HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NO!!!

The house vote was entirely party line. Its DOA once it hits the senate, shareblue.

Nice. How did you find this?

>senate passes the bill
>trump signs it
4D chess!

Attached: 1530317672488.gif (345x200, 2.86M)

Fuck the House.

Do not comply.

Oh yes I'm sure that's what it is.

Senate will probably vote no as it is majority Republican. If it somehow passes (which I highly doubt) there's at least the possibility that Trump vetos it, maybe. Wouldn't bet 100% on that, but it's possible. Even if Trump signed it the supreme court is 5-4 in favor of gun rights (and soon may be 6-3 or at least 5-3).

The chances that this sticks are pretty much 0. It will mostly likely be voted down in the senate.

Found the fudd

>not gonna pass the Senate
>wouldn't pass the white house
>would be rekt in the courts since this doesn't fall under interstate commerce
Either way dems get to shake their fists, which is ultimately what they want, and it's a practical win for gun rights.

This time.

Can't have anyone going against the groupthink, can we?

Also, I doubt that the nuclear option would be used to try and pass this, so the Democrats would most likely need 60 votes rather than just 51. If they somehow tried to do a nuclear option 51 senate vote to pass massive gun control out of nowhere there legitimately might be a new revolution on our hands.

>The extensive regulation required by H.R. 8 is incompatible with the Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to keep arms.
>If H.R. 8, or H.R. 1112, are presented to the President, his advisors would recommend he veto the bill.

whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/saphr8hr1112hr_20190225.pdf

>ITT: Jow Forumsommandos seriously trusting republicans after "red flag" laws and more gun control than democrats

Attached: 1535049349776.gif (320x200, 1.9M)

>tfw representative votes nay

Thank you based Nunes

>this doesn't fall under interstate commerce
Everything falls under interstate commerce.

They just need to slow their roll. I’m building my first ar that I plan on taking on a great boat ride the day it’s built. After that I’m sure I’ll be fine.

IVE DONE MY PART
HAVE YOU

in all seriousness, historically literate Americans would constantly write to their representatives over shit they didn't like. Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams did a lot more writing than fighting

>BILL TITLE: Bipartisan Background Checks Act

sounds like universal background checks to me

They don't want what will immediately get shoved down their throats in other political realms. I'd be very surprised if the Senate picks it up.

90-95% of bills presented are never enacted, usually lose ground in CRS reports, congressional reports and hearings on firearms has normally led to the status-quo.

There is no significant new examples that complete the trifecta of hurting firearms rights, accusing fellow citizens, and the direct/indirect support of elected officials to carry out a "witch hunt".

Just as McCarthyism sooner or later crossed the line, and became too obnoxious to defend. The same is likely happen again, simply due to past-precedent.

Believe it or not, most politicians prefer the status quo, since arguing against takes actual effort.

Feel there are small amount of Congressmen and Senators that realize that further encroachment on 2nd Amendment rights will likely lead towards a true state of civil war.

Forgot pic

Attached: 20190227_202748.jpg (1080x702, 162K)

>bill passes congress purely because of near 100% support of Democrats despite near 100% rejection by Republicans
>Somehow this is all Republicans fault
>"RePuBlIcAnS aRe JuSt As AnTi-GuN!!!@!"

RINOs exist, but suggesting that Republicans are somehow just as likely to pass hardcore anti-gun legislation as Democrats is mental gymnastics done by hypocrites who want to vote for hardcore anti-gun Democrats while somehow justifying it to themselves. You're delusional.

