The relationship has not been great in a long time.
Modern women and soy boys are insufferable, at least now they make it even more obvious.
How about we teach boys as early as 10 to stay away from girls, sex alone is hardly worth it and they will fuck up your life while offering little to nothing in return.
I would gladly allow TheImp to write the curriculum.
Sure, but it's pretty clear that the "actual reaction" is going to be the only deterrent to false allegations. Any court in an area that passes these laws will be so pozzed that it will rubber stamp any petition. The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose, and the commie plants within the GOP would do well to remember that.
At this point I'm wondering how long it will be until the law allows a woman to have her current or ex intimate partner executed on the gallows behind the courthouse for any (or no) reason whatsoever. The only reason they don't execute divorced men right now is because they haven't figured out how to make it as lucrative for the woman as the current system.
I suppose it will be coming eventually, the marriage and kids racket is near dead. Birth rates are through the floor, marriages are reaching new lows every day.
This bill hasn't actually passed yet, but it is likely to do so. The Fox News article is good for listing the Republicans that need to go. Most other articles I've seen don't name anyone other than McConnell and Cornyn.
The other 12 Senate Republicans to approve the proposal's advancement are Senators Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Todd Young of Indiana, Thom Tillis and Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Roy Blunt of Missouri.
He was born in Michigan where his father served as governor. At some point he set up shop in Massachusetts and was cucked enough to win the governorship there. He also ran for a US Senate seat there but he wasn't cucked enough for that and lost. He became a senator "from" Utah because of Mormon nepotism.
This is only true in a technical sense. The law bribes states into passing these laws, and all it takes is some bitch you're dating to run to the court (or cops if the law doesn't allow her to go to the court directly) and all the sudden you have no gun rights. The fact that so many retards think this loss of gun rights will only be temporary would be hilarious if it weren't so dangerous. They despise gun owners. They want us dead. No one who loses guns because they were red flagged is ever getting them back.
Australian citizen who's not even in the US, not working for a US company.
The excuse to arrest him was nutso "rape" accusations along the lines of "I consented to have sex with him but he did something I didn't expect".
I get what you're saying. It's interesting.
But we've seen that any and all of these laws are aggressively abused the moment someone in power wants them to be. Look how quickly canada quickly froze the entire bank accounts of truckers in the protest leaving them without the ability to buy anything or pay their bills - at least temporarily.
What I expect will happen is that things get tense, then law enforcement claims they've received a complaint from an ex of yours - they may not even bother convincing a real person to do it, they'll just pretend someone filed a complaint. You may be supposed to receive your guns back but they simply don't return them. It's far easier to a police department to simply not give them back once they have them. With support from agencies above them there's really nothing you can do.
Martin Luther King Jr had sexual allegations against him, for example, I bet if you look into it many people who irritated the aristocracy/powers-that-be had some sort of "a woman somewhere doesn't like me" in their past.
‘(37)(A) The term ‘dating relationship’ means a relationship between individuals who have or have recently had a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.
Current or "recent" is vague, but limiting. Women from your past are not included.
However, as drafted I think it's clearly unconstitutional under the "void for vagueness" doctrine, as it does not put anyone on notice of who qualified, and leaves it to be determined on an ad hoc and unequal/inconsistent basis.
Looking at the rest of the law, the only tie-in for this term is for domestic violence convictions, which already create problems with owning a gun under existing law.
The social engineering they're doing is mostly described in "The Willie Lynch Letter
And The Making of a Slave".
You might think to yourself "no, slavery is the other sides topic!" but if you've paid attention there's a ton of saying they're against something when really they just rabidly want to be the ones doing it.
By her being left alone, unprotected, with the male image destroyed, the ordeal caused her to move from her psychological dependent state to a frozen independent state.
.
In this frozen psychological state of independence she will raise her male and female offspring in reversed roles. For fear of the young man’s life, she will psychologically train him to be mentally weak and dependent but physically strong.
