cory booker toy guns lie regulation
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

Democrats have not leaned into gun control measures in the wake of the racist shooterโ€™s deadly attack in Buffalo over the weekend, but Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) is taking on the issue despite long legislative odds. Booker, along with Sens. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), is introducing legislation today that would require people trying to get a firearm to get a license from the Department of Justice before they can buy or receive a gun.

The DOJ license would require both a written firearm safety test and hands-on training, a criminal background check and submission of fingerprints and proof of identity. The license would only be available to people over 21 years of age, essentially raising the age of gun ownership to 21.

โ€œThis is the moment to enact ambitious legislation – as a nation, we must rise to it, or we are fated to witness the deadly scenes of this past weekend and years past over again,โ€ Booker said in a statement. Read the bill text.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a leading advocate for gun safety legislation shares Bookerโ€™s sense of urgency and told The New York Timesโ€™ Annie Karni that even if legislation cannot clear Congress, Democrats need to talk more about guns, especially with voters.ย 

โ€” Katherine Tully-McManus in Congressional Whack-a-Mole

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

131 COMMENTS

      • Legislators should go to prison for even proposing blatantly unconstitutional laws.

        The proper legislative process for what they want to do is constitutional amendments. Let them instead propose a constitutional amendment nullifying the second amendment.

        They will never do that because they are treacherous enemies of the people, the nation, the republic, and the constitution.

        • That would be an uphill battle to pull off since the Constitution itself protects them and I would suggest that this is most certainly not a can of worms you want to open.

          Art. I, Sec. 6 states

          They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

          Essentially, unless you can show that what they’re saying meets the Art III, Sec. 3 definition of treason (which is basically impossible unless they openly declare on the floor that they’re openly supporting a hostile nation during a time of war, specifically in an effort to have the US lose said war) the members of Congress have immunity to what you’re trying to do. The reason for this being laid out in the Declaration of Independence.

          The whole point of this is that members of Congress cannot be charged for saying things that are unpopular or uncomfortable. Suggesting something later found to be unconstitutional certainly falls into this category.

          Under your suggestion here GOP members openly saying Roe should be overturned would be liable to arrest and prosecution right up until the SCOTUS actually overturns it (assuming that they do).

          Again, not a can of worms you want to open. You will rapidly find that you don’t like what’s inside.

      • They oppose the constitutional right to bear arms and should not be in office!

        Everyone has a right to protect themselves against criminals who continually takes the lives of innocent people including children!

        Recent reports stated criminals are following people home to rob and assault them!

        Democrats want to Defund The Police and now want the community at the mercy of criminals!

        Vote Democrats out of office now!!!

        • If they don’t like it they should advocate to repeal the 2A, which is the appropriate methodology under our system of government.

          They don’t do that because it’s not popular to suggest such an action.

        • strych9,

          But that begs the question. The Founders were clear and explicit that the right to self-defense AND the RKBA were inherent rights. As I’m sure you’re aware, there was a heated debate over the whole concept of the BoR, with some arguing that listing some inherent rights, and not others, might be construed to imply that ONLY those rights were inherent and protected. Turns out they were right, weren’t they. If the 2A were repealed, the rights of self-defense and RKBA remain inherent rights. That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it.

        • The 2A and the right to self defense are two inherently different things.

          The right, in and of itself, is unaffected by the 2A existing or not. The 2A is merely a written recognition of the right’s existence and a written legal limit placed on government vis a vis that right.

          In fact, even in countries that don’t recognize the right and prescribe harsh punishments for violation of weapon’s laws, the right still exists, it’s simply not recognized in the manner the 2A strives to accomplish.

          The right, defined generally as “a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way” does not disappear simply because the 2A is stripped from the BoR.

          That said, you then get to the question of if rights are real. A great many people have, quite famously argued, that they are not.

          I would say that merely watching natural predator-prey relationships trashes that argument as I’ve never met anyone who says that a squirrel biting a cat that’s trying to kill said squirrel is morally wrong, and you can walk people up the chain until you get to a grandma shooting a thug. Granny doesn’t have sharp teeth, large muscles or claws. She’s got a gun.

          The real truth to this, IME, is that most people who want restrictions on guns do so for two pretty simple reasons. 1. They believe, as do most people, that everyone else thinks like they do and 2. they know they are not capable of responsibly handling a firearm.

