• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

  • The site has been updated!

    If you notice any issues, please let us know below!

    VIEW THREAD

Senators agree on bipartisan gun control....

The best part of the story ?
The intellectual magnificence of AOC...

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a progressive Democrat from New York, said later on the same program that she would be willing to support the legislation "if we get a real baby step, not kind of a distraction, I think, from the solution." She stressed that including a provision for background checks is critical.
"You know, I believe that, if we can get background checks through, my hope -- my hope is that it's a yes" on the legislation, Ocasio-Cortez said.
 
You liked to the Washington Post.....media outlet for the DNC with a pay wall?


"This an agreement on principles, not legislative text. The details will be critical for Republicans, particularly the firearms-related provisions. One or more of these principles could be dropped if the text is not agreed to," a GOP aide involved with the negotiations told Fox News.​


And....just WTF are the "firearms-related provisions" I don't see them in the article.
 
You liked to the Washington Post.....media outlet for the DNC with a pay wall?


"This an agreement on principles, not legislative text. The details will be critical for Republicans, particularly the firearms-related provisions. One or more of these principles could be dropped if the text is not agreed to," a GOP aide involved with the negotiations told Fox News.​


And....just WTF are the "firearms-related provisions" I don't see them in the article.
I don’t either. I can copy/paste the article. I haven’t read it but it doesn’t matter. It shows their willingness to do something and yet all we do is redraw the line and we lose something, yet again, while gaining nothing in return. I will not comply with any of this. But if companies go along with it then it will affect your ability to get anything. It’s not a good sign at all. We need another party to vote all these idiots out, like yesterday. What happened to the damn tea party?
 
Here is the text.

