Sen. Cory Booker, in recent remarks about the Colorado school shooting and the need to crack down on Second Amendment freedoms, said toy guns are actually subjected to stricter and tighter regulatory controls than real firearms.
And even The Washington Post said — huh?
This was what Booker said in a post at Medium: “Nowadays, there is more regulation over toy guns than real ones.”
Scoffers, unite. ‘Cause even the left-leaning media outlets are shaking heads on this one.
“We found Booker’s statement misleading,” PolitiFact wrote.
And this, from The Post’s headline writers: “Cory Booker’s misleading claim that toy guns are more regulated than real guns.”
But this is the left’s standard anti-gun fare.
Barack Obama, in a 2016 town hall hosted by CNN, defended what was then his emerging executive orders against firearms by saying that cars, toys and medications are subjected to ongoing safety improvements — so why not the field of firearms?
“There’s nothing else in our lives that we purchase where we don’t try to make it a little safer if we can,” Obama said then, Vox reported.
The New York Times published in 2011 a column that queried, “Why Not Regulate Guns as Seriously as Toys?” That piece went on to say, “To protect the public, we regulate cars and toys, medicines and mutual funds. So, simply as a public health matter, shouldn’t we take steps to reduce the toll from our domestic arms industry?”
In a word: No.
The left is hoping its razzle and dazzle about consumer product safety will detract from the one big difference between car seats and firearms — and that’s this: The Second Amendment.
The Constitution restricts government’s ability to strip citizens from their God-given rights to self-protection via the Second Amendment. The Constitution doesn’t say anything about cars or car seats or car safety.
That’s the big, big difference.
That’s what Booker and his ilk — many of whom are running for the Democratic ticket to the White House — hope Americans will forget.
But here’s the standard, against which all regulatory proposals should be weighted: The Second Amendment is based on rights given individuals from God, not government.
The government must get the citizens’ OK to strip those God-given rights — and the government can only do that with an amendment to the Constitution.
• Cheryl Chumley can be reached at cchumley@washingtontimes.com or on Twitter @ckchumley.
© Copyright (c) 2019 News World Communications, Inc.
Is Corey Booker a nut case — or what?????? Man alive, if he is what they grow in New Jersey, I don’t want to drink any of THEIR water…..
Nor eat their food or live there period.
Yes, ConservativeSarge, Booker is a Spartacus-grade nut case.
“Sen. Cory Booker . . . said toy guns are actually subjected to stricter & tighter regulatory controls than real firearms.”
Hmm . . . that’s funny, Senator, b/c I’ve never heard of the Bureau of Apple Juice, Toy Guns & FuzzyBears.
The ONLY regulation i know on toy guns, is that BB guns that are made to mimic real looking weapons MUST have that yellow tipped barrel.. Other than that, i know NOT of any regulation on them.
In public schools Pop Tarts are regulated…and not because of the sugar. So is children’s art. The pastries may not be torn, cut or eaten at to resemble a gun.
Gun shapes may not be drawn or cut from craft paper.
You may be suspended from school for pointing your finger like a gun.
Oddly enough in Florida if you threaten to kill classmates with a gun nothing happens. Democrats will even go so far as to hide your record of threats and move you from school to school until you do in fact use a gun.
Then they will assign the media to blame the guns manufacturers and claim they had no way of knowing this was going to happen.
More BS from the left! They HATE the notion that people should be held personally accountable for their actions, EVERYTHING is the fault of society in general! I really do not care what their attitude about The Constitution is, I will defend it to the death!
In order to form a militia.
yep. One who’s sole purpose is to prevent an overreaching federal government from imposing its RULE on subjects, instead of lightly governing with the consent of the citizens.
Something that has been forgotten in the 150 years since the civil war. If the states are not allowed to “divorce” from the federal government, their residents are subjects, not citizens.
Hope. BACK In the days when the constitution was wrote, ALL ABLE BODIED MEN were considered part of the militia..
The wording of The Constitution and Bill of Rights is rather specific and not subject to speculation or interpretation, something elected officials and the courts should take into consideration when making statements or rendering decisions. We have enough of ‘discovering’ rights in language which infers no such meaning.
Actually, Ms. Chumley is incorrect, at least from a literal reading of the second amendment. “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” Does not allow even an amendment to the constitution within it’s statement. NO other amendment has these words in it. Even the 10th amendment has wording in it to support that this is a personal right (“…nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or TO THE PEOPLE.”
ANY law, ruling or regulation which restricts an un-handicapped citizen (one who has not had his citizen rights removed by a court of law) from having and bearing arms (even in “restricted” areas) is unconstitutional, whether imposed by federal, state or local government, whether imposed by the legislative, executive, or judicial branch.
Hence why for years, i’ve been saying ALL OUR CURRENT laws on gun ownership/where/how/who, are all unconstitutional..
I think the actual question here is and to the point of Ms. Chumley’s article is whether or not the second amendment is God given or government granted. At first glance it would appear that the second amendment is government granted since it was was written by and voted into law by men and is uniquely American which would contradict Ms. Chumley’s position that it is God given. Upon closer scrutiny however could it not be argued that since life is a God given right then the right to defend it is also God given? The bible is full of verses relating to man’s right and Gods promise to defend people against the tyranny of evil men. Most notably Ezekiel 25:17 made famous in the movie Pulp fiction refers directly to this. To wit…
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the
Inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men
Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will
shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness
for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious
Anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers
And you will know
My name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee
To give licence to hate in the name of religious freedom to those who’s sole stated purpose is our annihilation goes against the undeniable God given right to life to which only God and the second amendment protect us.
“To protect the public, we regulate cars and toys, medicines and mutual funds. So, simply as a public health matter, shouldn’t we take steps to reduce the toll from our domestic arms industry?” I think that’s a good idea for FaceBook and Google, right???
What about regulating cell phones. Looking at the stats, they are roughly similar..
Just in FLORIDA alone, over 50 THOUSAND accidents resulting in 224 deaths were the result of texting and driving.. in one year.
Compared to one site listing just over 600 gun murders.. AND that’s just one state.
I think that EVERYONE should have to fill out a 4473 for every purchase. Including a pack of gum. And be denied if bad rec0rds pop up. How long do you figure the NICS system would survive when the peasants started heading to DC with pitch forks and pots of boiling oil?