          Generally, antis are exactly the type to shoot someone over a minor argument and, assuming everyone else is the same, believe that no one who’s not vetted to prove “special” status should possess such a dangerous implement which they would surely misuse because the Anti themselves most certainly would misuse it.

          By extension, these are not the kind of people you want to give any sort of power to under any circumstances. Not at work and most certainly not in government. Their own argument shows their instability and desire for personal power over others, specifically because they wish to exercise that power.

    • Pound sand democRats…History confirms the trickle down racist poop between the ears of the perp in NY originated in the democRat Party. Besides that historical fact democRat Party Gun Control supplied the perp with an endless supply of unarmed defenseless victims.

      Constitutional Rights do not hinge on the behavior of misguided, deranged kids, teens, adults or anyone else. Knee jerk ambulance chasing democRats assume everyone in America is as gullible and dumb as the useful idiots who vote for them.

      The democRat Party owns the legacy of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, lynching, the kkk, Eugenics, Gun Control and other race based atrocities. One remaining race based atrocity the democRat Party cannot let go of is, “Gun Control.”

      • Sadly the democ rats seem to be winning

        How shall we best oppose them I wonder?

      • To Strych9,
        Point of clarification.
        The quote you made comes from the constitution .
        The constitution is the basis of all law in the United States and no law can contravene the constitution.
        The declaration of independence has no force of law and it’s just a statement of the colonists’ reasons to rebel against the mother country.

        • Which clarifies what, exactly?

          I simply pointed out that the Founders didn’t feel the need to spell out their thinking within the Constitution because they had already done so in a previous document.

          The Constitution is the Constitution. If one wishes to know why it was written the way it was there is supporting documentation for that, which I pointed a reader towards. A note on the location of supporting evidence is not a suggestion that the DoI is a legally binding document.

          Regardless, if you wish to hold elected officials in Congress responsible for their speech you must use the Constitutional process to alter the Constitution itself, either in Art I, Sec. 6 or Art III, Sec. 3 (or both). Then you must abolish the 1A.

          Having changed these two (or three) Constitutional provisions, you may now hold Congress Critters responsible for what they say in a legal means outside of elections.

          Until you do that, attempting to charge members of the Congress or the Senate for speaking against the Constitution is, itself, unconstitutional which, by the by, makes the person who wishes to do this every bit as guilty as the people they wish to condemn.

    • “…essentially raising the age of gun ownership to 21.”

      Wasn’t CA’s ban of gun sales/transfers to young adults under 21 just overturned by a Federal court? And the Dems want to continue slamming their foreheads against this wall?

      • “The DOJ license would require both a written firearm safety test and hands-on training, a criminal background check and submission of fingerprints and proof of identity.”

        This is entirely constitutional for guns, and 21 years old is not high enough.

        However, this is unconstitutional for the sacred right to vote, where we need to immediately re-imagine the racist age restriction of 18. This age disproportionately effects marginalized communities, and needs to immediately be lowered to a sane age of 13.

        Any teen regardless of their minority status deserves the right to vote. Immediately.

        Restore the rights of teens. Give them their vote.

        • Oddly enough voting is not a constitutional right. States are allowed to pick their representatives any way they see fit but if they do it by an election where people vote they have to abide by certain standards.

        • Oh, yeah, I forgot your BRILLIANT insight that Article I, Section 8 TOTES authorizes universal federal gun control. ‘Splain it to me again, Lucy.

          You are beyond stupid, MajorStupidity. Go back to your circle jerk; you bore me.

        • minor49IQ…There are already more than enough adults who vote like immature snot nosed 13 year old twerps. How else could a bucket of demoCrap like Jim Crow Gun Control joe become a wart on America?

          Furthermore…The democRat Party owns the legacy of slavery, segregation, etc. The party also owns denying Black Americans their voting rights just like the party denied Black Americans their Second Amendment Right. Fact check it, apologize and cough up Monetary Reparations.

        • “Overall, as a literary device, satire functions as a means of conveying social commentary and/or criticism on the part of a writer through irony, humor, exaggeration, and other methods. This is effective for readers in that satire can create a critical lens through literature with which to look at human behavior, political structures, social institutions, and even cultural traditions.

          Itโ€™s essential that writers bear in mind that their audience must have an understanding of the source material that is being satirized. Otherwise, the satirical meaning is lost and ineffective. Therefore, itโ€™s best to be aware of the readerโ€™s ability to discern what elements of human nature, history, experience, or culture are being satirized in the literary work.”

