John Cornyn
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
Previous Post
Next Post

Following the weekend announcement of a compromise framework for a gun control deal in the Senate, Texas Senator John Cornyn apparently felt the need to address angry constituents who aren’t nearly as enthusiastic as he is about expanding “red flag” laws, enhancing background checks for those under 21 among other points in the deal.

Cornyn partnered with Democrat Chris Murphy of Connecticut to negotiate and broker the deal that got nine other Republicans to sign on, greatly increasing the chances of the final bill clearing the Senate once the legislation is actually written.

There’s only one big problem with Cornyn’s much-heralded achievement: his tweet proves that he wasn’t even trying to actually negotiate anything.

 

It’s pretty clear what his staffers (it’s doubtful he has the graphics skills or computer literacy to do that) were trying to do with yesterday’s tweet — damage control. By showing us all how the deal he struck with Democrats could have been so much worse, he’s trying to frame the agreement as a grand compromise that saved firearm owners from some of the worst that gun-grabbers had in mind.

The way Cornyn portrays it, if he and his fellow collaborators hadn’t rushed in to give some ground, we’d be facing magazine bans, “assault weapons” sales restrictions, waiting periods, safe storage mandates, and more if Democrats went ahead and scuttled the filibuster to force the House gun control bills through the Senate.

Then they could also pack the Supreme Court and we’d really be stuck, right?

I know the comments section is already filling up with “come and take it” and “shall not be infringed” declarations, but I want readers to notice something else — the things that aren’t on Cornyn’s list of rejected proposals that didn’t make it into the Senate deal.

Why doesn’t that list include anything from the Republican side? Why is there no plan for a federal law to allow armed teachers nationwide? Why wasn’t 50-state concealed carry reciprocity considered? How about deregulating suppressors or removing short-barreled rifles and shotguns from the NFA?

Surely if the Democrats really wanted “common sense gun control” as badly as they claim, they’d have stepped up and paid for it with some sort of compromise. Right?

Instead, what we’ve really learned from Cornyn’s sorry excuse at tamping down the blowback he’s undoubtedly getting is that he never really negotiated with Senate Democrats at all.

Cornyn and the other GOP collaborators who agreed to the framework showed up with no demands at all of their own. They were only prepared to haggle with Democrats over how much the rest of us will give up so he can become GOP leader in the Senate some day.

Senators like Cornyn and Romney didn’t give anything up in the Senate deal. They have security details, large houses in gated communities with armed patrols, and plenty of other measures to keep them and their families safe while the rest of us rubes have to fend for ourselves like nearly everyone else who has ever walked the earth.

Just as it’s awfully easy to spend other people’s money, Cornyn had no qualms about giving our rights away for his own political benefit. He never had any plan to actually negotiate for us, to get something in return in an actual compromise with Democrats. Instead, he got rolled and he couldn’t be happier about it.

Cornyn’s just another elitist who wants to see how we can better serve him. He won’t have to face Texas voters again for four more years, by which time he’s betting the folks back home will have mostly forgotten about this. Sadly, he’s probably right.

Previous Post
Next Post

238 COMMENTS

  1. We will not comply. If you try to enforce any new laws or regulations we will defend ourselves.

    • Cornyn gives a list of items conservatives rejected.

      Where is the list of items democrats rejected????????

      Sounds like a crappy “negotiation”. What are we getting? Or does this only go one way???

        • Same reason we have thousands of unconstitutional gun laws already, death by a thousand cuts.

      • Well when politically history illiterates congregate in front of the White House and throw knee jerk tantrums on the behalf of what they assume is sugar and spice Gun Control they get the results they want.
        And once again that is what happens when Gun Owners continue failing to define Gun Control as a history confirmed agenda rooted in racism and genocide. Failure to define Gun Control by its history of rot is sorta like the neighbor who hears a woman getting beaten next door and fails to say anything.

        • “And once again that is what happens when Gun Owners continue failing to define Gun Control as a history confirmed agenda rooted in racism and genocide.”

          What does history matter? If a principle is applied without regard to race/ethnicity, but the outcome (fewer deaths) is desirable, how is an idea invalid simply because of an ignominious history?

          Before you answer, consider all the things born of racism that benefited the economic and political power of the US. Why is it not required that we constantly label those things as “racism and genocide”? Either nothing acceptable can be spawned in racism, or there are favored exceptions. Then those favored exemptions must be defended somehow. And that defense always seems to come down to, “Exceptions are valid when I benefit.”

        • But this is another one of your Republican heros like Trump. How can this be? They all love guns. Oh wait they are on the same path as the Democrats, just at a slower pace.

        • No, with Cornyn, his RINO ilk, and Leftist/fascists like Murphy, that’s the position they want US to assume.

          When you fell like you’re getting f***ed, ask yourself one question, “Did I bend over?” If the answer is “Yes,” then . . . stand up. It’s really that simple.

      • I once worked for a company in Illinois that was under the UAW, when it came to contracts, we had a whole slew of things on the table to bargain with, usually after a week the UAW tooke evberything off the table, and took what the company offered, and said… THATS THE BEST WE COULD DO! take it or leave it!thats what the republicans are doing right now, Both parties should be fired..along with BRANDON!