SHALL

Heres a template ive used for writing my senate, feel free to modify as desired

As your constituent, I urge you to vote no on HR 8 and HR 1112, for multiple reasons.
From a practical perspective, these bills would do nothing to prevent violence; firearm ownership and violent intent do not correlate: less than one hundredth of a percent (or 0.002% ) of all privately-owned firearms are used in crimes. >Background checks and waiting periods will also not make ghettos any less poor, criminals any less violent, or the mentally ill any more sane; these are issues which must be addressed seperately
>It is foolish to pretend that restricting one type of tool will somehow prevent violent acts, as many other types of deadly weapons are freely available with zero background checks; you can buy swords, crossbows, and high-caliber airguns off of Amazon without even passing an age check.
>From an ideological perspective, the Second Amendment was created to give the people physical power over their government. Mandatory background checks for all firearm transfers would create a de-facto firearm registry, aiding any potential confiscation efforts and further removing power from the people, a betrayal of core American values.
>Thank you for listening

NOT

yeah it's 2019 buddy the congressional email bot just sends you thier canned response to the email you sent that they'll never read

>groupthink
Where do you think you are?

> see the bill title seems harmless, there's no way this will turn out badly for you.

Tell me you're not this naive...

Dems would have to find 13 republicans to pass this. That won't happen especially with how toxic things are right now there is no way.

You have to at least try.
For all the mad shit about cowabunga time, it's amazing that these same people aren't willing to send 2 emails

I applaud you for a rare sight on Jow Forums;
Proper use of the term “Fudd”

>DEMOCRATS WILL NEVUR TAKE UR GUNS

Attached: 1535676637058.jpg (596x709, 40K)

Attached: YVi0Stm.jpg (879x490, 485K)

>only reading the title
I hope you are never elected to a legislative body, you're as bad as the retards in Congress voting for shit they don't read

Attached: come on now.jpg (600x375, 26K)

Effective gun control: convince incels to use IEDs and katanas instead.

Because the system is rigged to make you feel powerless?

WTF DRUMPFF NOOOOOOOO

>muh groupthink
>muh echo chamber
Why do(((they))) always use this argument when like minded goys band together to protect their freedom?

Why don't you read it for yourself you chucklefuck

congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8/text

Again, you have to try.
Feeling powerless is no excuse.

>Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered

Legalize dueling to the death, but only using katanas or hand to hand, recipients choice.
Itll take care of the gang problem and the weeb problem at the same time

This.

FUCK.

MOLON LABE TIME

Attached: IAN.jpg (468x519, 44K)

Same bill was voted in the senate back in 2013 and this was the result. 60 votes are needed to pass the senate.

Attached: gun-control-vote.png (898x1171, 517K)

>from CA
>all reps voted yea

As expected of Shitlab-Sama. Pic related is the only one who can save me now.

Attached: kavanaugh.jpg (700x700, 123K)

Cowabunga

Attached: 1486940024326.gif (500x200, 974K)

>2019
>representative democracy

Attached: 1548443179433.png (659x472, 239K)

If you poke around congress.gov, they have all the roll call votes available online

Just emailed my senators as well.
glad to see my representative did his part, but it seems that this "bipartisan" bill was passed exclusively along party lines

Apparently not gun-free school zones. We have 5 conservative justices now and there is nothing more intrastate than this. It won't pass muster.

>will likely lead towards a true state of civil war.

Or at the very least to the NRA mobilizing it's voter base to end their political careers. But yeah, this will likely be another nothing burger, both sides of the aisle do this so they can keep getting good boy points from their voters, by going "Hey man, we tried, but the other side doesn't want us to have nice things and shot it down." "Keep voting for our side and maybe eventually we'll be able to get nice things."

>muh enlightened despots

Attached: image.jpg (850x400, 87K)

FYI the interstate commerce limitation is why we didn't get UBCs at the same time as BCs at regular dealers. Fed gov was able to justify requiring them to perform background checks to customers on the grounds that the dealers are buying weapons across state lines.

SHALL

Attached: Voicelence.png (1190x1194, 1.33M)

COLD

Attached: maxviolence.jpg (536x619, 407K)

It would create a de facto gun registry you absolute retard so yes, the final step almost.

It always got me that Inhofe looked vaguely like the colonel from Avatar.

My entire point is that even 1% of the legal gun-owning citizens chose to resist, that is still roughly 1,000,000 combatants.

Such odds do not directly reflect recent conflicts, and a lot of guys will go AWOL for not wanting to kill their neighbors.

Yes, I'm sure you would take to the streets and revolt.