        • So once the age of voting is lowered, will there then be a call to also lower, if not eliminate, the age of consent?

        • “So once the age of voting is lowered, will there then be a call to also lower, if not eliminate, the age of consent?”

          Young teenage boys heartily agree! ๐Ÿ™‚

      • Yes, and with strict scrutiny on the 18-21yo question, but only intermediate scrutiny on the get a hunting license before able to buy a gun question. But . . . this was in the 9th Circus, so they will soon go en banc and twist whatever fantasy they can dream up to say that it was decided wrong by the three judge panel, like they have 50 times before, and the state law is just fine.

      • Essentially ending civilian ownership of firearms altogether

        If you need a permission slip to temporarily possess something, then you don’t really own it.

  3. … And yet the only requirement that they favor to be able to vote is having a mailbox.

    • I would be willing to listen to them if they would link the federally issued license with a Voter ID card. No card, no vote, must be shown in person at voting sites or your FFL*.

      *(Card not required when making in-person private purchases of firearms).
      *(No 4473 required when card is presented).
      *(Since voting is permitted at 18 years age, firearms will be legal for 18 ).
      *(Must pass written test on U.S. Constitution).
      *(Only available to U.S. Citizens).

    • or a single share, one of at least 387, in a burned out abandoned single wide mibile home ten miles outside of a smallish midwest town.

  4. Sounds like these three paranoid Democrat-Communist SNOTBALLS are the first three that need to cash in their US citizenship and passports and find another country to immigrate to and live in. Everything they do, support, or influence here is treasonous which proves they really donโ€™t like the USA nor care for individual freedoms. Time for all this scum to leave.

  5. I thought it was racist to ask me to prove my identity?
    Is there a handy-dandy government published document that denotes the circumstances in which the identical act is or is not racist? Maybe a little red book of rules I can carry everywhere and study endlessly hoping to never run afoul should I be stopped and questioned by an agent of the government.

    • “I thought it was racist to ask me to prove my identity?”

      Looks like a 2-for-1 here, racism *and* a poll tax. There’s little chance it will fly now, and even less after November.

      The question I have is, say we get “the phrase that pays”, strict scrutiny from the high court, realistically, what impact will that have on crap like that?

    • Which would be more difficult to obtain, a state issued ID or this DOJ license? I’ll go out on a limb and say this would be more difficult. We can point out the inconsistency and hypocrisy until we’re blue in the face. It was my first comment when neiowa brought it up yesterday. The truth is, the Lying Left doesn’t care. The only reason they arrogantly lie about EVERYTHING is because our dysfunctional media is nothing more than their public relations arm.

      • Passport currently is 8-11 weeks processing time, expedited 5-7 weeks. And that is something they want to give out…

        Renewal of a green card is currently about 18 months processing time.

        I imagine that this ‘gun permit’ will be even less staffed so the processing will be something along the lines of 48-60 months for the initial denial, then another 24 for the appeal.

  7. Don’t NY my America, also if they are this cool with requiring all theses steps to exercise a civil right requiring voter ID is a no brainer.

    • When you live in Fly Over states, have to understand that Liberals donโ€™t a flying F about you.
      Elections have consequences, vote wisely

      • My voting isn’t the issue it’s more the ballot drops we have had for the last 100 years (see democrat machine re Albany similar to Chicago)

        • They’ve already taken it a step further by shipping out the ballot drops by the literal truck load to neighboring states, like say PA.

    • You would think, but using that same logic would mean the “my body, my choice” crowd would be vehemently opposed to experimental vaccine mandates. We saw how that played out.

      • I point that out whenever anyone tries to rope me into a conversation regarding Roe vs Wade. More polite than telling them to fuck off and gets them to leave me alone faster and PA was a shitstorm from everything I heard.

  8. Perhaps an early indicator that Booker intends to run against FJB?

    Oh baby, bring it…..

  9. If this bill or a bill like it ever became law the second amendment needs to be immediately invoked for itโ€™s intended purpose, obviously with this bill it is clearly unconstitutional and Booker is simply pandering to his insane base.

      • As an alternative. I would support a strict enforcement of the 10th Amendment.
        And I can guarantee you that there will be several left or leaning libertarian interest groups who will not be happy about that. Because when they’re reality sets in. They will come to understand that those “right-wing Christians” will get more of what they want. Then more of what the
        Left/Libertarians want.

