Corey Booker "You must get a license for the Bill of Rights"

[rightwinger]

Isn't it amazing that the Anti Cheesber Party wants you get a license to enjoy the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights but they don't want you to have to produce a valid ID before voting?

Then they wonder why we ridicule them so much.

This clown Booker obviously doesn't understand what a Bill of Rights is all about. Doesn't he suppose to have a degree in law or something? Obviously an Affirmative Action dumbass Negro. Just like Obama.

He knows exactly what a Bill of Rights does...it limits his ability to force you to bend to his will....

Nobody is so dumb they don't understand what "shall not be infringed" means.

So even when dumbasses like this Booker Negro demands that the government infringes then we know he is just playing stupid to kiss the ass of the anti gun nuts.

Nobody is so dumb as to believe that means unlimited access to the weapon of your choice

 

[pismoe]

The Small Arms that are regularly issued to the American Combat Soldier are the Small Arms that are acceptable RWinger .

 

[Flash]

Unregulated Liberals are a much greater threat to public safety than any firearm.

I would support a law that required that you had to get a license to be a Liberal. It would be a very restrictive license. That would be common sense public safety.

 

[rightwinger]

The Small Arms that are regularly issued to the American Combat Soldier are the Small Arms that are acceptable RWinger .

We call them assault weapons

 

[rightwinger]

Unregulated Liberals are a much greater threat to public safety than any firearm.

I would support a law that required that you had to get a license to be a Liberal. It would be a very restrictive license. That would be common sense public safety.

Liberals wrote the Constitution

 

[pismoe]

The Small Arms that are regularly issued to the American Combat Soldier are the Small Arms that are acceptable RWinger .

We call them assault weapons

------------------------------ and most of you enemy guys don't even know what a REAL assault weapon is RWinger .

 

[Flash]

 

[Flash]

 

[2aguy]

Isn't it amazing that the Anti Cheesber Party wants you get a license to enjoy the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights but they don't want you to have to produce a valid ID before voting?

Then they wonder why we ridicule them so much.

This clown Booker obviously doesn't understand what a Bill of Rights is all about. Doesn't he suppose to have a degree in law or something? Obviously an Affirmative Action dumbass Negro. Just like Obama.

He knows exactly what a Bill of Rights does...it limits his ability to force you to bend to his will....

Nobody is so dumb they don't understand what "shall not be infringed" means.

So even when dumbasses like this Booker Negro demands that the government infringes then we know he is just playing stupid to kiss the ass of the anti gun nuts.

Nobody is so dumb as to believe that means unlimited access to the weapon of your choice

No one said it does....it does not mean, however, that you asshats get to determine which guns we get to own and carry........

This is what is protected...from people like you......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[2aguy]

Unregulated Liberals are a much greater threat to public safety than any firearm.

I would support a law that required that you had to get a license to be a Liberal. It would be a very restrictive license. That would be common sense public safety.

Liberals wrote the Constitution

Liberals......you mean Classical Liberals, whose analog today is the American conservative.....not the left wing progressives who are the antithesis of the Founders.

 

[rightwinger]

Isn't it amazing that the Anti Cheesber Party wants you get a license to enjoy the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights but they don't want you to have to produce a valid ID before voting?

Then they wonder why we ridicule them so much.

This clown Booker obviously doesn't understand what a Bill of Rights is all about. Doesn't he suppose to have a degree in law or something? Obviously an Affirmative Action dumbass Negro. Just like Obama.

He knows exactly what a Bill of Rights does...it limits his ability to force you to bend to his will....

Nobody is so dumb they don't understand what "shall not be infringed" means.

So even when dumbasses like this Booker Negro demands that the government infringes then we know he is just playing stupid to kiss the ass of the anti gun nuts.

Nobody is so dumb as to believe that means unlimited access to the weapon of your choice

No one said it does....it does not mean, however, that you asshats get to determine which guns we get to own and carry........

This is what is protected...from people like you......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

We the People get to decide what weapons are allowed in public hands

Gun owners are free to take any legislation about guns to the court and force the government there is a public interest in banning certain weapons and accessories

 

[rightwinger]

Unregulated Liberals are a much greater threat to public safety than any firearm.

