Johnson just had another GOP member sign on to second the motion brought by space laser lady to remove him. Johnson's most likely and perhaps only path to save his speakership at this point is to do a deal with the dems to protect him. McCarthy could have done same but decided he'd rather accept the ignominious title of first ever House speaker to be removed. Johnson can't even earn that distinction at this point so he may as well do what's right and turn effective control of Congress over to the Dems for the rest of this session so things can actually get done to help the people of the nation.

The far right doesn't care about facts or whose life they ruin.

Classic CTE case. He's had several serious concussions and countless subconcussive impacts.

Are the Marines suckers, losers or both?

His story is touching but it's a sad reminder that some people only learn when the issue lands on their front door.

Seriously, are these measures things that anyone, even republican voters, cares about? Can anyone name a single thing that the GOP majority has accomplished that makes you say they've earned your vote this year?

#2 - I'm saving my money for a whale oil powered margarita mixer.

Nike has botched the MLB uniforms this year too.

Biden is begging terrorists to come here through the southern border.
#15 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You are such a liar. Meanwhile Donald Trump is saying he will pardon the cop killing Jan 6th terrorists who tried to overthrow the US Constitution and you continue to support him and his enablers.

WHY THE ---- DID HE WAIT UNTIL THE FOURTH YEAR OF HIS PRESIDENCY TO DO SO? And I doubt there is a good answer to that question, 'cept election year politics.
#34 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

Unlike some Presidential candidates, Biden does not believe himself to be a dictator. This change is one of Biden's campaign promises from 2020 but when he came into office the legislation was not in place to allow him to unilaterally make this sort of change.

I know this might be hard to remember for some but a long time ago we used to have a functional House of Representatives that was capable of passing legislation. During that time the Biden administration worked with Congress to pass what is known as the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022. Biden signed that into law during the summer of that year, one month and one day after the Uvalde massacre. Gun industry lobbying groups then sued the government because safer communities are not in the best interest of the bottom-line of companies that make weapons of death.
After some legal battles and a policy review process, this announcement is part of the administration's implementation of the provisions of that law. Expect more announcements over the months and years to come as more rules are finalized and we reach more of the dates for the provisions/funding to become available that are spelled out in that law.

"I take firearm safety very seriously."

Apparently not.

What kind of idiot bought this stock? You have to be a complete fool to invest in anything involving Trump.

Your logic is strange. The background check requirement isn't really about the seller. It's about the buyer (and straw purchasers).
#28 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

What is strange about the idea that consumers would be more willing to put their trust in sellers who are meeting legal requirements instead of those who ignore them? If you walk up to two tables at a flea market and one tells you the law requires a background check and other tells you they don't bother with that because they don't believe it can be enforce, which one of them are you more likely to suspect might be selling you a gun with a dirty past?

Secondly, law or not, absolutely unenforceable, so go ahead, as of course people will obey that rule [wink, wink] - just as much as biden is obeying the SCOTUS on the student loans ; )
#27 | POSTED BY MSGT

This is not unenforceable. For instance, investigators know who sold the gun to the shooter involved in the CVPA school shooting that I mentioned above. They just have no means to prosecute the person because the seller was under no obligation to run a background check. If this provision was in place at that time then they could take legal action.

Is it a question for the courts when we already know the answer?
#24 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

You might be right. This change might not go anywhere. Gun rights groups may get a stay on it before it is enacted and then get it tossed out on review. But if a stay is not granted while pending review and you happen to be an unlicensed gun dealer are you going to be willing to risk being the first person the government attempts to prosecute under this provision?

It may not but if you are a law abiding would be gun purchaser buying from someone you don't know at flea market/gun show/web site/etc, are you going to be more likely to trust a private seller who performs the check or one who does not?
If it is enacted and you are a law abiding would be buyer who wants to make sure the gun they are purchasing is acquired legally then are you going to view anyone telling you they don't have to perform a check on you with a good deal of skepticism.

But can Biden unilaterally require background checks on intrastate commerce? Probably not. That's a power reserved to the state, no matter how retarded the state.
#19 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

That's a question for the courts. Even if not, this still has broad reaching implications. It would still effect internet sales, anyone traveling outside of their state to buy/sell and depending on how the courts define what is intrastate, it could also factor in whether the gun was originally manufactured or sold in a different state or and how payment was made, i.e. paypal/venmo/etc.

Ultimately this rule is meant to counter what the ATF has identified as the leading source of firearm trafficking which is through unlicensed dealers. If I were a person who engaged in such activity then I would want to make sure I am compliance else I risk opening myself to prosecution should a gun I sell end up involved in a crime and traced back to me. As far as I know, the person who sold the gun involved in the CVPA shooting that I mentioned above was not subject to prosecution but would be under this regulation.
On the flip side, I would hope that law abiding gun purchasers would recognize that a seller not performing a required check is probably involved in some shady doings and not someone you want to buy a gun from.

I'be been to three gun shows to look around asd see wht they were like...The supposed loophole does nots exist at gun shows and just another dem hone talking-point.
#5 | POSTED BY MSGT

There are more than 4,000 gun shows in the US per year. If the three you went to were all during the same year then your sample is size is less than 0.075% of the whole.

If you are interested in presenting your findings then I can arrange for you to come to St. Louis and explain the results of your definitive study to the students and faculty of St Louis Central Visual and Performing Arts High School where my niece was a student. Two years ago the school fell victim to a shooter who had first attempted to purchase a rifle from a licensed dealer at a gun show in St. Charles Mo. After failing a background check he tracked down a private seller at the show who sold him the AR-15 that he went on to use to shoot six people, killing two, just a few days later.

It is not a lie to label late term abortion as infanticide.
#5 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

What is a "late term abortion" and how often are they performed?

FISA has been so abused it really needs to be reined in.
#5 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

This bill would have done that. How do you feel about the GOP being so dysfunctional that they killed their own legislation? Do you think that voters should trust them enough to allow them to maintain that majority come November?

I support this but it doesn't go far enough. I feel any transfer of ownership/loan of firearm should require a background check. My brother has the habit of giving guns as gifts. He gave one to my stepfather once and stepfather. Stepfather says thanks and if any asks, you gave this to your mom. My brother didn't know that stepdad had a non-violent felony conviction on his record from 40 years prior.

There should be a way for anyone to validate the intended recipient of a firearm can legally possess one.

Now, I'm with liberals being irked that cons went way too far and didn't even compromise, but both sides do this often. But, cons went to the extreme and started wanting it banned everywhere and now the extreme right is fighting to make it federal.
#9 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

I have some questions that people who take the compromise position typically avoid.

If you believe life begins at conception and that abortion is tantamount to murder then why should it be a states issue? Why is it that only the unborn whose mothers are located within a certain geographic boundary are entitled to protection under the law?

Now that the republicans dogs have caught the car they are trying to blame democrats for the results.
They say things like why didn't Pelosi and Schumer change the law.

There is already an effort in Arizona to get an reproductive rights law on the November ballet. Organizers say they already have enough signatures well ahead of the deadline. Democrats across the state now give a collective thank you to the court on this decision because they just guaranteed passage of that measure but may have just headed control of the state legislature to Dems as well.

This is the worst position he could take.
On one hand he's ok with women being denied their fundamental right to healthcare if they happen to live in one of the s-hole states. On the other hand he's taking a weak moderate pro-choice position which will turn the religious right against him unless they happen to be huge hypocrites. Fortunately for Trump they are frequently huge hypocrites.

Neville Chamberlain would love Trump's plan.