Senators strike bipartisan gun deal, heralding potential breakthrough
A bipartisan group of Senate negotiators is set to announce Sunday that it reached a tentative agreement on legislation that would pair modest new gun restrictions with significant new mental health and school security investments — a deal that could put Congress on a path to enacting the most significant national response in decades to acts of mass gun violence.
The framework deal was confirmed Sunday by three people involved in the negotiations who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss their status ahead of a formal announcement, which is expected midday.
While substantially weaker than the assault weapons ban, high-capacity ammunition magazine restrictions and broad background check expansions that most Democrats support, the gun provisions set out in the framework could, if enacted, represent the most significant new federal firearms restrictions enacted since the mid-1990s.
Under the tentative deal, a federal grant program would encourage states to establish “red flag” laws that allow authorities to keep guns away from people found by a judge to represent a potential threat to themselves or others, while federal criminal background checks for gun buyers under 21 would include a mandatory search of juvenile justice records for the first time.
It does not include a provision supported by President Biden, congressional Democrats and a handful of Republicans that would raise the minimum age for the purchase of at least some rifles from 18 to 21. Handguns are already subject to a federal 21-and-over age limit.
Other provisions could funnel billions of new federal dollars into mental health care and school security programs, funding new campus infrastructure and armed officers. Several senators last week said they expected one cornerstone of the deal would be legislation sponsored by Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) to establish a nationwide network of “community behavioral health clinics.”
The announcement Sunday represents the fruit of a crash bipartisan effort launched in the days after the May 24 killing of 19 children and two teachers inside Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Tex., which itself came 10 days after another shocking mass shooting inside a Buffalo supermarket.
It also comes one day after thousands attended pro-gun-control rallies across the country organized by the student-led March for Our Lives group, including a Washington event on the National Mall.
Ahead of Sunday’s announcement, senators publicly sketched out a negotiating position in general terms.
Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who has led Democrats’ efforts on gun legislation since the 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Conn., said during an anti-gun-violence rally Friday that he was determined to break congressional stasis on gun legislation, but not at any cost: “I’m not interested in doing something unless that’s something is going to save lives, unless that something’s going to be impactful and meaningful.”
Meanwhile, John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who has an A-plus rating from the National Rifle Association, said last week that he is interested in forging a compromise, but only if it preserves gun owners’ rights under the Second Amendment.
“This is not about creating new restrictions on law-abiding citizens,” he said. "It’s about ensuring that the system we already have in place works as intended.”
Key pitfalls remain: Only a handful of the 50 Republican senators were involved in the negotiating group, and under the Senate’s filibuster rule, at least 10 would have to join with the 50 members of the Democratic caucus to advance any legislation. Red-flag laws, in particular, have raised many conservative Republicans’ hackles, though negotiators said last week they believed there would be sufficient GOP support to pass any deal.
The people involved in the talks said it remained unclear how many senators would ultimately sign the statement Sunday morning. One said there were still hopes of having at least 10 Republicans on board, signaling a clear path to passage.
Get the Post Most Newsletter
The most popular and interesting stories of the day to keep you in the know. In your inbox, every day.
Furthermore, the framework set to be announced Sunday amounts to a statement of principles, not a fully written bill. While people involved in the process said last week that significant chunks of the legislation have already been written, new points of friction frequently arise in Congress as the drafting process is finalized.
“The details will be critical for Republicans, particularly the firearms-related provisions,” said a GOP aide familiar with the talks. “One or more of these principles could be dropped if text is not agreed to.”
Biden, who gave a White House address earlier this month calling for tough new firearms restrictions, voiced support for the rallies and for “commonsense gun safety legislation” Saturday in a Twitter post: “I join them by repeating my call to Congress: do something.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) signaled Friday that the Democratic-controlled House would move to enact whatever bill the Senate managed to pass. “If it’s life-saving and can make a difference, and they have bipartisan support for it, then we would welcome it, even though it won’t be everything that we want,” she said at a news conference.
The House has already passed four gun-related bills that go considerably further than the tentative Senate deal. Last year, lawmakers passed a bill expanding federal background checks to all commercial transactions, including those conducted at gun shows and over the internet, as well as a measure extending the period the FBI has to complete background checks for gun buyers.
Also last week, in response to the recent shootings, the House passed bills that banned sales of many semiautomatic rifles to those under 21, banned high-capacity magazines and promoted red-flag laws in both state and federal courts.
None of those bills has the requisite Republican support to pass the Senate.
The last substantial new federal gun control laws were passed in the mid-1990s — the “Brady bill” of 1993, which created the national instant background check system, and the assault weapons ban of 1994, which outlawed some military-style semiautomatic rifles and handguns. The latter bill expired 10 years later and has not been renewed.
In recent decades, Washington has acted mainly to expand gun rights. In 2005, for instance, Congress immunized the firearms industry against product liability lawsuits, and in 2008, the Supreme Court enshrined an individual’s right to possess guns in the landmark case D.C. v. Heller . A 2013 push in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting to expand background checks to cover more gun transactions, including gun-show and internet sales, fell six votes short in the Senate.
The Senate returns to session Monday, and while Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) did not lay out any ultimatums last week on timing, he urged the negotiators to act quickly.
in an interview Thursday, Murphy said he believed that the chamber had two weeks left to act — before lawmakers leave Washington for a two-week Independence Day recess.
But meeting even that timeline would require a framework for a deal to be put in place quickly, Murphy said, citing the likelihood that gun-rights supporters in the Senate would seek to erect procedural hurdles to any potential legislation.
“We can’t come to agreement the last week we’re here,” he said. “There are people in the Senate that are no doubt going to use every rule available to them to hold this up and slow it down.”
Mike DeBonis covers Congress, with a focus on the House, for The Washington Post. He previously covered D.C. politics and government from 2007 to 2015.
Leigh Ann Caldwell is co-author of The Washington Post’s Early 202 and focuses on Congress and politics. She is also an anchor for Washington Post Live, conducting high-impact newsmaking interviews. Before joining The Post in 2022, Caldwell was a correspondent at NBC News, most recently as a member of its congressional unit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baron23
Well, after reading it, if it stays that way, then I think many of us would agree with most of this, but the fact is, it’s still a further erosion of rights while law abiding people get nothing in return.
I doubt many will agree with this.

This framework is what they're showing you now. Who the fuck knows what will actually be in it. What ever funding is in the bill will go to community groups or mental health think tanks and a good chunk will end up as campaign funds or donations "non-profits" run by politician's families. Fuck them and fuck that.

The communist are already trying to burn it to the ground and start over. I think it's time freedom loving people do the same.