      • why is it, that someone (public servant) can take an oath to defend and protect those who pay (working taxpayers) his salary, then do just the opposite? How is it that they cannot be arrested for fraud, breach of contract, lying to their employer, “We the People”? WE need to secede from this evil empire. IT would divide our enemy on the east coast from the west. THAT is the best military move in history. Divide & conquer. They are doing it to US

        • You may be the first to sue for fraud etc. and find out the politicians don’t have to play by the same rules as you and I. And they don’t cut their own grass either! Money buys everything and we made them rich. Don’t ever let an elected official have more than 1 term, and that would be a good start to break the cycle

    • You are correct and they better start recognizing how fed up most American Citizens are getting with their lack of respect for us and the Constitution of the USA.

      • “…and they better start recognizing how fed up most American Citizens are getting with their lack of respect for us and the Constitution of the USA.”

        Or what?

        More angry submissions on social media?

        There is no popular groundswell for armed revolt in this country. Time for that is long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away.

        • ***** If John Cornyn was a Police Officer *****

          Officer Cornyn; We spotted some burglars breaking into your home.

          Homeowners; Thank you Officer Cornyn, with record high inflation we don’t have the resources to buy new replacements. Do you need us to press charges?

          Officer Cornyn; Well not exactly. The burglars told us, they wanted to steal everything in your home, even rented a box truck.

          Homeowner; I don’t understand what difference that would make?

          Officer Cornyn; Well because they wanted everything, we “Compromised” with the burglars, for your safety of course.

          Officer Cornyn; Lucky for you we were here. Because instead of everything, they ONLY took four chairs, two TV’s, one car, and the contents of your safe. We feel it’s a good deal for both parties.

          Homeowner; What!?! Our car?

          Officer Cornyn; That is correct, and I sure they will not return later for the rest of your belongings.

          Officer Cornyn; But if they do, we will likely have to “Compromise” with them again.

          Homeowner; But…

          Officer Cornyn; No need to thank us, it’s our job to serve the people. So drive safe, and have a nice day.

        • Unfortunately, Sam, I agree with you. At one point will people decide they have had enough? When the Feds come around and do door-to-door gun confiscations? When they starve Americans out, and then herd everyone into FEMA camps (but give up your guns for the food they provide)? These Red Flag laws are a dream for gun grabbers. I think the “it-cannot-happen-here” belief is so strong, too many will simply do nothing, because they are going to be too shocked when they realize it IS happening here, and to them. But by that time, it will be far too late to try and defend themselves. Fed up? Sadly, I think Americans should have been fed up a long time ago, but at this point, like Republicans, too many are just bending over and taking the tyranny, because it is like the frog being boiled slowly in hot water: It is happening ever-so-gradually. I mean hell, if we are bending over and taking getting sexually assaulted by the TSA at the airport for “safety” without complaint the last 20 years, too many will take just about anything.

      • incontrollable tyrants in gov’t. and their criminal friends on the street should be removed, from the peaceful landscape. Restore the republic, make men free again. Go back to the 10 rules that state what the gov’t. CANNOT do to the citizen. Thank you Abe Lincoln (democracy) and LBJ (oligarchy)

  2. If, if, the Repubs are gaming the Dims, can’t give away the game just yet.

    If the Repubs aren’t gaming the Dims, well….nothing new here, is there?

    • Republicans are loath to even put forward any kind of road map on gun rights, other than generic “support for the second amendment”, which, most Dems also claim in the same breath they call for an AWB ban. They won’t bring bills up for a vote in the Senate unless they have 60 (which means never) and as soon as anything happens they sheepishly go into hiding on gun rights. The only thing we occasionally see is the House reps throwing in some bills they know won’t pass, but nothing more serious than that.

      I think most of us on the gun rights side probably have a different list of what we stand for than the GOP, or even NRA (I know I know we don’t like to bring them up either). It seems like most GOP pols are proudly promoting red flag laws, happy to ban bump stocks, don’t want open carry, don’t really want permitless carry, or campus carry, like background checks, would consider universal ones, don’t know what NFA or Title II firearms are, wouldn’t want to repeal the NFA, or delist suppressors, SBRs, or machine guns, would be open to some magazines capacity limits or AWB. Most of them won’t let the mask slip but our passions likely don’t match most of them. Mitch, various Bushes, definitely Florida GOP, Trump, Rubio, Rick Scott, I think a lot of them would embrace a lot of these gun control items if they could without getting hit back, as such they will only slow walk (or no walk) most pro-gun positions.

      It would be interesting and enlightening to see a survey of gun rights positions and values and where the GOP stood on it, if they would actually truthfully answer it. We would likely discover that a lot of our frustrations “man, why didn’t they repeal the NFA, delist suppressors, or at least direct the AG to open the MG registry!” are likely non-starters for most of them.

      • “We would likely discover that a lot of our frustrations “man, why didn’t they repeal the NFA, delist suppressors, or at least direct the AG to open the MG registry!” are likely non-starters for most of them.”

        Hasn’t that already been undeniably established. Isn’t the voting record a proxy for some sort of written survey?

        However, it would be smart, both ways, for Repubs to deceive the Dims into destroying the “bi-partisan agreement”; no gun control bill, Repubs don’t have to put forward any counter legislation, yet get credit for “saving” gun rights.