.
Because she has become psychologically independent, she will train her female offspring’s to be psychologically independent. What have you got?
.
You’ve got the nigger woman out front and the man behind and scared.
.
Before the breaking process, we had to alertly on guard at all times. Now we can sleep soundly, for out of frozen fear, his woman stands guard for us. He cannot get past her infant slave process. HE IS A GOOD TOOL, NOW READY TO BE TIED TO THE HORSE AT A TENDER AGE.
There seems to be a specific argument about what the "girlfriend rule" is, and what it pertains to. It does not seem to pertain to "any woman who has ever known you", as you have not dated every woman you have ever known. See comments from 000Titan in this thread for more details.
"Dating relationships" is such a vague term it means they can use any woman as an informant, whether or not said woman ever even existed. Now feds can just claim to be some dudes girlfriend to send a Swat team to his location.
Assuming any of this faggotry passes all at once. Theyll definitely try to dripfeed it if it doesnt.
You're technically correct about the domestic violence and red flag flaws being two different things, but it's a distinction without a difference. Current and former girlfriends are almost always eligible to red flag someone, and this law bribes states into enacting these red flag laws. It's also important to remember that this shit will be interpreted as broadly as possible because like all gun control it's about hatred of gun owners. Everything else is just a pretext. Anything that gets in the way of harming a gun owner will be ignored because it doesn't serve the purpose of making his life a living hell.
This is the biggest advertisement for MGTOW since Pound Me Too.
Im pretty sure thats the intention. To destroy the relationship between men and women.
It's a pretty slow way of population reduction.
It's actually looking like centuries.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
I admit, blaming jews for a Carrington Event is probably one of the weirdest anti-jewish arguments I've seen.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
The relationship has not been great in a long time. Modern women and soy boys are insufferable, at least now they make it even more obvious.
How about we teach boys as early as 10 to stay away from girls, sex alone is hardly worth it and they will fuck up your life while offering little to nothing in return.
I would gladly allow TheImp to write the curriculum.
Feminism already accomplished that in the west. This is a thinly veiled attempt at turning anyone with an axe to grind into a federal informant.
No, that's listening to a woman speak when she thinks no men can hear it.
Sure, but it's pretty clear that the "actual reaction" is going to be the only deterrent to false allegations. Any court in an area that passes these laws will be so pozzed that it will rubber stamp any petition. The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose, and the commie plants within the GOP would do well to remember that.
Alimony for ex girlfriends soon, too.
This has already existed for over half a century. It's called palimony. The ur-case was Lee Marvin and Michelle Triola back in 1971.
In Canada, with variation by province, there are explicit rules that a couple of years of cohabitation entitles a woman to half your stuff.
Good. Don’t cohabitate. That’s degenerate anyway.
There was a thread on this just yesterday: https://www.dailywire.com/news/man-ordered-to-pay-spousal-support-even-though-he-wasnt-married-had-no-house-or-children
At this point I'm wondering how long it will be until the law allows a woman to have her current or ex intimate partner executed on the gallows behind the courthouse for any (or no) reason whatsoever. The only reason they don't execute divorced men right now is because they haven't figured out how to make it as lucrative for the woman as the current system.
Wait, where's that? Did they throw that in a "gun safety" bill?
Nah, I'm just saying.
I suppose it will be coming eventually, the marriage and kids racket is near dead. Birth rates are through the floor, marriages are reaching new lows every day.
This bill hasn't actually passed yet, but it is likely to do so. The Fox News article is good for listing the Republicans that need to go. Most other articles I've seen don't name anyone other than McConnell and Cornyn.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-advances-bipartisan-gun-control-legislation
Why even bother listing names? They're a politician, they need to go
I always thought Mitt Romney was from Massachusetts.
Utah makes a lot more sense with the Mormon thing.
