Let's talk about the boyfriend loophole....
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 07. 2024
- Support via Patreon: / beautfc
The Roads with Beau: / @roadswithbeau
Check out the store. Stickers, mugs, hoodies, shirts, etc.
teespring.com/stores/beau-of-...
Check out the podcast: anchor.fm/beau-of-the-fifth-c...
The fact that the Violence Against Women Act even has an expiration date is beyond ponderous to me.
Legal matters should not have statutes of limitations.
@Just Dope Pretty sad when religious nut jobs have to pander for views.
Putting an expiration date on VAWA was a case of pandering to conservatives in order to at least get something passed
That's because domestic violence will go away in 10 years, like the Macarena, or Russia trying to take over Eur-...
You know what? Never mind.
@@chapablo 🙌🏼
It's about perceived "property". Women are perceived as property. Exact same diagnosis applies to refusal to "allow" females to control their own bodies. Ain't that right, Texas?
Yep. Abortion has been Talibanned in Texas.
That's a bingo.
Everything's bigger in Texas! *Especially the assholes
👏👏👏
Exactly. My first thought watching the video. Some of them might even have convinced themselves that it's not the case, but...y'know...actions vs words tells you an awful lot.
If it applied to them, more than half of the US police would not be allowed to have guns. Which would be a plus.
There's the truth
They’d have to be convicted, though.
There’s an ongoing problem with police being seen as above the law.
Cops usually just cover up for one another anyway but it is an interesting point.
TRUTH
Where's that "well regulated militia" I keep hearing about? All I see are a bunch of self-styled amateurs in mismatched camo.
Sounds like this would include accountability for actions. It doesn't seem like many Republicans support that anymore.
They're all about personal responsibility, until there are consequences for failing to be responsible.
when did they ever? the people pretending to be the party of Lincoln have never been the party of Lincoln. Lincoln would be a Democrat if he were alive today.
It's ALWAYS been rules for thee but not for me.
@@intuitionz1198 I liked your comment but I think he would be a neo-stoic humanist Satanist.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN IS THE ONLY PRESIDENT WHO WAS OPENLY NOT-CHRISTIAN.
He was relatively open about his lack of faith in the paranormal YHWH blodfairy myth. And that'ds a good thing. Chudistic conservaduhhrs DEBATE ME. 1v1.
@@phxcppdvlazi John Adams and Millard Fillmore were Universalists, which is not exactly Christian.
We do not protect our women, children, or elderly.
The only people in America that are protected are rich white men.
Or disabled
This explains why the boring men try very hard to stay the stereotypical version of manly. If they acted female, they wouldn't be protected.
Luckily Beau is one of the ones that does the protecting, so he can flaunt those princess Tshirts and not give one flying F.
Beau rocks most of the time at being a decent human being, therefore a decent man. Thanks Beau.
Not only women, children and the elderly, but men who are not white.
Or any people who are not the fake evangelical 'christians', or people of color, or immigrants, or or or... The list is so long that it's easier to say that we only protect right wing, wealthy, white men.
Beau, it's because they're scared someone is going to take their guns when they threaten or hit women, but you knew that already.
Don't forget the "Bought and Paid for by the NRA" part.
Lindsay Graham isn't going to threaten or hit a woman any time soon.
Nor is he going to upset the most disruptive, active voter mobilization program the GOP has.
Well… I think that says a lot about them too doesn’t it?
@Just Dope Go sell crazy someplace else.
@@jcspoon573 Oh, I think Graham has probably done plenty of things to women that they didn't want him to. Powerful white republicans almost always have...
A guy in another thread literally admitted to having a domestic violence record but said he still has the "inherent" right to own a gun "to protect my family." The cognitive dissonance in these people never ceases to amaze.
"Why are you willing to take his life but not his gun?" Brilliant!! This needed to be said!! Thank you so much!!
Friendly reminder to other users; *Adam Johnson* is a regular far-right troll that often comes here just to stir the pot, and will never argue in good faith. He used to comment under the username of John Smith before , and back then he once let slip being a paid troll to spread misinformation. Ignore him.
Property rights comment too.
@@danielr.y5261 Adam is also pure garbage who only exists to shit the proverbial bed. Ignoring, laughing at, and muting are the best options.
To quote and old SNL movie tag line, "Where life is cheap, and bullets are cheaper."
It's because it's the government doing it
I was a domestic violence counselor counseling victims and doing anger management groups. It was disturbing how many of them came in wearing gun branded clothing. I own guns and I know that doemstic abusers no matter what the relationship are dangerous to everyone. I thought of banning gun branded clothing but decided against it so I could identify the ones who wore that type of clothing and assess the threat. Some where sneaky and wouldn't wear it until weeks in because I never said anything about it.
I was also on the county Death Review Committee and we reviewed murders and murder sucides. Use of anything other than a gun was the exception.
Domestic abuser no matter who they are or their profession should not have guns.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I was so full of emotion, for personal reasons, n I closed my eyes n scrolled down...I landed on your comment, your truth, my truth, THE TRUTH
But Beau, how can police officers do their jobs if they lose their guns after beating their girlfriend or wife? Domestic violence is an indicator of future violence.