Just shut the fuck up with all that. No one is going to do jack shit. Don't act like you will stop jerking off and eating McDonalds long enough to do more than post here.

Thanjs trunp and Jow Forums

>After that it’s up to Donald....

He wouldn't do shit to stop it. He's already done enough damage to gun rights.

>the supreme court is 5-4 in favor of gun rights
Lmfao

Reminder to never trust a politician. You can only trust yourself in today's society. Never talk to them because they won't listen to reason and will screech to the state about the "devil of freedom". Stay stealthy about your views and keep your shit hidden. They have slaughtered people before for disagreeing and will gladly do it again.

Fuck off JJ
youtube.com/watch?v=-uFeJOiKVWc

If you aren't talking to them, the leftists are. Don't let the vocal minority dictate the future. Stop being a coward

Cowabunga brother

Attached: 1547843298264.jpg (628x688, 43K)

sure it will, fella

This is hardly "gun rights", this has more to do with property rights and commerce.

oh no, you mean we have to show we're eligible to buy a gun in order to buy a gun?

It doesn't even go that far; it's about the duties of a seller, not the buyer.

The idea of seperation of powers is based on the concept that a divided government will regulate itself. That is not grounded in reality. The persons who consitute the government will, almost without fail, draw from similar classes and share similar designs.

Not only is, therefore, seperation of powers mostly irrelevant, it is downright dangerous because it perpetuates the MYTH that the government will self-regulate and discourages the people from taking accountability. Seperation of powers divides blame, not power, and weakens resistance.

A government for and by the people can have only on check - the people. Having the government "check" itself, through sham branches, is a recipe for tyranny in the long-term.

This bro. Fuckin retards here

FLAG AND REPORT FOR TERRORISM

Attached: Capture.jpg (1396x1128, 155K)

...

based

F

Based Texas bro, I'm emailing both of them now.
COME AND TAKE IT, SHITHEADS
>tfw my rep voted against
Crenshaw is fucking based.

Attached: 1509223063151.jpg (225x225, 8K)

>A government for and by the people can have only on check - the people. Having the government "check" itself, through sham branches, is a recipe for tyranny in the long-term.

I agree. However, the people won't have the ability to "check" an totalitarian leader either.

>not "Infringes on my rights"

Attached: 1550468444205.jpg (717x717, 80K)

CAN'T CORNER THE DORNER

Attached: guns 3.png (1075x797, 650K)

Yes they will. People without "recourse" to a sham election will, and always have, done whatever necessary to preserve their necessities. As long as weapons are unregulated government will be regulated

it makes you actually complete a legal form for that one

So your solution is totalitarianism?
lol k.
Let me know how that works out after Novo-Lenin dies.

>Yes they will
This is naïveté. People will be submissive for a 1000 years to a ruler. As long as they are provided with scraps and a hut, they will bend backwards to the whims of their lord

>one democrat voted no
>FOUR republicans voted yes

why the actual fuck?

>"Hey son let me pass ownership of this gun to you!"
>

Attached: M U H R U S S I A.png (1536x2048, 2.71M)

you do realize the WH has already announced they'll veto it? and they don't even have a veto proof majority?

>shareblue intensifies
And just so ""happen"" to leave an indefinitely and intentionally preserved record of who owns what firearms to the BATFE who actively seeks out and stores said data waiting for the day they get the OK to turn it into an electronically searchable database, by their own admission. But why would you worry about that, only a paranoid person would think that the same democratic politicians who have created registries in their own states, later using them for confiscations, would attempt to do the same thing federally.

>So your solution is totalitarianism?
No. Stop strawmanning. Democracy is fine, constitutionalism is fine, republics are fine. They do a decent job of protecting liberty. Separation of powers, however, has no value in that regard. You can, believe it or not, have republics and constitutions and democracy without dividing government for no benefit.

No goys, both sides are equally bad. Don't vote, or vote democrat because "dude weed lol."
t. buttfucking faggot yankee marshall

Attached: 1321457634.jpg (1100x619, 159K)

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution
Wut?