        The Republicrats who “negotiated” the bi-partisan agreement are much closer to actual events, than are any of the public. There must be a reason Repubs signed onto the agreement. Trickery, or inside knowledge that the “red wave” isn’t really on the horizon; that the Dims will have the power to rule after November. There is a reason that 10 Repubs joined the agreement, not 8, or 9. What don’t we know?

        • Sam,

          TBH, I think you are giving them WAY too much credit. Not a single name among the group of Republicrats was EVER a 2A defender in any real sense. Why 10? Because that’s how many the Dims need to defeat a filibuster. Just like Dims spent DECADES filibustering civil rights and voting rights laws, Republicans can filibuster “gun control”. Only, in the case of the Republicans, they would actually be protecting civil rights, instead of denying them.

          This is just the swamp in action. There are MORE than ten RINOs; they chose convenient ones (and that’s a GIANT clue, right there – about half the 10 aren’t running for re-election, so they can vote any way they want to). This way, Mitch the Bitch gets to cave to the Dimocrats (in exchange for some new piece of pork, which is all he cares about), but not have his name on it. Notice they didn’t include the Wicked Witch of the North, Murkowski? Not that she has a chance of winning, anyway, but if she voted for this trash, she’d be history. No, these were VERY carefully selected turncoats.

          In other news, water is wet, the sun rises in the East, and AOC is dumb as a box of hammers. Don’t overanalyze this. They had plenty of candidates for “et tu, Brute?”, they DELIBERATELY picked a bunch of retirees, losers, and candidates for “political analyst” slots on MSDNC and CommieNewsNetwork. I highly doubt this gets anywhere, since Malig-Nancy will need to deliver more to her crew of idiots, so we will see the Dims add everything but the kitchen sink, and it is likely that a few ACTUAL 2A defenders will add a poison pill or two. I give this “framework” less than a 25% chance (still WAY too much, unfortunately) of passing as legislation in both houses.

          Having said that, we have a list of RINOs to target.

      • except for a handful of republicans, the government is totally corrupt. We the People should do what the founders and Jesus said to do, SEPARATE from the evil, touch not the unclean thing, do not cause one child to fall, for such is the Kingdom of heaven. IT is GOD who is going to destroy bloody Amerika

  3. If you’ve actually read the proposal, this article sounds like the author thinks our “rights” are allowing unlimited straw purchasing, no funding for mental health facilities and care, not fixing our background check system to include all federal databases, not paying attention when a violent sociopath buys 2 AR on his 18th birthday and threatens to kill children, not funding school security, and not taking firearm rights away from committed domestic abusers.

    I’m fine giving those “rights” away.

      • sean surrendered on the behalf of the actions of an insane indivudual and laid his rights down at the feet of Gun Control which is a History Confirmed agenda rooted in racism and genocide…sieg heil brown shirt sean.

        • How do you know? For example, I can see better school security/mental health funding being very helpful in preventing school violence.

          What specific issues do you have with these proposals? Articulate an original thought.

        • Pattern recognition and almost a century of broken promises. No to any gun control proposals as they are always in bad faith much as your arguments appealing to imaginary enforcement on felons (lol straw purchases for gangs)

        • And there we go: you can’t articulate any specific problems with the any of the proposals.

          By the way, not all of these proposals were even related to “gun control.” For example, better funding for school security/mental health services. You’d know that if you read them.

          Crazies like you are why people are increasingly ignoring gun enthusiasts like you and me in these conversations. If there’s an assault weapons ban in this country, they will point to people like you to justify it. Thanks for that.

        • “trolling” = asking you to articulate a position. Still asking. And if you’re not going to do that, not sure why you’re responding at all….

          If you don’t have anything to add, just don’t. Every time you respond without answering the question, it just gets more embarrassing for you.

        • Nothing needs to be articulated your position is further infringement that has no place in a free society and is unacceptable.

        • And that’s five responses now without articulating what specific issues you have with these proposals. Who are you, Hilary Clinton?

      • Here’s a better question: Why are you against better enforcement of straw purchasing laws, fixing our background check system, funding mental health facilities and in school initiatives, improved school security, and increased scrutiny on violent/and or particularly young purchasers?

        What exactly is wrong with that, besides the “death by a thousand cuts” or “slippery slope” idiocy? Remember, this is a framework so the details aren’t even decided yet. Are all of you truly against these things even in THEORY? Crazy.

        • “You can have your rights only so long as no one abuses them.”

          That’s consequentialism and should be as dirty a word as communism.

        • an interesting quote and an interesting concept.

          It’s not anything I said and it doesn’t have anything to do with what I said, but interesting all the same.

          Since we’re just saying random, unrelated things, here’s something we can discuss: how come Go Gurt’s technology was never applied to pudding? It seems like a perfectly good idea for highly portable, on to go desserts. You even said, and I quote verbatim: “Go Gurt is cool, just as cool as communism.”

        • Because we will get none of that and still have more demanded of us so fuck them and you are either arguing in bad faith or a fool.

        • Oh, well if they end up erasing everything completely and changing everything around, then I’ll be against that, if it’s things I don’t like. So, I’m for these proposals but if they change them to stuff I don’t like, then I’ll be against those.