        And if Roe vs. Wade is struck down by the Supreme Court, as many people expect to be at this point. Then you will see a level of arson and violence in this country that will surpass what happened in 2020.

        And the question will be at that point, will these democrat-controlled cities order the police to stand down and do nothing???
        As they have previously done. I’m glad I live in the part of the country where you can see people openly carrying sidearm. No permit necessary.

        • I fear you are correct. Roe will be coopted as an excuse, albeit a sorry weak one, to make the last two “summers of luv” seem like a bunch of kinnygardeners at a small town park having egg races and water ballon tosses. They now have a well set up system, and it is standing by ready to deploy. The REAL question is what will be the response to another outbreak of South Afrrican “Peace and Security” a la Mandela? Except this time no Antlantic Ocean prison island for the perps. Or maybe yes, send them ALL there. And when the fuel shortages THEY have brought about leave the monthly supply ship stranded in Lisbon, we’ll just have to take out our squeaky violins and play that old sad sad song “Far Away”. Too bad so sad.

    • I somewhat share the sentiment of the national divorce. The problem would be how messy it would get in the fight over resources. For that reason, as well as others, like going to war against fellow Americans, it can’t happen.

      However, there is still a solution. The right could easily become the majority in enough state populations to control the states and the federal governments. Excess votes from the big blue states in a presidential election wouldn’t matter because presidents don’t win by popular vote. We could do this with only a very small fraction of California conservatives relocating. I’m very sorry to the people living in Cali. You aren’t getting your state back anytime soon, if ever. Let’s be realistic and think outside the box.

  13. “You say want a revolution”๐ŸŽถ๐ŸŽต๐Ÿ“ฃ…well you know Mao would approve. There’s he!! to pay. Soon.

  14. Yawn…snowball’s chance. I hope the aides who had to type up this steaming load didn’t have to work too late.

    • All of the (D)’s have a copy in their top drawer, ready to whip out at a moment’s notice.

    • Numb,

      They KNOW they have exactly ZERO chance of passing this. It’s not about “legislation” it’s about posturing and virtue signaling for their Leftist/fascist base. It will die a well-deserved death, and Blumenthal, Booker and Menendez the kiddie-diddler will clutch their pearls and blame the NRA.

  15. Unfortunately this bill has little chance of passing but it is a great idea.

    By requiring a license to buy a firearm it would cut out criminals and lunatics buying second hand guns because if the bill is to work all transactions would have to go through a federal firearms dealer thus eliminating the sea of guns on the used gun market sold to anyone who wants one, no questions asked, except “show me the money” because I do not give a damn who I sell it to.

    Civilized nations have had such requirements for decades. The Japanese have one of the lowest crime rates with guns and the strictest of gun control including interviews with the police and with neighbors or work associates and of course safe storage and inspections. It is a model system to follow.

    • dacian, the Dunderhead, Like most of your “good ideas”, I am glad it has no chance. Like most anti-gun radicals” you don’t understand the phrase, “shall not be infringed”.
      Japan’s crime rate is rather high for your edification. They just don’t use guns. Please do us a favor and keep your “model system”.

      • Walter you never bother to research anything except make unsubstantiated and outrageous comments you make up as you go along

        It is clear that Japan is very safe when compared with other countries. There are only 0.99 cases in Japan for 51.04 in England and Wales, with 38.55 cases in the United States, and 20.12 in France.

        When looking at the figures of these crimes, Japan’s image as a safe country holds up as the numerical values of these crimes are comparatively low. Any chance of becoming the victim of a dangerous or violent crime is incredibly low.

        https://livejapan.com/en/article-a0002373/#:~:text=While%20this%20table%20contains%20some,States%2C%20and%2020.12%20in%20France.

        Next time research before putting your foot in your mouth.

        • Your ideal society is somewhere between a Chinese Panopticon and a nation wide gulag. For our own protection of course.

        • dacian, the Dunerhead. ROFLMOBT! You use a travel cite to prove that Japan is so safe? Please get a grip.