1655055908953.png
 

John Cornyn – Texas
Thom Tillis – North Carolina
Roy Blunt – Missouri
Richard Burr – North Carolina
Bill Cassidy – Louisiana
Suan Collins – Maine
Lindsey Graham – South Carolina
Rob Portman – Ohio
Mitt Romney – Utah
Pat Toomey – Pennsylvania
 

John Cornyn – Texas
Thom Tillis – North Carolina
Roy Blunt – Missouri
Richard Burr – North Carolina
Bill Cassidy – Louisiana
Suan Collins – Maine
Lindsey Graham – South Carolina
Rob Portman – Ohio
Mitt Romney – Utah
Pat Toomey – Pennsylvania
Missing that cunt from Alaska...she must have been allowed to skip this round of seditious treason.
 
I don't understand the background check for under 21 stuff listed. Sounds like it will make things into a felony loss of rights that were not before?
 
I doubt many will agree with this.

This framework is what they're showing you now. Who the fuck knows what will actually be in it. What ever funding is in the bill will go to community groups or mental health think tanks and a good chunk will end up as campaign funds or donations "non-profits" run by politician's families. Fuck them and fuck that.

The communist are already trying to burn it to the ground and start over. I think it's time freedom loving people do the same.

View attachment 7890056
Very true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Concrete shooter
The red flag law stuff concerns me, the other stuff doesn't and some of it may help. We used to put crazy people in sanitarium but we stopped and we do need to get something figured out on how we handle people who are clearly mentally ill. That said, of course this is why the text and how it's written is so critical. I don't trust any of them as far as I could throw them.
 
"“There are people in the Senate that are no doubt going to use every rule available to them to hold this up and slow it down.”"

I sure hope so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 232593 and rlsmith1
I don't understand the background check for under 21 stuff listed. Sounds like it will make things into a felony loss of rights that were not before?
Right now you could be a hardcore serial killer who was convicted in juvenile court of raping and murdering 100 babies....and then do 1 year of time in juvie and get out at 17 years old....and then buy a gun at 18.

The Uvalde shooter probably wasn't one of the two kids arrested in 2018 who threatened to shoot up the school - BUT - if he had been the way the law works he would have gotten a NICS approved.

Frankly, I'm going to have to agree that NICS should include childhood violent felonies. Just me.

Just like crossing a vagina doesn't convey personhood to someone, crossing the line between 17 and 18 doesn't stop making you a violent nutcase.

These laws seem somewhat reasonable frankly - its the people bringing them to the table that I don't fucking trust.

This act of compromising with them now means there will be nothing left the next time the news media and pharmaceutical industry whip someone up into a psychotic rage.

And the passage of these laws 20 years ago would have stopped between 0 and 1 mass shootings.
 
The red flag law stuff concerns me, the other stuff doesn't and some of it may help. We used to put crazy people in sanitarium but we stopped and we do need to get something figured out on how we handle people who are clearly mentally ill. That said, of course this is why the text and how it's written is so critical. I don't trust any of them as far as I could throw them.
For my part, I have no problem with red flag laws in principal but this absolutely depends completely on exactly how this is implemented. It said in the article that it is adjudicated by a judge...Fed judge, local state judge (ah, I think red flag laws are at the state level, no?)? And, is there a process for appeal and exactly what evidence is required to deny someone their constitutional rights because they have been found mentally incompetent to own a firearm. Just your ex-wife saying you are crazy? Hmmm?

I cannot support anything like how NICS works...your right to purchase a firearm is totally determined by the FBI. Yeah, there is an appeal process....yeah...appeal to the FBI/NICS' "appeal team"...yeah, the very same FBI/NICS who denied you in the first place. No provisions for any actions outside of the FBI...like for example, a court of law.

Then there is the situation of endless "Delay" status....for which you have zero recourse. You can't appeal a Delay and your FFL is has absolutely zero obligation to release your item after the 3 day period. You are just fucked and will spend a lot of money on a lawyer....which may or may not help.

And then there is the domestic abuse and restraining order crap where your pissed off GF can utterly fuck you just with a statement of abuse or getting a restraining order on you.