          Makes sense, right? you should support stuff you like and not support stuff you don’t like. Why don’t you like the proposals? For example, do you do a lot a straw purchasing or do you have some domestic violence on your record? I can understand not liking these proposals if you beat your wife or buy guns for felons, you might get in trouble!

        • Lol hope you are getting paid for these posts because if it’s for your degree it is even more worthless than your argument. And anything seems like madness if it doesn’t fit with your desired agenda (yes this goes both ways).

        • better enforcement of straw purchases is exactly what is needed, not making it even more illegaler.
          “fixing” bgc… it could be improved without becoming a defacto registration; i object to that.
          absolutely get the spongeiforms the help they need.
          school security should be tightened. i doubt if your version looks at all like mine would.
          scrutinizing violent and or young individuals would be part of improving background checks, these agencies could share more info, but then privacy…
          you’ll soon bore of putting words in other mouths.

        • I actually went to technical school, currently working as a welder. So….no, they’re not for my degree.

          I can’t help but notice that you STILL can’t come up with any specific issues with these proposals. Try reading them, slowly, one at a time. Maybe out loud?

        • to tsbhoa.p.jr.
          1. It seems like these proposals are attempting to fix poor enforcement of straw purchasing.
          2. I don’t see any language at all about a registry (I’d be completely against that as well). I see some small adjustments to the background check system, mainly extra scrutiny around especially young purchasers.
          3. Well, the proposals include funding for better school security. I’m glad the government is at least discussing it and I hope that part of the proposal passes. I’m sure ours would look closer than theirs but I’m glad they’re discussing it.
          4. I think that exact proposal is in the list….
          5. I don’t know what this means. I think these are pretty reasonable proposals, everybody is spazzing out about them, I asked why, no one can tell me why. Asking questions is allowed, my guy. Wanting people to think for themselves is allowed.

        • your for them when the groundwork hasn’t been laid out yet?, guess maybe you sound like Linsey Graham, I was against it before i voted for it!

        • I will offer arguments to those willing to debate in good faith. I have not run into anyone supporting any further infringement fitting this category in over a decade. Everything is a slippery slope fallacy of criticized despite only leading to more infringement. Your argument is irrelevant as any further involvement in background checks will inevitably lead to a searchable database and defacto universal registration for anything sold or transferred in violation of federal law. You are just another Miner/Dacian/other astroturf lefty and good luck with the welding I am sure your doing great with that lately. Oh and next time lurk more and get some post history before trying your push it makes it less obvious.

        • To george: “your for them when the groundwork hasn’t been laid out yet?”
          The whole point of this article is that they just laid out the groundwork….

          If you think they haven’t even laid out a groundwork, what exactly are you mad about?

        • To SafeupstateFML: So, again, you really don’t have any concrete reason for disliking these proposals outside of some hypothetical, separate, unrelated legislation in the future. Saying “any adjustment to the background check system will always lead to a registry” is just horseshit. A registry leads to a registry. That tic tac toe line of thinking would prevent us from having any laws at all. We debate the laws as they are, not what they might someday in the distant future be.

          As for those people you mentioned and post history, I honestly have no idea what or who you’re talking about. How much time to do you spend arguing with people on this website? You actually know their names? You manually look through their history? That’s sad dude. I’m checking back on this post because I have yet to hear why I as a gun owner should be up in arms about this. Do you act like this on every post?

          Go outside, go shooting, do something productive. But if you’re not going to honestly engage with these questions, I’m not sure why you’re still responding. You’re just running up your blood pressure for nothing.

    • Hey, Sean,

      That was a ridiculously partisan and inaccurate description of what the opposition to this POS thinks, but thanks for outing yourself as a gun-grabbing hoplophobe. We had kinda figured that out, already.

      As for YOU being happy to give away YOUR rights?? Feel free. Give up your right to vote; you clearly don’t have the brainpower to exercise it intelligently, so it’s no loss. Keep your effin’ “compromise” off MY damn rights, or we’ll have an issue. Your 2A rights are yours to have, keep, or throw away, and I could give a flying fornication what you choose to do. Start compromising MY rights, well that’s a different story, chief. Suffice it to say that YOUR opinion of what is a “reasonable compromise” does not align with mine. Have a nice day.

      • and insane sperging like that is EXACTLY why many people in this country don’t trust gun owners like myself. You’re the one compromising my rights as a legal gun owner, not the other way around.

        • You guys keep pretending that the proposals mentioned are impeding our 2nd Amendment rights. I have yet to have anyone explain to me how. Does the 2nd Amendment state that we can’t have funding for mental health initiatives and school security? Where exactly does it say that? Which legal scholars believe that the 2nd Amendment prevents the government from funding these things?

          Or do we just spaz about “muh rights” everytime someone mentions guns without actually reading any of the proposals and making up your own mind? It’s amazing how hive-minded some of you “rugged individualists” are.

        • sean, you really need to watch this video explaning the 2nd a, and rises in homicide deaths in US the last 65+ yrs.. Because you haven’t a clue what the 2nd A means, and states. if you did you wouldn’t be on the wrong side of the fence with Elmer Fudd. When you vote for anti 2nd a BS you’re taking away MY (and the other 2nd a supporters here) 2nd A rights.