        • Without any NUMERICAL references you counter comment mean’s absolutely NOTHING. What is a crime in one country is not a crime i9n another and how or when crimes are reported on is also important. WQhilst Japan does have a very low reported crime rate there is every reason to think thjat ion comparison with other countries CRIME is vastly underrepoerted and for a very good reason. Those that control the p[olice consider any crime to be a direct insult to them personally and as such are dis couraged from reporting all but serious crime . The Criminal Justice system in Japan is NOT that of the USA. The same applies to some extent to France for different reason one of which France has several Judicial systems running in parallel National Local and Military and this type of system is pretty much the norm in all the ROMANCE NAPOLEONIC] countries of France, Spain, Italy and Portugal Meanwhile the UK has NO National Police Force which one again comp-licates matters though the UK does have through the HOME OFFICE [a distinct MINISTERY holding one of the ‘Great Offices of State’] a Centralised Reporting Service. But of all nations the UK in all probablity has one of THE most independent JUDICIARY systems as witnessed by the investigation of the PRIME MINISTER as regards COVID19 restrictions.

      • Surely the point ‘that they do not use guns’ is the matter of discussion. Because Japanese Crime does not involve, in the normal run of things involve the use of FIREARMS, there are far and away few DEATHS in the commitence of Crime and there are of course few if any MULTIPLE SHOOTINGS of which the USA seems so fond. Neither do the vast majority of crimes in the UK result in a fatality and when they do, even for a single incident it makes the National Headlines.
        Does a handbag snatch deserve a death sentence at the hands of what amounts a untrained VIGILANTE? In the minds of not a few slack jawed gun nuts apparently in AMERICA it does.
        I notice how much CAPITAL PUNISHMENT is mentioned in comment on these pages and approved of as a CRIMINAL DETERRENT. It is no such thing.
        Has crime demonstrable declined because of the DEATH SENTENCE? NO.
        Is the crime rate in New York that does not have the death sentence any different on a per.capita basis than many other US Cities? NO.
        I have no particular view on Capital Punishment but to think it’s in anyway a deterrent to serious crime is somewhat disengenuous. And to keep p[eople on Death Row for up to 20 years is frankly barbaric. At least in the UK when sentenced a date was given shortly after and strictly adhered to and unlike the USA was carried out in PRIVATE.

    • Sure, cool. The same standards should be be applied to posting on the internet. A DOJ license to do so. Solves the Doxxing issue too!

      Then we’ll know more everything about people who troll. No more hiding!

      That’s ok, right?

    • Japan has no blacks living there which is why they have the lowest murder rate in the developed world. For some odd reason they have a suicide rate about eight times higher than the United States and 40 year old virgins are not uncommon. I wonder if the two are related.

    • Japan is an island. So is England. So is Australia. Gun control works a little better on islands. If we tried that in the U.S. the result we be like the strict gun control in Mexico. How is that gun licensing working out down there in Mexico, Mr Dacian? Why do you want the U.S. to go down the path of Mexican gun control?

      • Gun control in Mexico does not work because they have a corrupt Government that works hand in hand with the drug gangs. When the government is corrupt nothing works. Their problems arise from drug crime not nut cases mowing down kids in schools and shopping centers and in that case their gun laws do work.

        • All your rants against the ‘corrupt’ .gov of capitalvania and you think it would work differently here than mexico?

          Mexico has decapitated bodies hanging from bridges but their gun control works?

          Science hasn’t the words to describe your level of mental illness, herr dacian.

    • dacian said, ” I like toying with people’s minds” .
      That’s kinda fcked up for somebody thats 74 years old.

    • “By requiring a license to buy a firearm it would cut out criminals and lunatics buying second hand guns .. ”

      because criminals and lunatics follow the law.

    • Yeah, dacian the stupid, criminals who CURRENTLY buy guns on the street, illegally, or STEAL them (also illegal) will TOTES stop illegally buying guns on the street or stealing them, because . . . they’re law-abiding citizens??? They’re civic-minded communitarians?? They are ALREADY violating the law to acquire guns, you frickin’ brain-dead, uneducated moron. Another “law” is going to accomplish WHAT, EXACTLY???????

      My God, your stupidity knows no bounds. Go back to your circle jerk.

    • Utter nonsense. California has had universal background check law for over twenty years now. All transactions must go through an FFL. Nonetheless, the gangs still have plenty of guns and the crime rate was unchanged until the last couple of years–when it went up. Criminals will no more buy their guns illegally.

      • quote———- All transactions must go through an FFL. Nonetheless, the gangs still have plenty of guns and the crime rate was unchanged until the last couple of yearsโ€“when it went up.————quote

        Well no kidding Mark. Let me explain this to you on the 5th grade level. States with lax gun laws ship in thousands of second hand guns to States like California with tough gun laws.

