Booker Moves Further Left On Gun Control But Forgets This Important Tidbit

|
 @eb454
|
Posted: Jun 27, 2019 6:20 AM
Booker Moves Further Left On Gun Control But Forgets This Important Tidbit

Source: AP Photo/Jeff Chiu

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) decided to move further left on gun control than his debate stage colleagues. Most of his colleagues focused on the typical gun control pushes: an assault weapons ban and a call for universal background checks.

"This is something that I'm tired of and I'm tired of hearing people all they have to offer is 'thoughts and prayers.' In my faith, people say, 'faith without works' is dead," Booker said. "So we will find a way. The reason we have a problem is we've let the corporate gun lobby frame this debate. It is time that we have bold actions and a bold agenda. I will get that done as President of the United States because this not about policy. This is personal." 

Specifically, Booker talked about his plan that would require anyone who owns a firearm to obtain a gun license. Gun owners would have to apply for a firearm license at a local office, something Booker's campaign said would be "widely available in urban and rural areas, similar to applying for or renewing a passport." The license would be valid for five years before renewal is required.

Booker previously said “a gun license demonstrates that a person is eligible and can meet certain safety and training standards necessary to own a gun.”

Second Amendment supporters were quick to point out one thing: owning and operating a car is not a constitutional right. Owning a firearm is in the bill of rights. There's a very important difference. 

People like Booker are dangerous, especially when it comes to our Constitutional rights. We shouldn't need permission to own a gun. We shouldn't need a piece of paper to exercise our Second Amendment rights. Our Founding Fathers laid out this protection in the Constitution for a reason. They knew that an armed society is a polite society. And those who work to disarm us do so for all the wrong reasons (hello, tyranny!). 

While Booker may call his agenda "bold" and different, it really should be called unconstitutional and an infringement on our rights.