        • You expect someone else to explain the documents enshrined as law to you because you fail to divine the meaning within?

          Waste of time with someone being purposefully obtuse.

          Don’t like our Rights? Fuck off to some other kingdom where the subjects you admire shrink into the corner and do what nanny tells them, instead of standing your ground against the odds for what is right. See the last thing my namesake screamed in defiance while being disemboweled and dying.

        • And once again, still no answer on why these proposals would impede the 2nd Amendment from either of you. Just inane garbage pretending like I’m some green-haired progressive pushing an assault weapons ban.

          You do realize you have to respond to what I’m ACTUALLY asking, not what you wish I was asking, right?

          I’d love to hear it. How, specifically, do these (specific) proposals being discussed impede your 2nd Amendment rights (specifically) as a law-abiding gun owner?

          If it’s so obvious, let’s hear it………….specifically.

        • it’s simple, like you.
          bcg’s that create a list of gun owners will lead to confiscation. do you see how having my legally owned guns removed violates my rights?
          denying purchase to <21yr olds violates their rights, and if that's my son or daughter then my families rights have been violated.

        • Give it up, idiot . . . you’re as much of a “gun owner” as dacian the stupid. Again, I don’t give a rip what YOU want to do with YOUR right . . . your INHERENT right!! . . . to self-defense and to keep and bear arms in support thereof. Give it away, don’t exercise it, ignore it, whatever floats your boat.

          I ALSO don’t give a rip which fascist gun-grabbers “don’t trust me”. My Leftist/fascist brother-in-law doesn’t “trust me” . . . Gee, I’m all out of f***s to give.

          You seem a candidate for MinorIQ, dacian the stupid, and jsled’s daily circle jerk. Have fun!! I have a range session scheduled . . . of the two of us, I might actually accomplish something. Go micturate up a cable, fascist gun-hater.

        • “You guys keep pretending that the proposals mentioned are impeding our 2nd Amendment rights. I have yet to have anyone explain to me how.”

          Hey, don’t tempt me with a good time!!

          1. “Enhanced” background checks for purchases by persons between 18 and 21. What’s next?? How about we don’t allow people to vote, if they are between 18 and 21, unless they pass a basic Civics test? You are welcome to post drivel on the Internet . . . but you have an (undefined) “waiting period” before your drivel will be posted. Starting to get the picture, dumb@$$???

          2. “Red Flag” laws are INHERENTLY unconstitutional, and everyone with an IQ over room temperature knows it. No opportunity to confront your accuser. Seizure without an OPEN evidentiary hearing. Burden is on the DEPRIVED PARTY to PROVE their innocence. Of course, no part of that would strike a Leftist/fascist like you as unconstitutional – I doubt you’ve ever even READ the Constitution, let alone the DoI, BoR, Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, or notes of the Constitutional Convention. Historical knowledge limited to your “U.S. Government” course in High School (if you even got that far).

          YES, you moron, nearly EVERY part of this POS is unconstitutional . . . and YOU are the one telling ME to bend over and grab my ankles, and be grateful for the opportunity???

          Go micturate STRAIGHT up a cable. My INHERENT RIGHTS are not up for “compromise” dipwad. Now, I’m off to the range. Have a nice day. “Assume the position”, sheep.

        • To tsbhoa.p.jr
          “it’s simple” Wonderful, this should be easy. Where exactly does it say in these proposals that they’re creating a registry or not allowing 21 year olds to purchase guns? Can you just copy and paste that over so we can all read it?

        • To Lamp of Diogenes
          I’m just gonna ignore the unhinged ranting. I’m starting to see where the domestic violence screening might piss you off. Now, to your points (good on you for thinking, now we can get somewhere!).
          1. If your first problem is “what’s next???!!”, then we’re back to the slippery slope fallacy. I think we CERTAINLY need to have a discussing about when someone is considered a full-on adult. There’s a huge maturity difference between an 18 year old and a 21 year old. I wouldn’t mind this country re-evaluating the 18 year old draft or voting rights, so we have a unified standard for when someone is an “adult”. Unfortunately, the majority of people buying a gun and immediately using them in crimes (especially mass shootings) are younger, so this proposal will almost certainly bring those numbers as well as suicide numbers down.

          That being said, it’s moot. These proposals do not BAN 18 year olds from owning guns or purchasing whatever they want. If they have a clean record and haven’t been making violent threats around town to shoot up an elementary school, their buying experience won’t be that different from now.

          2. This proposal simply gives federal funding to the laws, but individual legislatures have to create and pass those laws. So, all the specific problems you have with the concept of red flag laws would be completely up for debate. This proposal wouldn’t have any specificity about how red flag laws would or would not be applied. Many states will likely opt against the concept entirely.

          Again, just going to ignore the unhinged ranting about what my politics are, what I’ve read, personal attacks, and odd psychosexualstuff. Not my cup of tea, but it’s a free country.

        • So, Sean the Leftist, my first point is a “slippery slope fallacy” because YOU say it is??? Gee, I’m come all over aquiver with that level of reassurance. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN INHERENT RIGHT, you gormless t**t. At MINIMUM, under standards of Constitutional review, that requires “strict scrutiny” (as SCOTUS may very well reiterate in NYSRPA, but has already been stated more times than I care to mention). There IS NO rational basis to deprive an entire class of ADULTS of their Constitutional rights because SOME members of that class have abused those rights. That you’re OK with it just reinforces what a fascist @$$hole you are.