He was born in Michigan where his father served as governor. At some point he set up shop in Massachusetts and was cucked enough to win the governorship there. He also ran for a US Senate seat there but he wasn't cucked enough for that and lost. He became a senator "from" Utah because of Mormon nepotism.
I can see their endgame now "Only incels have guns!!"
Remember the 10 Republicans that voted this shit in.
Including Cocaine Mitch.
Men need to preemptively red flag every ex first
Is there any reason to stay in the west anymore? It looks more and more like we are nearing the end.
Eastern Europe might be okay depending on the country. Some of them kept the rapeugees out against the wishes of the EUSSR.
NOW take two big victories in the gun control they supported :
Red flags in operation - plus the "girlfriend rule" to allow anyone to red flag an ex.
Next one - "misogyny" makes you lose your gun?
This is only true in a technical sense. The law bribes states into passing these laws, and all it takes is some bitch you're dating to run to the court (or cops if the law doesn't allow her to go to the court directly) and all the sudden you have no gun rights. The fact that so many retards think this loss of gun rights will only be temporary would be hilarious if it weren't so dangerous. They despise gun owners. They want us dead. No one who loses guns because they were red flagged is ever getting them back.
Adding to that:
THEY DO NOT WANT YOU ARMED.
IF YOU ARE ARMED YOU CAN OPPOSE THEM.
I like:
They're trying to take your guns because they plan to do things to you that you'd shoot them for.
Look at Julien Assange.
I get what you're saying. It's interesting.
But we've seen that any and all of these laws are aggressively abused the moment someone in power wants them to be. Look how quickly canada quickly froze the entire bank accounts of truckers in the protest leaving them without the ability to buy anything or pay their bills - at least temporarily.
What I expect will happen is that things get tense, then law enforcement claims they've received a complaint from an ex of yours - they may not even bother convincing a real person to do it, they'll just pretend someone filed a complaint. You may be supposed to receive your guns back but they simply don't return them. It's far easier to a police department to simply not give them back once they have them. With support from agencies above them there's really nothing you can do.
Martin Luther King Jr had sexual allegations against him, for example, I bet if you look into it many people who irritated the aristocracy/powers-that-be had some sort of "a woman somewhere doesn't like me" in their past.
I don't understand, are you saying the article itself is incorrect?
Kyle is never getting his gun back. :(
Legal analysis from me:
Current or "recent" is vague, but limiting. Women from your past are not included.
However, as drafted I think it's clearly unconstitutional under the "void for vagueness" doctrine, as it does not put anyone on notice of who qualified, and leaves it to be determined on an ad hoc and unequal/inconsistent basis.
Looking at the rest of the law, the only tie-in for this term is for domestic violence convictions, which already create problems with owning a gun under existing law.
The social engineering they're doing is mostly described in "The Willie Lynch Letter And The Making of a Slave".
You might think to yourself "no, slavery is the other sides topic!" but if you've paid attention there's a ton of saying they're against something when really they just rabidly want to be the ones doing it.
Post Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
There seems to be a specific argument about what the "girlfriend rule" is, and what it pertains to. It does not seem to pertain to "any woman who has ever known you", as you have not dated every woman you have ever known. See comments from 000Titan in this thread for more details.
"Dating relationships" is such a vague term it means they can use any woman as an informant, whether or not said woman ever even existed. Now feds can just claim to be some dudes girlfriend to send a Swat team to his location.
Assuming any of this faggotry passes all at once. Theyll definitely try to dripfeed it if it doesnt.
You're technically correct about the domestic violence and red flag flaws being two different things, but it's a distinction without a difference. Current and former girlfriends are almost always eligible to red flag someone, and this law bribes states into enacting these red flag laws. It's also important to remember that this shit will be interpreted as broadly as possible because like all gun control it's about hatred of gun owners. Everything else is just a pretext. Anything that gets in the way of harming a gun owner will be ignored because it doesn't serve the purpose of making his life a living hell.
And that too is unconstitutional garbage.