So, any red flag law application needs to be applied by a court of law, with evidentiary criteria well defined, with an appeal process also, for me to support this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jamesr1
One issue that needs attention is the juvenile criminal justice system. If you have ever listened to Daniel Horowitz he has been documenting for years how bad the crime issue has become long before Saint Floyd & obviously has gotten worse since then.

It’s not primarily a fund/defund the police issue it’s a DA (District Attorney) issue where by they keep letting bad guys back on the street with multiple felony parole violations & not prosecuting repeat violent defenders

He has been reporting the last year or so how this problem has gotten worse amongst the juvenile criminals. There are many instances of 13-15 year old car jackers shooting and/or killing someone during a car jacking & in a lot of these blue states they get juvenile criminal charges but when they turn 18 it doesn’t transfer to their adult record.

Now you have a gang banger with multiple violent felony charges (juvenile) in some cases even murder who may legally purchase a firearm when they turn 18. None of us get that privilege why should they?

The story I linked above is an example. The 13 year old girl along with her friend committed murder during a car jacking but because it happened in DC she will be tried as a juvenile so her criminal records would be sealed afterwards.

That’s screwed up big time!
 
  • Like
Reactions: UKDslayer
One issue that needs attention is the juvenile criminal justice system. If you have ever listened to Daniel Horowitz he has been documenting for years how bad the crime issue has become long before Saint Floyd & obviously has gotten worse since then.

It’s not primarily a fund/defund the police issue it’s a DA (District Attorney) issue where by they keep letting bad guys back on the street with multiple felony parole violations & not prosecuting repeat violent defenders

He has been reporting the last year or so how this problem has gotten worse amongst the juvenile criminals. There are many instances of 13-15 year old car jackers shooting and/or killing someone during a car jacking & in a lot of these blue states they get juvenile criminal charges but when they turn 18 it doesn’t transfer to their adult record.

Now you have a gang banger with multiple violent felony charges (juvenile) in some cases even murder who may legally purchase a firearm when they turn 18. None of us get that privilege why should they?

The story I linked above is an example. The 13 year old girl along with her friend committed murder during a car jacking but because it happened in DC she will be tried as a juvenile so her criminal records would be sealed afterwards.

That’s screwed up big time!

An under 18 year old carjacker is going to buy an "illegal" firearm to start their criminal career. That will extend into their future regardless of the law. I can't see them turning 18 and thinking "Oh, I should buy a legal firearm now that I'm 18!".

Red flag laws make zero sense. It's the confiscation of property while leaving the person free. They are saying a person is so dangerous we can't let them retain said property, but they are free to roam around...but don't worry, we got that evil property away from them. It's an extension and expansion of civil forfeiture.

The burden to arrest and seize property should be very high, as the founders intended as it quickly becomes too easy to persecute those without political power or money.
 
Red Flag laws are a farce.
A tool that is used/will be used to abridge constitutional rights without due process.
The "justice" system turns loose gun crime perps daily in Chicago.
Couple of questions:
What has caused the substantial increase in police militarization is the last forty years?
I.E. vests, carbines, APCs, etc.
Has the judiciary become harder or easier on violent criminals in this timeframe?
Why do you think that is? ^^^


R
 
Red flag laws make zero sense. It's the confiscation of property while leaving the person free. They are saying a person is so dangerous we can't let them retain said property, but they are free to roam around...but don't worry, we got that evil property away from them. It's an extension and expansion of civil forfeiture.
I’m 100% against red flag laws a violation of the 5th amendment for sure.
 
i really hope any senator or congressman or woman signing this bill also start looking for a new line of work not one inch means exactly what it sounds like then again shall not be infringed to them is a suggestion so stupid is as stupid does .
 
"Our plan increases needed mental health resources, improves school safety and support for students, and helps ensure dangerous criminals and those who are adjudicated as mentally ill can’t purchase weapons."


LOL
 
So. By there thinking

A wolf uses it’s teeth to kill sheep. Therefore the sheep must remove their teeth to prevent further attacks.

The world is a stage and the 2 party’s are one and the same.
 