          What part of “no Red Flag laws are ‘constitutional'” escaped your limited ability of ratiocination???? ALL “Red Flag” laws fail constitutional review – (i) we have a constitutional right to face our accusers, (ii) we have a right to legal representation, (iii) we have a right to present evidence in our defense, (iv) we are PRESUMED INNOCENT until proven guilty, (v) we cannot be deprived of “life, liberty, or property” without DUE PROCESS OF LAW, and (vi) it is NEVER our burden to prove our innocence, it is the STATE’s burden to prove our guilt.

          But I guess all that doesn’t matter to a devoted fascist, like yourself.

          As for the ranting?? Child, you ain’t even SEEN ranting, yet, if you want to keep going down this road. I feel no obligation to treat an brainless Leftist/fascist with kid gloves. Don’t like it? Don’t come on here with that weak s***. The “compromise” is an unmitigated disaster, totally unconstitutional, and probably DOA in any event (it isn’t CLOSE to enough the get Malig-Nancy and her flying monkeys on board, and SOME pro-2A legislator is going to toss in a poison pill).

          But, you just keep on givin’ away rights . . . especially ones that DON’T BELONG TO YOU. I’ll keep mine, thanks. And feel free to go pound salt in your @$$.

        • Keep pretending you don’t comprehend. We will see if you are still trying to be a wise ass up against the wall with the rest.

          It is coming because you dip shits will not leave us well enough alone.

        • ‘hello fellow gun owners we really need to stop being so forceful in defending our rights and stop suspecting that politicians are looking to take them away.’ D+ more coherent than some but not believable.

        • To LampofDiogenes
          1. Again, where specifically in these proposals does it say that it will deprive entire classes of adults of their 2nd Amendment rights?

          Just copy and paste it so we can see. Or are you talking about the felons, straw purchasers, and/or domestic abusers?

          2. I understand you said those words. What I said is there’s no reason red flag laws would need to be written in an unconstitutional way. You could very easily have a legislature right a red flag law that respects all four of the items you mentioned. And, crucially, these proposals don’t list any requirements for red flag laws AT ALL. They simply offer funding. States could opt out entirely, or write extremely soft ones. Either way, the people/representatives of each state would have ultimate say in how the law works. That’s American Federalism and it works great.

          And again, just take a breath dude. You’re get hysterical and really running up your heartrate for no reason. If this is how you act with such a small thing, how on earth will you handle it if something really happens?

          And somehow, you managed to work in a reference to pounding an a$$ in there as well…..that’s four..uh…references if you’re keeping track.

          odd

        • To TheTimeHasCome
          “death threat. We’ve got a death threat here! See, nobody cares.”

          again, when they come for our guns, they will point to people like to you to sell the rest of the population on it. Congrats, you’re helping the other side.

        • to SAFEupstateFML:
          ‘hello fellow gun owners we really need to stop being so forceful in defending our rights and stop suspecting that politicians are looking to take them away.’ Who said that? Also, you use ” ” marks for quotes.

          but you got me, I work for George Soros.

        • Sean,
          zes :
          “Again, where specifically in these proposals does it say that it will deprive entire classes of adults of their 2nd Amendment rights?”

          Umm, . . . the part that SPECIFICALLY authorizes “enhanced background checks” (UNDEFINED, as even a halfwit illiterate like you should be able to parse out) ONLY for persons 18-21. Since you obviously flunked logic, debate, and rhetoric (if you even know what those words mean, or took the applicable classes), let me ‘splain it for you: A group of people defined by an immutable characteristic (their birthdate, for example, or their skin color, or their sex, maybe, you illiterate dolt??) constitutes a “class”. Now, some “classes” are more protected than others (a serious flaw in our system; we are ALL supposed to be equal under the law). So, pudding-brain, specifying a group of people who are LEGALLY CLASSIFIED AS ADULTS, but don’t meet your “magic” age range, WITHOUT ANY OTHER PROOF OF WRONGDOING, are put through additional administrative tests and hoops before purchase of a firearm. That is per se unconstitutional (age is, actually, a “protected class”, you ignorant idiot). So, YES, you dolt, an age requirement (particularly since age IS a protected class) IS an improper unequal treatment (as ALL unequal treatment SHOULD be). Again, you are either ignorant, or a liar (but embrace the healing power of “and”!). The “under 21” limitation is blatantly unconstitutional. Now, if you want to have a discussion about the “age of majority”, I’m happy to discuss that – but PICK ONE, @$$hole. You don’t get to jack the age around to suit your narrative. If 18 year olds can vote, they can buy guns, alcohol, tobacco, etc. You Leftist/fascist couldn’t SPELL ‘consistency’, let alone actually achieve it. This comment from you was stupid at the beginning, and you’ve just continued to “double down on stupid”. Been taking lessons from MinorIQ, have you????

