Comments (51)
sorted by:
FuckGenderPolitics 41 points ago +43 / -2

This is the biggest advertisement for MGTOW since Pound Me Too.

Telia 39 points ago +40 / -1

Im pretty sure thats the intention. To destroy the relationship between men and women.

inpassing 27 points ago +28 / -1

Women don't need the help anymore.

Hand_Of_Node 8 points ago +10 / -2

It's a pretty slow way of population reduction.

deleted 13 points ago +17 / -4
Hand_Of_Node 8 points ago +10 / -2

It's actually looking like centuries.

krypt_o 11 points ago +12 / -1

It is. This NWO bullshit has been in the works since at least the 1800s.

deleted 0 points ago +2 / -2
DomitiusOfMassilia [M] 2 points ago +2 / -0

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.

DomitiusOfMassilia [M] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks

Comment Removed: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks

Galean 2 points ago +2 / -0

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.

TakenusernameA 1 point ago +1 / -0

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.

TheImpossible1 [S] 1 point ago +9 / -8

No, that's listening to a woman speak when she thinks no men can hear it.

ernsithe 31 points ago +31 / -0

Well that's obviously designed to create a feedback loop where false allegations create actual reaction, to justify the law enabling the false allegations.

FuckGenderPolitics 7 points ago +7 / -0

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.

lapalapa 23 points ago +23 / -0

Alimony for ex girlfriends soon, too.

wuhan_2020_tour 31 points ago +31 / -0

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.

krzyzowiec -1 points ago +1 / -2

Good. Don’t cohabitate. That’s degenerate anyway.

FuckGenderPolitics 12 points ago +12 / -0

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.

TheImpossible1 [S] -1 points ago +4 / -5

Wait, where's that? Did they throw that in a "gun safety" bill?

lapalapa 7 points ago +7 / -0

Nah, I'm just saying.

TheImpossible1 [S] 0 points ago +5 / -5

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.

ArchRespawnsAgain 19 points ago +19 / -0

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.

SparkMandrill83 7 points ago +7 / -0

Why even bother listing names? They're a politician, they need to go

Benevolentdictator 3 points ago +3 / -0

I always thought Mitt Romney was from Massachusetts.

Utah makes a lot more sense with the Mormon thing.

FuckGenderPolitics 3 points ago +3 / -0

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.

TomSeeSaw 13 points ago +13 / -0

I can see their endgame now "Only incels have guns!!"

WhitePhoenix 8 points ago +8 / -0

Remember the 10 Republicans that voted this shit in.

Including Cocaine Mitch.

norwegianwikin 7 points ago +7 / -0

Men need to preemptively red flag every ex first

KingLion7 6 points ago +6 / -0

Is there any reason to stay in the west anymore? It looks more and more like we are nearing the end.

playdomjothuman 4 points ago +4 / -0

Everywhere else is too brown.

FuckGenderPolitics 4 points ago +4 / -0

Eastern Europe might be okay depending on the country. Some of them kept the rapeugees out against the wishes of the EUSSR.

TheImpossible1 [S] 3 points ago +9 / -6

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?

0000Titan 1 point ago +5 / -4

You are misinterpreting and conflating two different concepts. The "girlfriend rule" is not a red flag issue. It has to do with prohibiting the ownership of firearms by someone with a conviction for domestic abuse. It used to only apply to domestic abuse of a spouse but now it will also apply to domestic abuse of a girlfriend/boyfriend on a temporary (5 year) basis.

Red flag laws are a different issue. This bill doesn't create any red flag laws and some states already have them. Depending on the specific red flag law, a domestic partner can already petition to have someone's guns temporarily taken away if they have evidence they are a current threat to themselves or others. And, in all cases with red flag laws, a police department can petition to have your guns removed if they believe you are a current threat to yourself or others (e.g., if your girlfriend tells them you are). This bill doesn't change that.

FuckGenderPolitics 10 points ago +10 / -0

The "girlfriend rule" is not a red flag issue.

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.

I_Bent_My_Wookiee 6 points ago +6 / -0

Adding to that:

Kienan 1 point ago +1 / -0

I like:

They're trying to take your guns because they plan to do things to you that you'd shoot them for.

0000Titan 4 points ago +4 / -0

I get your point but it's not just at technical matter. My interest is in honest discussion and not misinforming people through salacious headlines which is the cause of a lot of problems in this country.

The "girlfriend rule" used here is meant to invoke the "boyfriend loophole" which this bill would partially eliminate. The boyfriend loophole refers to a specific thing that is not about red flag laws. And, the overall contention that "any woman who has ever known you can red flag you," is not accurate.

While this bill makes grants available to fund red flag laws, I don't think that is the practical difference between a state legislature that thinks it can implement such a law and not. Indeed, the most gun hating states already have these laws. It's also worth noting that this bill actually puts some requirements favorable to would-be defendants attached to the funding (including punishment for abuse of the procedure). I am not going to conduct a survey of all existing red flag laws, but looked at California because it's recent and I'm assuming one of the worst. It has a 21-day easily abusable period where you file the petition and it's granted on a temporary basis. Asking for anything more than 21 days requires appearing in court to present evidence. From there the longest it can extend is 5 years.