Well, after reading it, if it stays that way, then I think many of us would agree with most of this, but the fact is, it’s still a further erosion of rights while law abiding people get nothing in return.
I agree with none of it. The most sick and mentally fucked people in the country want to push “mental health” reform. These are the same motherfuckers who are grooming kids with this transgender faggotry to destroy families. Damn sure don’t need red flag laws and damn sure don’t need more soldiers of the state around our kids in the schools. The gov is in full war mode. They can go fuck themselves.
 
The red flag law stuff concerns me, the other stuff doesn't and some of it may help. We used to put crazy people in sanitarium but we stopped and we do need to get something figured out on how we handle people who are clearly mentally ill. That said, of course this is why the text and how it's written is so critical. I don't trust any of them as far as I could throw them.
None of it will help. It will be weaponized against you. You want something that will help, the government would need to cease to exist. All problems faced today are government manufactured. These criminals and mentally sick freaks couldn’t exist in an armed and moral society. As long as the gov is in charge, morals will be legislated away and criminalized. This is another assault on us.
 
Right now you could be a hardcore serial killer who was convicted in juvenile court of raping and murdering 100 babies....and then do 1 year of time in juvie and get out at 17 years old....and then buy a gun at 18.

The Uvalde shooter probably wasn't one of the two kids arrested in 2018 who threatened to shoot up the school - BUT - if he had been the way the law works he would have gotten a NICS approved.

Frankly, I'm going to have to agree that NICS should include childhood violent felonies. Just me.

Just like crossing a vagina doesn't convey personhood to someone, crossing the line between 17 and 18 doesn't stop making you a violent nutcase.

These laws seem somewhat reasonable frankly - its the people bringing them to the table that I don't fucking trust.

This act of compromising with them now means there will be nothing left the next time the news media and pharmaceutical industry whip someone up into a psychotic rage.

And the passage of these laws 20 years ago would have stopped between 0 and 1 mass shootings.
You are looking at it wrong. That juvenile would have had justice served and wouldn’t have had the opportunity to turn 18 if it weren’t for the police protecting him from good men. You are crediting the “solution” to a problem that could never exist if it weren’t for the gov creating it. Wake up my friend. Fuck all their laws.
 

John Cornyn – Texas
Thom Tillis – North Carolina
Roy Blunt – Missouri
Richard Burr – North Carolina
Bill Cassidy – Louisiana
Suan Collins – Maine
Lindsey Graham – South Carolina
Rob Portman – Ohio
Mitt Romney – Utah
Pat Toomey – Pennsylvania
service-pnp-cwp-4a40000-4a40200-4a40218r.jpg


Back in the day we would hang conspirators in Washington, we have lost our way .........
 
For my part, I have no problem with red flag laws in principal but this absolutely depends completely on exactly how this is implemented. It said in the article that it is adjudicated by a judge...Fed judge, local state judge (ah, I think red flag laws are at the state level, no?)? And, is there a process for appeal and exactly what evidence is required to deny someone their constitutional rights because they have been found mentally incompetent to own a firearm. Just your ex-wife saying you are crazy? Hmmm?

I cannot support anything like how NICS works...your right to purchase a firearm is totally determined by the FBI. Yeah, there is an appeal process....yeah...appeal to the FBI/NICS' "appeal team"...yeah, the very same FBI/NICS who denied you in the first place. No provisions for any actions outside of the FBI...like for example, a court of law.

Then there is the situation of endless "Delay" status....for which you have zero recourse. You can't appeal a Delay and your FFL is has absolutely zero obligation to release your item after the 3 day period. You are just fucked and will spend a lot of money on a lawyer....which may or may not help.

And then there is the domestic abuse and restraining order crap where your pissed off GF can utterly fuck you just with a statement of abuse or getting a restraining order on you.

So, any red flag law application needs to be applied by a court of law, with evidentiary criteria well defined, with an appeal process also, for me to support this.
Has anyone been paying attention to how things are. Damn. Blows my mind. Stop thinking these evil mother fuckers are doing anything for your interest. They love these school shootings. They love the criminal population that they cultivated and let thrive among you. They live the transgender sexual and mental abuse of our children. They criminalize any behavior that would actually solve problems. They are intentionally destroying society. This allows them to steal more power, grow the police state, and dumb motherfuckers can’t help but agree with their “policies”. Fuck me running.
 