          2. You pathetic idiot, you CANNOT write a “Red Flag” law that does NOT violate “due process”. How far up your arse did you have to crawl to even parse out the “you can write a ‘constitutional’ Red Flag law???? No, pudding-brain, you CAN’T. Just as a thought experiment, WRITE a “Red Flag” law that provides:

          (a) Notice and opportunity to be heard (REQUIRED by the Constitution – yes, there are ex parte procedures; go study them, and the decisions around them, and explain how ANY of that would apply to a “Red Flag” law. Go ahead; we’ll wait.)

          (b) The right to CONFRONT YOUR ACCUSER, and the witnesses against you (ALSO guaranteed by the Constitution);

          (c) The right to counsel PRESENT for your defense (yep, right there in the Constitution);

          (d) The right to present evidence on your own behalf (yeah, that’s in the Constitution, too, AND it requires that you have the right to do that BEFORE your “life, liberty, or property” are taken);

          (e) The PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE (yeah, that’s been established Constitutional law since about, oh, 1798, dumbass);

          (f) The fact that you may NOT be deprived of “life, liberty, or property” without all of the above (yep, it’s right there IN THE DAMN CONSTITUION, lackwit).

          You are, seriously, a sllghtly stupider version of MinorIQ – which makes you about on the level of a planaria, or maybe a slime mold. “But, but, WHY can’t we do all these things that WE think are ‘reasonable’?????” Because the freakin’ Constitution SAYS you can’t, pudding-brain.

          Like I said, go micturate up a cable. Your wasting everyone’s time with your idiocy, and giving me a SERIOUS case of the ass. Go away. Take your stupid elsewhere.

        • LOL Sean I can say definitively you do not work for Soros they at least are smart enough not to get filtered their first day. Don’t know or care if you are individual, reddit farm, school project, or other you just happened to stand out as unfamiliar and inconsistent. Good luck with your next handle or linger on like our other resident antigun trolls.

      • To LampofDiogenes
        1. Well, the entire point is that not every agrees that 18 and 21 are equivalent levels of “adult.” We don’t let full on children buy firearms. Then, when they hit 18, you can buy whatever you want, with no buffer space in between? That’s a little weird. Having taught 18 year olds, as well as older college students, there is an absolutely massive difference in maturity. I mean, we accept that there’s a need for a middle space in driving licenses in the form of learner’s permits, where someone goes from being a child completely unable to drive to an adult fully driving with a buffer space in between. In trades, we accept there’s a middle period between being a complete novice and a fully trained technician. Compared to something like that, this is nothing.

        In this case, they’d still be able to buy anything they want and their background check would take slightly longer. This is hardly restricting their 2nd Amendment rights in any real way. They can still buy whatever they want, they can still own whatever firearms they want, in whatever number they want. Nothing has been infringed, as you don’t have to modify your behavior in any way to be compliant with the law, provided you aren’t a violent sociopath.

        “Depriving” someone of something means they’re cut off from it. This proposal simply doesn’t cut off 18 year olds from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights in any way.

        As for red flag laws, AGAIN, a legislature could simply write them with provisions that all the aspects of due process you mentioned could be included. Just because some states write them poorly doesn’t mean they all will (in fact, many state’s red flag laws are enforced and performed in accordance with all the procedures you mentioned). According to the data, red flag laws primarily target people discussing suicidal thoughts or violent people making open threats. Pretty open and shut cases.

        Why, in your mind, does a red flag law HAVE to ignore due process? Many state’s red flag laws DO include notice to the accused, gives the accused opportunity to face their accuser and gives them the right to present evidence, with consul. Someone makes the initial petition and it goes through the full process. Sure, the leftists probably don’t like that but who cares? How would that deprive someone of due process? These petitions don’t just fall out of the sky. If there’s no evidence that you’re a danger to yourself and others, you’re out the door.

        AGAIN, you’re discussing “red flag laws” like there’s only one way to do it and as if these proposals have a specific type. All this proposal does is offer funding these laws. Every state can come up with whatever system they want to prevent suicides, mass shootings, murder, and terrorist attacks. Some states will opt out. The ones that pass truly unconstitutional red flag laws will be challenged and overturned. The good ones will stay and save some lives. That’s federalism.

        And by the way, this is a much more interesting conversation now that you’re engaging. Cut out the middle school insults (I see you’ve censored out the homoeroticism, cool cool) and we’d really be cooking.

        • In the first instance, Sean the stupid, I use middle school insults to deal with your f***tardery, because your alleged “logic” is . . . middle school f***tardery. You want “respect”, champ??? EARN IT. Bring some logic, and knowledge to the table. Demanding respect, while acting like a Leftist/fascist @$$hole? Might work with MinorIQ or dacian the stupid, but cuts exactly ZERO mustard with me.

