Senators announce bipartisan agreement on gun proposals

Status
Not open for further replies.
AlexanderA said:
In terms of its effect on us, this is a nothingburger.
Click to expand...

Obviously the term ''us'' excludes the otherwise A-Ok A-B student turning 19, who wants to purchase a shotgun, and is denied by some strangeness in this neu law. Let's call him George, poor George. Born in a purple state, so, there will be no recourse to the infringement.

Oh, let us now converse about Wayne's smoking hot 24 yr old but everyone knows she's nuts GF. After the 33rd breakup, Wayne says, ENOUGH. Had to call the Sheriff to get her stuff out! Belligerent! Of course she didn't get arrested, most time women get a pass...

Then she dropped a dime after smacking her own self , falling down drunk. Blames Wayne. 3 seconds later knock knock. Now, Wayne has allll the rights money can buy (attorney etc.) allowed to him on a $42,000 start up salary, and raising a kid one parent. Perhaps ''us'' who stood by , drooled, or otherwise let the law go forward w/o so much as a phone call can pass the hat, make a donation so Wayne doesn't have to take the deal. Of course, no way to stop the wrath of the newz media; Wayne is also Caucasian.

Off with the hypothetical -but probable- and on to real things happening to ''us.'' Just heard Sen. Mike Lee speak moments ago, there are serious and egregious rules violations within the Senate provisions on this bill. Lets start with, not enough time to read i.e. 2 HOURS. No amendments are going to be allowed once on the floor shucks, why have committee hearings if there's no amendments so, that's tossed also.

Awful lot of us being excluded from, ''us'' as I see it! !

Back to the WWI outfits I would be surprised if that's not some type of leftist militia group, standing in the back as, well, intimidation. I might be wrong on this point out of several I brought up in post #102 I suppose
 
Last edited:
AlexanderA said:
Sure, but they're facing a wipeout this November. It hasn't dawned on some Democrats that the gun issue is a loser for them, particularly among traditional Democratic base groups like blue-collar workers and Latinos. On the other hand,…
Click to expand...

…you have RINO’s that want to go down with them.

If nothing else it shows me that you are not a very good politician when you capitulate unnecessarily.
 
DoubleMag said:
Obviously the term ''us'' excludes the otherwise A-Ok A-B student turning 19, who wants to purchase a shotgun, and is denied by some strangeness in this neu law. Let's call him George, poor George. Born in a purple state, so, there will be no recourse to the infringement.

Oh, let us now converse about Wayne's smoking hot 24 yr old but everyone knows she's nuts GF. After the 33rd breakup, Wayne says, ENOUGH. Had to call the Sheriff to get her stuff out! Belligerent! Of course she didn't get arrested, most time women get a pass...

Then she dropped a dime after smacking her own self , falling down drunk. Blames Wayne. 3 seconds later knock knock. Now, Wayne has allll the rights money can buy (attorney etc.) allowed to him on a $42,000 start up salary, and raising a kid one parent. Perhaps ''us'' who stood by , drooled, or otherwise let the law go forward w/o so much as a phone call can pass the hat, make a donation so Wayne doesn't have to take the deal. Of course, no way to stop the wrath of the newz media; Wayne is also Caucasian.

Off with the hypothetical -but probable- and on to real things happening to ''us.'' Just heard Sen. Mike Lee speak moments ago, there are serious and egregious rules violations within the Senate provisions on this bill. Lets start with, not enough time to read i.e. 2 HOURS. No amendments are going to be allowed once on the floor shucks, why have committee hearings if there's no amendments so, that's tossed also.

Awful lot of us being excluded from, ''us'' as I see it! !

Back to the WWI outfits I would be surprised if that's not some type of leftist militia group, standing in the back as, well, intimidation. I might be wrong on this point out of several I brought up in post #102 I suppose
Click to expand...
I was once Wyane. Super hot/crazy girlfriend into all sorts of wicked games in the bedroom, into all sorts of headgames outside the bedroom. Said GF goes nuts one night...boredom while I was at work...I come to off the deep end NUTS like you've never seen. Said girlfriend takes off drunk, gets pulled over for DUI, tells cops she was trying to get away from an "abusive" sexually deviate boyfriend...so she had no choice but to drive drunk...shows cops whip marks on butt from previous nights bedroom games....Said girlfriend files PFA (what PA calls TRO), spills guts in court, with entire intimate details of relationship over the previous 18 months...drags every ugly detail into it...gets granted 18 month PFA by whiny liberal female judge...all so she could get out the DUI, which didn't work for her. Oh, and my lawyer was the worst hack I've ever seen too...but only one I could get in the 3 days I had before the hearing.

I report to sherriffs office as ordered by Judge to determine whether I must surrender my firearms since I'm a "Threat" to said nutjob disaster GF.