Last edited:
None of it will help. It will be weaponized against you. You want something that will help, the government would need to cease to exist. All problems faced today are government manufactured. These criminals and mentally sick freaks couldn’t exist in an armed and moral society. As long as the gov is in charge, morals will be legislated away and criminalized. This is another assault on us.
That's just it. These "laws" aren't to protect anyone except protect the politicians from you. Everything DC does is to control you and take your income from you.

Our biggest crime is wanting to be free. That cannot stand.
 
So. By there thinking

A wolf uses it’s teeth to kill sheep. Therefore the sheep must remove their teeth to prevent further attacks.

The world is a stage and the 2 party’s are one and the same.
Or that you should cut your dick off to prevent rape....

Except if you said something like that some purple haired freak would hand you the dicksaw.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FWoo45
Read this article @gayguns posted in the portajohn before. Your best bet is to be as anti anything the government, its justice system, and its police come up with, implement, enforce, or otherwise do. Anyone in government is a sick twisted shell of a human at it matters none whether they are an active, complacent
or just a brain dead useful idiot. They all play equal parts in destroying our culture and out children’s futures.


 
  • Like
Reactions: Jsp556
"Our plan increases needed mental health resources, improves school safety and support for students, and helps ensure dangerous criminals and those who are adjudicated as mentally ill can’t purchase weapons."


LOL
Should stop them from being eligable to run for political office or any position of power or authority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tomcatmv
Only made it 1/3 through the thread but there’s a lot more back sliding individuals on here than I thought.

To those that think these laws “sound reasonable” or “kinda make sense” or “aren’t that bad” then where exactly is your line?! When will you recognize this has nothing to do with your safety and all about a slow erosion of freedom?? You think we went to war with Britain over a 3% sales tax? No, we went to war over years of slow encroachment of a tyrannical government.

Please ask yourself “where is the line that I would sacrifice comfort and pleasure for freedom?”
 
"Our plan increases needed mental health resources, improves school safety and support for students, and helps ensure dangerous criminals and those who are adjudicated as mentally ill can’t purchase weapons."


LOL
This sounds nice to the average citizen who doesn't understand the end game.
You will be adjudicate as mentally ill for simply believing there are only 2 genders, or drag queen hour doesn't belong in kindergarten class .
You actually believe grass is green and there is 24 hrs in a day ,.... you racist ! No pew , pew for you bigot !
 
If they stick with making the mental health work then fine, but fuck red flag laws and fuck them for misrepresenting what they actually are. That’s the second time I’ve seen a major outlet state they’re to let a judge decide, no they’re fucking not, we have that already. Red flag laws allow guns to be confiscated without due process and then a judge decides if you can have your guns back. Fuck. That.
 
Here's how the red flag stuff plays out:

Did you vote for Trump? If "yes", then "racist"
Are you racist? If "yes", then "mentally ill"
Are you mentally ill? If "yes", then you are forbidden forever from owning a firearm.

On edit: in case anyone thought I was joking about the mental illness stuff.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071634/
 
Last edited:
If they stick with making the mental health work then fine, but fuck red flag laws and fuck them for misrepresenting what they actually are. That’s the second time I’ve seen a major outlet state they’re to let a judge decide, no they’re fucking not, we have that already. Red flag laws allow guns to be confiscated without due process and then a judge decides if you can have your guns back. Fuck. That.
Read the post directly above and below yours. The mental people they will go after is people like you. There is no good part of any policy, bill, or law that comes from these people. Its all to be weaponized against the people.
 
I think juvenile records shouldn’t be sealed and we should get whackos out of gen pop, but red flag laws need to be the line that we don’t let them cross.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rlsmith1 and JR_77
I think juvenile records shouldn’t be sealed and we should get whackos out of gen pop, but red flag laws need to be the line that we don’t let them cross.
The government is the reason whackos are in the gen pop as you put it. They alongside the criminal class are well protected by LEO. There is a reason why and I already laid it out in a previous post.