        On the East Coast Law Enforcement has even documented an Iron Pipeline that ships in thousands of second hand guns from Southern States with no paperwork to East Coast States with tough laws.

        • Let me explain to you, at a 4th grade level how it works, herr dacian. If there is a profit in it and there would be real weapons of war would be smuggled in from Mexico along with the tons of drugs that are brought in now. Machine guns, RPG’s.

          Your war on guns would have the same results as the war on drugs. Complete failure.

  16. Yes! Outstanding! I hope every Democrat up for election is pushing this bill hard. Hope they make it their biggest priority. #tsnunami

  17. What makes you think I will comply?

    Yes I realize we have jackbooted THUGS with a badge who will attempt to enforce unconstitutional laws.

    ATF says 700 million guns in circulation. Why did they need to count? Frankly I think that number is low.

    One must remember the knife cuts both ways.

    The Russians couldn’t take Kiev let that though sink in. So Democrats want to go full Stalinist? The numbers are against you.

    • I don’t think it was that the Russians COULD NOT take Kiev. I believe they chose not to, having higher priorities in view. Things like dealing with the sixteen US backed/run bio labs out there ‘in the sticks” of the Donbas. Putin is smart enuogh not to want Kiev, and the Ukraininan part of the country. A big burden wiht no upside. He DOES have a strong interest in securing the Russian heirtage parts where the locals have voted by a wide margin to secede from the rest of the Ukraine and either remain neutral or rejoin the Russia of their cultural heritage. Leave the rest of the western tainted corrupted government of the Ukrain to implode on itself. He had a few strategic targes in Kiev he wanted subdued, and did so..

      • Another Russian propaganda bot. Please ignore.
        Putin DID want Kiev because he wanted to take control of the government, i.e., execute a coup. Russia failed to take Kiev due to its incompetence and lack of adequate planning. It failed to take the military airport a few miles outside of Kiev, which prevented a blitz attack on the government intended to behead it. It planned for three to five days of combat–but when their attack stalled on the road to Kiev, they ran out of fuel and food. They failed to secure the railroads into Ukraine from Belarus, which prevented them from moving men, tanks, fuel and other logistics supplies to the front rapidly, and leaving a 40 mile long stalled convoy as sitting ducks. Without controlling the airspace, drones were shooting ducks in a barrel.

        • “It failed to take the military airport a few miles outside of Kiev,..”

          And in a *spectacular* fashion, no less! They shot down 2 airliners packed with special forces troops on final approach, killing all aboard… ๐Ÿ™‚

  18. I wonder if requiring the DOJ to license criminals would cut down on crime? You know, do a background check, get fingerprinted, get a mugshot takenโ€ฆ

    Cory Booker looks a lot like Hank Johnson and is just as stupid.

    FJB

      • I showed that video of Hank Johnson to my dad and for some reason (likely because he votes democrat), didn’t find it as hilarious as I did.

        (How that general he was questioning could keep a straight face, I’ll never know… ๐Ÿ™‚ )

  19. Yeah we got in the news by pandering to our base. Of course this will go nowhere, but everyone will love us for trying to “Do Something”, etc, etc. Give us more money and power and we promise that all the bad things like oil, guns, religion, hurtful speech and reality we be made illegal. We are politicians, so you can trust us, “Wink, Wink, Nod, Nod, Say No More”.

  21. We need to issue licenses for people to be able to vote. First they have to prove competency in the process. If they are leftist, then they are obviously incompetent.

  22. How about getting approval from Americans first for letting Spartacus’s security carrying guns.

  23. I read, ” Murphy shares Bookers sense of humor “.
    Hell yes good idea we have to get the OK from the department of justice, and once we do we have access to any kind of weapon the DOJ has.
    “Only what you see on the shelves Buddy”

  24. “Spartacus” is getting ready to make a run at the Dem nomination in 2024. That’s the only reason you ever hear from him. He was non-existent for his first six year term until 2020 when he made his first attempt to run for President. Expect to hear this a**hole a lot during the next two years.

  26. What a trio! “Spatacus” Booker, “I like your little sister” Menendez and “Stolen Valor” Blumenthal. Can “One Trick Pony” Murphy be far behind?