EDIT: Here is a link to the report on the first year of the Colorado law which is probably more typical and makes for interesting reading.


GhostBond 4 points ago +4 / -0

Look at Julien Assange.

  • 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.

0000Titan 3 points ago +3 / -0

I'm not advocating for this bill or for red flag laws. I'm trying to put in perspective what is actually in this bill and it isn't much, frankly. I even agree with the background checks for 18-20 year olds to include juvenile history.

This bill does not authorize red flag laws. Nearly half the states already have them. I don't think a state legislature that wanted to make red flag laws was being held back by a lack of grant money.

As for red flag laws, the state legislatures determine if they exist and what is in them. The police have to present evidence to a court that you are a present threat to yourself or others. This bill actually includes a provision (and the red flag laws I've looked at include this because there is a high due process hurdle) that ensures you are allowed to know and dispute the evidence against you, and cross exam any witnesses against you. Do I think that's a necessary or good law? Not necessarily. Do I think it supports the assertion "any woman who you've ever met can have your guns taken away!" No.

I don't know why we are focusing on sexual allegations because the whole thing with the girlfriend exception is not part of these red flag laws. That is part of a stronger prohibition on being able to own firearms but requires an actual criminal conviction for domestic abuse. Or, if you have an actual felony rape conviction you can't own a gun because you're a felon.

GhostBond 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't understand, are you saying the article itself is incorrect?

Section 12005 of the Senate gun control deal expands traditional domestic violence protections from spouse and ex-spouses to “dating relationships.”

0000Titan 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm saying that the article says nothing about red flag laws. Only Imp made that connection in this headline (and the inaccurate confusion/discussion this is creating is what is bothering me). If you go to Section 12005 of the bill it is talking about a national law that has existed for 25 years that prevents people with convictions for physical (or physical threats) domestic abuse against their spouse from owning a firearm. This bill extends that to people with convictions against someone they are in a "continuous romantic or intimate relationship" with (i.e., boyfriends/girlfriends and this is was called the "boyfriend loophole"). The ban in this bill only extends 5 years from the conviction. So, as it relates to a boyfriend/girlfriend, the standard is that you were convicted under a domestic abuse statute that included an element of physical harm or threat of physical harm.

Red flag laws are a completely separate form of gun control. The domestic abuse ban is a national level, permanent ban for spouses or 5 years for boyfriend/girlfriend victims. Red flag laws are created by states and exist in 19 states plus DC. They require going before a judge with evidence (that the respondent can refute/cross-examine) that you are a present threat to yourself or others. The laws vary by states on who can make the petition but most are made by the police. Depending on the state, they can temporarily take your firearms and prevent you from buying new ones for the term set in the order. California allows for 1-5 years. Colorado the maximum is 364 days. From what I've seen, the typical scenario is a spouse or parent calls the police because someone is threatening to kill themselves.

This bill provides grant money for states to fund the implementation of red flag laws. Although, apparently Cornyn has said that states can still get the money and apply it to mental health services without creating red flag laws (but I don't really see that from the text of the bill). I can imagine these red flag laws being abused (although there are laws to punish people abusing them). But, it's not the scenario of some woman holding a grudge calls the cops and poof your guns are gone. Or, the police want to give you a hard time so they unilaterally take your guns on a whim. They have to go to a court and present evidence and you can dispute that evidence (with counsel that has to be provided by the state if you don't bring your own). What's important as it relates to this discussion is that this bill being considered in the Senate does not create these laws. It does not authorize them where they were previously unauthorized. It does not expand their scope. It does make it slightly more likely that some states that haven't already adopted them will adopt them because they get grant money to pay for them.

Yakuza 2 points ago +2 / -0

Kyle is never getting his gun back. :(

dekachin 2 points ago +2 / -0

Legal analysis from me:

‘(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.

GhostBond 1 point ago +1 / -0

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.

DomitiusOfMassilia [M] 1 point ago +1 / -0

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.

TakenusernameA 1 point ago +1 / -0

"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.

0000Titan -1 points ago +2 / -3

For clarification, the existing law (for about 25 years) is that if you are convicted of domestic abuse of your spouse, you can't own a gun. The standard is:

(A)Except as provided in subparagraph (C),[2] the term “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” means an offense that— (i)is a misdemeanor under Federal, State,,[3] Tribal, or local law; and (ii)has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

So, it does require some element of physical threats or violence.

The new law will extend that to convictions of abuse of someone you are dating and extends 5 years after the conviction (if you only have one conviction). So, if you have a conviction for a physical or physical threat of violence against someone you were dating, you can't buy a gun for 5 years. Dating is defined as a "serious continuous relationship of romantic or intimate nature."

Red flag laws are a completely different thing. So, the title here is garbage, even if you disagree with this law.

FuckGenderPolitics 11 points ago +11 / -0

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.

JustHereForTheSalmon 10 points ago +10 / -0

And that too is unconstitutional garbage.