I would support a law that required that you had to get a license to be a Liberal. It would be a very restrictive license. That would be common sense public safety.

Liberals wrote the Constitution

Liberals......you mean Classical Liberals, whose analog today is the American conservative.....not the left wing progressives who are the antithesis of the Founders.

A liberal, is a liberal, is a liberal

Each generation of liberals face new challenges and learn from the liberals before them

 

[jc456]

What the fk does that even mean? Amazing stupid

 

[jc456]

The license would have to be renewed every five years, to include refresher training

I'm a weapons trained US Army veteran, and have target practiced and hunted game all my life.

So exactly what sort of refresher training do I need?? ...

The Anti Cheeseburger Party obviously thinks you are a threat to public safety and can't be trusted without them licensing you.

They don't want you to meet the criteria of the Founding Fathers. They want you to meet their criteria, which will evolve into nobody having access to firearms like we have seen in the Democrat controlled big city shitholes where they control the access through licensing.

Isn’t that a concentration camp? Nazi lovers all of them

 

[pknopp]

"Take the guns first, go through due process second."

Trump.

I can't take these complaints too seriously by anyone that voted for that when Booker stands no chance at winning.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Him and Castro are in their own little sub competition trying to out dumb each other. It's painful to watch.

 

[Flash]

"Take the guns first, go through due process second."

Trump.

I can't take these complaints too seriously by anyone that voted for that when Booker stands no chance at winning.

The filthy anti right to keep and bear arms bullshit is wrong no matter who does it. Just like debt and increased taxes are wrong no matter who does it.

We wouldn't have had any of the oppressive gun laws at the Federal level with some Republican support along the way . Just look at that idiot 1994 AWB as an example. The same on many state levels. Just look at the worthless oppressive bullshit legislation that was passed in Florida after Parkland and Florida had a Republican Legislature and Governor. Shame!

All of those Moon Bat clowns running for President in the Anti Cheeseburger Party are absolutely anti gun crazy. Fuck 'em all.

 

[rightwinger]

What the fk does that even mean? Amazing stupid

Explain why?

 

[pknopp]

"Take the guns first, go through due process second."

Trump.

I can't take these complaints too seriously by anyone that voted for that when Booker stands no chance at winning.

The filthy anti right to keep and bear arms bullshit is wrong no matter who does it. Just like debt and increased taxes are wrong no matter who does it.

We wouldn't have had any of the oppressive gun laws at the Federal level with some Republican support along the way . Just look at that idiot 1994 AWB as an example. The same on many state levels. Just look at the worthless oppressive bullshit legislation that was passed in Florida after Parkland and Florida had a Republican Legislature and Governor. Shame!

All of those Moon Bat clowns running for President in the Anti Cheeseburger Party are absolutely anti gun crazy. Fuck 'em all.

Again,

"Take the guns first, go through due process second."

Are you going to vote Trump?

 

[FA_Q2]

Isn't it amazing that the Anti Cheesber Party wants you get a license to enjoy the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights but they don't want you to have to produce a valid ID before voting?

Then they wonder why we ridicule them so much.

This clown Booker obviously doesn't understand what a Bill of Rights is all about. Doesn't he suppose to have a degree in law or something? Obviously an Affirmative Action dumbass Negro. Just like Obama.

He knows exactly what a Bill of Rights does...it limits his ability to force you to bend to his will....

Nobody is so dumb they don't understand what "shall not be infringed" means.

So even when dumbasses like this Booker Negro demands that the government infringes then we know he is just playing stupid to kiss the ass of the anti gun nuts.

Nobody is so dumb as to believe that means unlimited access to the weapon of your choice

No one said it does....it does not mean, however, that you asshats get to determine which guns we get to own and carry........

This is what is protected...from people like you......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

We the People get to decide what weapons are allowed in public hands

Gun owners are free to take any legislation about guns to the court and force the government there is a public interest in banning certain weapons and accessories

No, you don't. The constitution does not work that way. You want that to be the case, all you have to do is pass an amendment.