          Now, let’s FURTHER take apart your f***tardery:

          “Well, the entire point is that not every agrees that 18 and 21 are equivalent levels of “adult.” ”

          Of course, you Leftist/fascists will attempt to chop logic to get to your desired result. SCOTUS has been dodging this one for years, being the cowards that they are, but YES, in fact, drawing age distinctions AMONG the class of “adults”, based on age, violates EVERY SCOTUS opinion out there on “equal protection”. Don’t expect you to know that; but you should. That YOU think “well, there are ‘adults’ and then there are ‘adults'” speaks volumes. How about, “Well there are protected classes, like African-Americans, then there are REAL ‘protected classes’, like us white folk.” Does that work for you, too? How about making the voting age for women 35, since there is a DEMONSTRATED and documented shift in women’s voting patterns at that age? I mean, “rights” don’t REALLY mean “rights” do they, fascist??? Only if YOU agree that they do, amirite? Again, HAPPY to have a debate over what the age of majority SHOULD be, but who the f*** are you to decide which of MY rights I get to exercise, when????? I know all you Leftist/fascists think you are the smart ones (which absolutely amuses the hell out of me!), so you should get to decide this stuff. Go pound salt in your @$$. My INHERENT RIGHTS are not yours to impede or bargain away. You treat yours any way you like. Go hang out at Parris Island or Camp Lejeune and tell all the 19 year old Marines they’re not “smart enough” to own guns, or buy booze. Just let me know when; I want to watch. Being an intellectually inconsistent, illogical nitwit is NOT a good look, and is a pathetic attempt at self-justifying sophistry. ‘Splain to me, Lucy, why allowing a 16 year old to DRIVE A FREAKIN’ CAR (research driving stats for 16-20 year olds), and 18 year olds to VOTE, make sense, but owning a gun doesn’t. And YES, it DOES infringe their rights, “a right delayed is a right denied” ring any bells?????? And what “additional” checks are done, and why are they applicable ONLY to 18-21 year olds??? I know LOTS of 25 and 30 year olds that aren’t “adult” in any sense I’d recognize, and more than a few 16-18 year olds that are far more adult than, well, you for example. The “framework” VERY INTENTIONALLY did not indicate HOW MUCH these “enhanced background checks” would take, what “additional” steps they would include, etc., but . . . they’re just peachy with you. Hell, while we’re at it, let’s repeal the 13th and 15th Amendments. I mean, that’s not REALLY an imposition on anyone’s rights, is it??

          Do you ever listen to yourself? Like, when you speak???
          And the 2A does not say “deprive” you gormless twit, it says “infringe”. Go look it up. Damn, ithe 2A is only 27 words, a person MIGHT be able to at least get those right, perhaps?????

          “As for red flag laws, AGAIN, a legislature could simply write them with provisions that all the aspects of due process you mentioned could be included.”

          No, they actually couldn’t, because then they would be the ALREADY EXISTING laws to allow a person PROPERLY ADJUDICATED mentally incompetent, in a noticed court proceeding in which the person to be deprived actually GOT TO APPEAR, be represented, present evidence, face their accuser, and enjoy the presumption of innocence. We ALREADY HAVE such procedures in place, with the NECESSARY due process safeguards. “Red Flag” laws IGNORE due process, IGNORE presumption of innocence, do NOT ALLOW the target person to be present or even represented at the procedure, and requires THEM to go in (at some undefined future time) and PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE. NONE of that is constitutional, for all the reasons I’ve given you, over and over again. Saying “well, the legislature COULD write a constitutional ‘Red Flag’ law”, is nonsense. If it’s so easy, do it. Ah, but if you actually wrote a constitutional “Red Flag” law, it would be . . . not a
          “Red Flag” law. It would be the existing procedure to have someone declared mentally incompetent, which ALREADY exists in all 50 states. Not sure if your just so ignorant you’re not aware of that, or so dishonest you just want to lie about it, but NO “ex parte” proceeding which deprives a person of “life, liberty, or property” without due process can POSSIBLY be ‘constitutional’. What part of that don’t you understand?

    • All of the suggested new laws are simply an extra layer on top of laws that already exist that make the activities they’re trying to outlaw already illegal.

      • I agree, properly funding and executing existing laws is a far better solution than some “assault weapons ban” horseshit.

        That’s what these proposals do, so I guess we’re good?

        • How so? What specific issues do you have with these proposals? And not future legislation, but these specific ideas. I’d honestly love to hear it.

        • “And once again, still no answer on why these proposals would impede the 2nd Amendment from either of you“

          Don’t hold your breath.

          Of course, you can expect plenty of ad hominem attacks featuring same-sex focused wishful thinking and juvenile gems from the schoolyard.

        • Such BS.
          Everything not specifically defined reverts back to the individual states.

          Translation:
          Fed.gov is to ensure citizens 2A rights are NOT infringed by the states.

          State.gov addresses mental health issues.

          Oh, REPEAL THE NFA ACT OF 1934!

        • To Miner49er
          Yeah, I mean, I don’t judge but there’s a weird vibe with some of these comments….

        • “. . . there’s a weird vibe with some of these comments.”

          Yeah, some of us are intolerant of lackwit Leftist/fascists, who think OUR inherent rights are YOURS to bargain away. Take it, fold it ’til it’s all corners, and stick it where the sun don’t shine. Your request/demand that I “compromise” MY inherent rights is summarily denied. F*** right the hell off.

      • To James Campbell
        Agreed, get the NFA out of there. And true, although the federal government offers funding for countless other state projects (infrastructure, law enforcement, education, military assets in the state, etc), this would be nothing new. And thankfully, these proposals all seem to be around funding state initiatives or modifying things that are already federal, like NICS.

    • only the (cowardly) fool, would let the stupid, dictate the rules to them, while stealing HALF of what they produce (slaves). Your master tells you, “you are free” and you believe them?