Sheriff, thank the Lord! Saw exactly what it was...and did not make me turn my guns over.

With this bill...and PA known favorism of women in all things like this...lots of poor young dumb guys like I myself used to be...are going to be in a world of hurt.

US isn't acceptable. This bill is evil.
 
Nevertheless, the sources I read on the Left are bitterly disappointed that they aren't getting anything. They consider Murphy, et al., to be sellouts.

So it all depends on your point of view.
 
Honestly my read the biggest impacts will be defining FFL as selling guns for purpose of profit rather than the current murky primary business definition, plus putting extra days on background checks for 18-20 year olds so if by chance the NICS isn't instant it may be 10 business days instead of 3 for some people to get a release. It would not be a terrible stretch for eventually all first time youngsters to 'need' the extra days under the auspices the feds may not have good immediate access to juvenile records in some states.
 
As a science and a field, psychology is currently at roughly the same level of legitimacy which phrenology peaked at. Probably lower.

It feels irresponsible to use it in any sort of official capacity right now, let alone to dictate levels of fundamental rights. It will be abused because it is a non-empirical system. There are no guardrails on non-empirical systems.
 
AlexanderA said:
It hasn't dawned on some Democrats that the gun issue is a loser for them, particularly among traditional Democratic base groups like blue-collar workers and Latinos. On the other hand, the urban elites who support gun control would vote Democratic anyway. In other words, the gun issue does move votes, but on a net basis, away from the Democrats.
Click to expand...

I believe that was true at one point, probably pre sandy hook, since then I just don’t believe it. Hillary Clinton called the nra and by extension (imo) gun owners “enemies” during a presidential debate. I don’t believe she’d have said that if she didn’t think it would gain her votes. Not to mention after that she processed to win the popular vote.

I just think most people don’t really care, apart from a few hard core type on both sides.
Hopefully I’m wrong.
 
illinoisburt said:
Honestly my read the biggest impacts will be defining FFL as selling guns for purpose of profit rather than the current murky primary business definition
Click to expand...
Depending on how the ATF implements this, a "bright line" definition of "engaged in the business" could make it easier to get a "kitchen table" FFL. Right now, the biggest impediment is maintaining business premises that don't violate local zoning laws. If the overriding concern is whether guns are sold for profit -- indeed, if an FFL is required if guns are sold for profit -- the ATF would almost have to ease up on the zoning requirements.
 
DeepSouth said:
I just think most people don’t really care, apart from a few hard core type on both sides.
Click to expand...
The "enthusiasm gap" is way in favor of gun owners. That's why opinion polls purporting to show large support for gun control are misleading. For gun owners, who have "skin in the game," the issue is existential, and they vote that way. For gun controllers, the issue is theoretical, and it's one of many issues on which they base their votes. The other thing to remember is that the important vote is the incremental vote. Each side has its base, but the voters in the middle are the ones that decide elections. An issue like guns does move voters in the middle, especially if their ownership of their guns is being threatened.
 
AlexanderA said:
The "enthusiasm gap" is way in favor of gun owners. That's why opinion polls purporting to show large support for gun control are misleading. For gun owners, who have "skin in the game," the issue is existential, and they vote that way. For gun controllers, the issue is theoretical, and it's one of many issues on which they base their votes. The other thing to remember is that the important vote is the incremental vote. Each side has its base, but the voters in the middle are the ones that decide elections. An issue like guns does move voters in the middle, especially if their ownership of their guns is being threatened.
Click to expand...
I sincerely hope you’re right, the problem could still be those people in the middle are likely reactive, as in to little to late.
 
AlexanderA said:
Depending on how the ATF implements this, a "bright line" definition of "engaged in the business" could make it easier to get a "kitchen table" FFL. Right now, the biggest impediment is maintaining business premises that don't violate local zoning laws. If the overriding concern is whether guns are sold for profit -- indeed, if an FFL is required if guns are sold for profit -- the ATF would almost have to ease up on the zoning requirements.
Click to expand...

I think rather than easing rules it will simply mean more potential legal enforcement. When local municipalities zone you out intentionally I wouldn't be holding out for the feds to rescue your fledgling side hustle. It will definitely have a chilling effect on small volume sellers who are in the wink/nod gray area right now.
 
Just my opinion here. But if the age to purchase any firearm is raised to 21, then the age to vote and age to join the military should also be raised to 21. It is very ironic that they want to lower the voting age to 16 and that 17-18 year olds can join the military and have access to automatic weapons, cannons, tanks, etc. yet anyone under 21 is not responsible enough to purchase a firearm.

And as stated some of the turn coat RINOs are either not up for reelection this year or are retiring. Blunt is one of them. He is retiring and could care less about the people he represents.
 
