Yesterday, I took apart Cory Booker’s horseshit answer to a question by a hysterical woman about gun control.

I was not the only person do it.  NRA Spokeswoman Dana Loesch broke down Booker’s bull in less than 140 characters on Twitter.

Much to my amazement, Booker actually responded.

And he doubled down.

Do anti-gunners and Democrats (redundant) have some sort of allergy to the truth?

I’m just about 100% that “Almost 70% of NRA members support background checks” is pulled out of his ass.

If it’s not, that it’s not a poll of universal background checks, just support for the 4473 and NICS done through an FFL.  I know nobody asked me, as an NRA member and Golden Eagle, and I can assure you I don’t support UBC’s.

Conflating support for NICS and UBC’s is ignorant at best and total dishonest at worst.  My guess, totally dishonest.

The link he provides for Number 2 in reference to domestic abusers jumps over to a page from the Giffords Law Center.

The page acknowledges the Lautenberg Amendment, then blows right by it and starts talking about the “boyfriend loophole.”

I have covered this several times before and I have come to realized the purpose of this bullshit.

Gun rights are Constitutionally protected.  The bar for removing someone’s Constitutionally protected rights should be rather high.  Traditionally that involves a felony conviction.

The Lautenberg Amendment is the only misdemeanor conviction I can think of that permanently strips a person of their Constitutionally protected civil rights.

I believe the justification for this is that such domestic violence is both habitual and hard to escape.  A woman who is married to a man, cohabitiates with, or shares a child with him cannot easily escape the situation.  She may share a home, car, and bank account, it’s not as simple as just moving out and walking way.

Furthermore, what constitutes abuse in some states doesn’t necessarily require violence.  Intimidation requires only the threat of violence or making the other person feel afraid.

Reading the law in the most literal way, if a man and woman have an argument, and the man in a fit of rage punches a dent in the drywall or throws a chachky through a TV, but never touches the woman, he still committed a misdemeanor.  Under the right circumstances, that is enough to make that man a prohibited person.

Of course I don’t want to see people get hurt, but hat is a very low bar, perhaps too low, to strip someone of their Constitutional rights.

For the antis, lowering the bar for everyone to make it that much easier to make people prohibited persons isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.  Stumble over it and you lose your gun rights forever, even if you never actually hurt anybody.

Throw in the old adage “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” and the fame of Mattress Girl for parading around about a rape that was proven never to have happened, and you can see how a man might be terrified of losing his rights from a “he said, she said.”

Third, I have no idea what “why does the NRA only want to support 2A rights when convenient?” even means.

Lastly, we in the gun community have said it before, if you don’t respect the Second Amendment, you don’t respect the First (or any others).  When Booker says “this kind of response only further proves my point—the NRA needs to go” how does he intend to disband a law abiding organization protected by the First Amendment “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

There are only two things Booker knows how to do, lie and impose the heavy hand of government.

Booker was caught doing that by Dana Loesch, and when called on it, did it again.

There is no lie they are not willing to tell to convince you to abdicate all your liberties to them.

Then they will take away you guns and intellectual property to be sure of that.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

4 thoughts on “Booker doubles down on his anti-NRA BS”
  1. I’m just about 100% that “Almost 70% of NRA members support background checks” is pulled out of his ass.

    It’s actually true, albeit only with caveats that Booker is (intentionally) leaving out. IIRC, the actual number is 68%, and it’s based on the NRA polling a random sample of its own members.

    The caveats are:
    – 68% of NRA members support instant, point-of-sale background checks for retail sales only. IOW, 68% support following federal law AS IS, including not requiring checks for private transfers.
    – Many/most of those 68% support background checks only because NICS has proven to be mostly-unobtrusive and such checks have been the law since before many NRA members could legally buy guns. “It’s no big deal, and has always been this way” is a powerful set of sentiments.

    Sure, we know that criminals rarely get their guns at retail stores or gun shows, but as long as the background checks only take a few minutes and you can walk out with your gun the same day, it’s a small, sufferable thing.

    But Booker, like many anti-gunners, purposely conflates “68% of NRA members support background checks” with “68% of NRA members support UNIVERSAL background checks”, which is a different animal entirely. There are some NRA members who do support UBCs, but they are a very small minority, and usually not aware of exactly what UBCs entail (can’t loan a gun to a friend or let anyone else handle or shoot it at the range or in the field, usually also demand a 7-to-10 day waiting period, and needs full registration to properly enforce). If they knew, it’d be an even smaller minority.

    Thus, at minimum Booker’s statement is technically a lie of omission dependent on his followers’ ignorance. But in reality, it’s a lie just like any other intentional falsehood.

    1. So exactly what I said.

      “If it’s not, that it’s not a poll of universal background checks, just support for the 4473 and NICS done through an FFL.”

      I agree with that, I’m fine for the system as-is, not for UBC’s.

  2. Agree with Archer.

    Words matter. Booker did not say Universal Background Checks, he said background checks. And, as a NRA member, I support background checks, however, I am adamantly opposed to Universal Background Checks. NICS is fine by me.

    As to the rest, it is just focusing on the problems with the system, not actually talking about how often it works perfectly. Imagine throwing away a power tool because there are some materials it strains to cut through. Same thing. My battery powered drill sucks at drilling through cured concrete. It needs to go!

  3. Cory Booker is a Perfect Example of..
    The Educationally Challenged Voting In The Educationally Challenged

    IMO, he is a incredibly stupid human being.
    And a Traitor not only to his Position but those he represents.
    Nuff said or I will be banned.

Comments are closed.