFC D says: “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson
For a slave-owning old white guy, that Jefferson fella sure did seem to understand Cory Booker and his empty headed minions.
John Sanford says: re: Jefferson
Not his words. He WAS making that argument, but he was quoting Cesare Beccaria.
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/laws-forbid-carrying-armsspurious-quotation
SFC D says: And the fact that Jefferson quoted Cesare Beccaria in his argument changes the truth of the statement not one whit.
Russ Wood says: A few years ago, the South African Police Service held an amnesty for unlicensed guns, and collected hundreds at police stations for ‘destruction’. However, a year or so after this ‘great collection’ some of the ‘destroyed’ guns were taken from Cape gang members, who in many cases, had used them to commit crimes. The senior police officers investigating this were ‘promoted sideways’, away from the investigation (which is assumed to involve VERY senior police officers. So, just how honest are YOUR police?
Sam says: ” They’re not even pretending anymore. They’re flat-out telling us, “If you make me president, I’ll take away your rights,””
True, but the way most Leftists look at it is not losing their OWN rights….they don’t carry guns, after all, only crazies do that! What Booker is actually telling them is “if you elect me, I will take all those gun-owners rights away, and make you feel safer”. They don’t consider them “their” rights, and it’s a lot easier to campaign on the promise to strip other people of their rights.
28 Comments