No disrespect intended toward any member posting in this thread, but seriously? Like we didn't see this coming? All this preaching to the choir may allow us to all vent about the stupidity involved, but ultimately, we're all just stressing ourselves out.

If the majority of Americans are willing to accept increasingly moronic and meaningless legislation while continuing to vote for the status quo, what can we, the minority remaining actually possessed of critical thinking skills, do to reverse things?

Constantly complaining to like-minded folk on the internet doesn't seem to be winning, or even holding serve. We're not gonna be able to change the minds of those already indoctrinated; we need to go back to square one and take over our country's educational system again.

But this isn't really a gun-related thread, it's pretty much purely political.
 
Braden at Langley Outdoors Academy has a very good analysis of the problems with the "due process" provisions included in the red flag law part of the bill:
 
Megawatt maker said:
Feinstein just added an amendment to raise the age to purchase to 21.
Click to expand...

It remains to be seen if that is added to the bill or if she simply submitted an amendment for consideration. We'll see if it is just a gesture for her constituents or a push to change the age to purchase. If the latter it will poison the effort and the bill will crash before the recess OR it is assumed to be unconstitutional to age limit 18 year olds under federal law and will be killed in the courts (we know that filings are already written and ready to go regardless of the final language of this legislation that will throw it into the courts).
 
hso said:
It remains to be seen if that is added to the bill or if she simply submitted an amendment for consideration. We'll see if it is just a gesture for her constituents or a push to change the age to purchase. If the latter it will poison the effort and the bill will crash before the recess OR it is assumed to be unconstitutional to age limit 18 year olds under federal law and will be killed in the courts (we know that filings are already written and ready to go regardless of the final language of this legislation that will throw it into the courts).
Click to expand...

I don't see why this would not get added to the House version of the bill. Her side really wants this, and her side has total control of the bill creation process in the House
 
BlueHeelerFl said:
I don't see why this would not get added to the House version of the bill. Her side really wants this, and her side has total control of the bill creation process in the House
Click to expand...
My understanding of the creation of this bill may be incorrect, so I apologize if it is, but the gun control part of this bill was added as an addendum to a bill that had been introduced several months earlier by Marco Rubio to rename a post office in Florida. {Pause for effect} What?? The bill passed the senate but was stalled for several months in the house.

By choosing to add something to a bill that had already passed the senate was an underhanded, fastrack way to push this through the Senate and into the House where they know it should pass easily. If the House makes any changes to the amendment then it likely has to go back to the Senate again and might actually get looked at and discussed more closely.

My understanding of how this works is probably wrong. My parents were married, and I work for a living so I don't understand the political mindset. Perhaps others here who have had to deal with these types involved can illuminate us.
 
12Bravo20 said:
And as stated some of the turn coat RINOs are either not up for reelection this year or are retiring. Blunt is one of them. He is retiring and could care less about the people he represents.
Click to expand...

And many of these RINOs are not actually 2A supporters or they are just in favor of hunting or trap shooting.

In my state of FL many pro gun bills never survive due to several RINOs in Tallahassee that have openly taken Bloomberg anti gun money
 
citizenconn said:
My understanding of the creation of this bill may be incorrect, so I apologize if it is, but the gun control part of this bill was added as an addendum to a bill that had been introduced several months earlier by Marco Rubio to rename a post office in Florida. {Pause for effect} What?? The bill passed the senate but was stalled for several months in the house.

By choosing to add something to a bill that had already passed the senate was an underhanded, fastrack way to push this through the Senate and into the House where they know it should pass easily. If the House makes any changes to the amendment then it likely has to go back to the Senate again and might actually get looked at and discussed more closely.

My understanding of how this works is probably wrong. My parents were married, and I work for a living so I don't understand the political mindset. Perhaps others here who have had to deal with these types involved can illuminate us.
Click to expand...

Your understanding is correct I believe.
 
BlueHeelerFl said:
I don't see why this would not get added to the House version of the bill.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but whether it will get through the inevitable Conference Committee that would have to resolve differences between the Senate and House versions is questionable. It is a big gamble for her (and the House) to risk killing this initiative if she holds tight and derails the vote before recess. Both left and right will claim she "destroyed our best chance for meaningful legislation in decades on this important issue".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Senate Bipartisan Group Negotiating Gun Control Proposals
Replies
0
Views
404
Alaska444
A
A
  • Locked
Senate negotiations on "universal background checks"
2 3 4 5
Replies
108
Views
5K
jon_in_wv
J
B
  • Locked
Reid pulls gun bill from Senate
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Bruno2
B
ol' scratch
  • Locked
Summary of the proposed Connecticut legislation.
Replies
5
Views
336
HOOfan_1
H
B
  • Locked
Senators near a deal on background checks for most private gun sales
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Ignition Override
I
Back
Top