  27. I am disappointed that MadTV isn’t around any more, Key would have been spot on Corey Booker. It would have been like shooting fish in a barrel and that early 00s comedy was savage too.

  28. Sometimes they come up with ideas so unbelievably unconstitutional that you have to laugh. The most liberal judges in the 9th circuit on Juneteenth after attending a DNC party with their San Francisco friends would not rule in favour of this.

  29. hey moron, we already agree to background checks over and over again… but give me an ffl and I will be happy to cut our the middleman..

  30. GREAT idea, guys!! Let’s look at some other rights that need to be subject to federal licensing:

    1. Need a federal license to vote, requires picture ID, passing a civics test, fingerprinting, etc.;

    2. License to get an abortion, and a showing of ‘good cause’, to be evaluated by a board of “experts”;

    3. Your home can be searched without a warrant, and your property seized, unless you have a 4th Amendment license.

    And, of course, MajorStupidity and dacian the stupid LOVE the idea . . . they’re good little Leftist/fascists!!

    • 5. License, minimum age of 21, a background check, an evaluation by a physician and psychiatrist as well as their signed approval before you can ask to be called by a pronoun other than the proper pronoun that has worked since the inception of the English language. With this proof of mental illness, you will not be allowed to do something as consequential as cast a vote. People would still be free to call you by your proper pronoun without risk of retaliation.

  31. They will keep throwing spaghetti against the wall, hoping they can get some to stick. Keeps us on our toes though, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

  32. The current and near future political climate may indicate that the legislation has no chance of passing (at the moment), don’t let the people haters (leftists/statists/authoritarians/communists/Dims) distract you. The purpose of the legislation is also designed as a means to aggravate “the base” (al qaeda) into monster voting against the “basket of deplorables”. The Dims don’t even need to “win”, just maintain the status quo.

  33. NOTHING TO DO WITH RED OR BLUE , EVERYTHING TO DO WITH GOOFY POLITICIANS THAT PEOPLE VOTED FOR .

  34. That’s why I say we have no hope for change except by force. This country has been taken over by corrupt politicians for over 45 years. Everyone one that in government from the past 45 years has baggage. They all need to be put on trial and investigated.i do home work ….. ๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐ค๐ฌ๐œ๐ฅ๐ข๐œ๐ค.๐œ๐จ๐ฆ

    • I could not agree with you more. At age 60 Iโ€™ve been seeing your point(s) unfold these past 45+ years (actually right at 60 yrs. is when all this nonsense went in to high gear). The fact itโ€™s gotten worse has been the same driver to needing to use force to stop it from getting worse and possibly removing those from govt. that will only pause then when most opportunity is present resume their corruption and destruction.

  35. Booker might actually be dumb enough to think this has a chance. His staff are not.

    This is shit-stirring while a trial balloon. The suggestion will reappear down the road but they know it’s just trolling/red meat for the base at this point in time.

  36. A license that will let me carry my gun anywhere I want in the entire country, since it’s a federal license? Sure, I’ll get that.

    Didn’t really think that one through, did they?

  37. I sure as Hell donโ€™t want it. Nothing but a registry and more paranoid control. They donโ€™t have the authority for that. They will have to repeal the entire 2A. Until they do ALL of their nonsense is unconstitutional and treasonous as it basically requires a violation of their oath of office and destruction of the constitution. Desperate cowards. They know they donโ€™t stand a chance once they push us in to an armed and hot civil war.

  39. Folks…Stop getting all worked up.
    Breath deep and relax.
    This is what those idiots in Congress want you to do.
    They want you to get all worked up as that gives them relevance.
    Voting them out and getting who in to replace them?
    Haven’t you figured out by now that we are run by a duopoly and that dems and repubs are the same two sides of the corrupt coin?
    Just ignore them and their stupid edicts.
    Don’t follow any unconstitutional laws.
    Yes, start thinking civil disobedience as that is the ONLY thing these congress-critters understand.

    Molon Labe!

  40. I see Dacian added his two cents.
    When I want his unsolicited opinion I’ll beat it out of him.

    Not only Hell No, but FOAD Senators! Three Wannabe Tyrants begging for a Necktie Party.

  42. Amazing isnโ€™t it, how some elected things forget the oath of office they so willingly took. Might they have had their fingers crossed while taking their oaths of office, One wonders.

  43. Any anti gun treasonous bastards politicians should be charged and hanged for sedition against the constitution they swore to protect!

Comments are closed.