☀️🙂👋🏾
Lol
Johnny, you don't find replacements that are worth keeping if you defund the police.
Absolutely. A frightening number of partners of police suffer domestic violence.
Domestic violence IS violence. That's what people need to drill into their heads.
When I told my then-husband that I wanted a divorce, his first utterance was he was going to go buy a gun. I depended on his cheapness, and did not react.
If you consider all the efforts in re: what women are exposed to is about control; but with a gun as a penis substitute, a man will not take away another man's gun...because he wouldn't want it to happen to himself.
It's not about care: it's about control, and insisting your penis substitute be respected.
I bet a response of: "Go ahead, I already have one," would have blown his mind.
American conservative men are *extremely insecure.* It's not only the guns; they think that purchasing nicer clothes is "effeminate", eating healthy is "effeminate". Driving an eco-friendly/low mileage car is "effeminate". Cycling? "Effeminate".
Over here in Europe many guys take care of their appearance and health regardless of political leaning. Same goes for what car you drive, if any. These are absolutely non political topics here. Yeah, we're aware of the "European = gay" joke. Thing is, we figured out decades ago that masculinity is lived at its fullest when you don't go around shoving it down everyone's throats.
Well that explains why MTG loves guns so much lol
Word.
Couldn’t have said it any better
Ooooops. He went there. And I'm so glad he did. Republicans def see their women getting hurt as an insult on their property rights.
"He violated your property rights" this nails it. As always it is more about the ownership of women than their safety.
Al! Go! Rhythm!
Edit: Beau seems surprised that they value guns over girls. Judging from all the media I've consumed over the last 50 years, they always have.
Yeah. It's sadly no mystery
Let me put it this way. A gun is a tool to them. A woman, if she is not actively doing everything he wants when he wants, is less than a tool. She is a thing to be reviled and broken because she is less than useless to him (like crushing a can of soda after you drink it all). "Tools" come in handy then.
Speaking from experience 🙃
@@TheShadowChesireCat I'd go beyond that: women can and may challenge them, but a tool cannot. And some people just can't stomach the idea of that challenge.
Who's "them"? I was raised by "them", and I am here. And as I stated in my above diatribe, no piece of paper is going to stop an abuser. Also, I blame the preachers, the KKK, and King James (who was a rabid mysogynist) for all this toxicity - especially amongst Southern Baptists. There, I said it. I identified some of the "them". But, now I reside in a Blue State in the north. I voted for Hillary - not because I had a lot of confidence that she wasn't as corrupt as the rest of them - but because I know a snake-oil salesman and a bafoon when I see one! And Trump is! I voted for Biden for much of the same reason, but I have confidence in his administration and those who suffered in public service while the big Mango Mussolini was in the office. I see them doing the right thing, and getting ALLL of "them". But you see, not all of "them" are southern, or rednecked, or ignorant, or uneducated. A lot of "them" are Senators, and they come from wealth and privalege. It's eeeeasy, peasy to point a finger at some anonymous "them", and call the issue solved. I am sooooo prejudiced against "them", and I am guilty of it too. I call my relatives "rednecks" all the time. And since Trump, I only speak to 3 of them. And one of "them" is an actual methodist who wanted to be consistent in her conviction, and she could not in good faith endorse Trump. So, I have to remind myself that the enemy, "them"... they aren't all in one place. A shooting a night occurs right here in the north, up in Providence. That's why I don't live there. But it's not just "them" who have no value of human life, or women. Some of "them" mught live right around the corner from your neighborhood. Or, They might have a townhouse in DC on your dime. It's easy to be deceived by who "they" might be. Jes' sayin'.
@@AintSkeerdNWO
I think the "they" in this question could probably be gun rights absolutists. They certainly occur everywhere.
I think people with DV convictions probably should have their ability to own removed.
I'd like that to be countrywide.
*If those people value their guns that much, they shouldn't hit their partners.*
Funny how those who love the "personal accountability" refrain don't seem to actually have any interest in personal accountability.
...The people who trumpet "personal responsibility" are also refusing masks and vaxxes. As well as doing numerous other things that aren't responsible.
Personal responsibility only applies to those in need of "public assistance" to Republicans. 😡
No one had the heart to tell them early on that their favourite saying "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" is technically against the laws of physics. 🤦🏻♂️
Because taking away his gun would emasculate him, and THAT is unacceptable. Death is preferable to castration.
Ding ding ding
The Violence Against Women Act doesn't just protect women - it applies to male victims of domestic violence too. Men who are not victims of this think that doesn't happen much. It's all around them, just men tend to keep silent. The victims are usually strong, capable men and guns, for those that die, are often the weapon of choice, second only to poison. My dad was one of those victims, thankfully survived - and yeah, my mom tried to shoot the husband before him - would have, too, if the gun hadn't misfired.
A close friend of mine worked at Battered Person's Advocacy in our small area. They were only able to house women and children. She said they got 2-10 men a week calling for help and it broke her heart everytime that they could not arrange a safe house for them. We have a small local population so that is a lot.
This needs more focus in our society. I'm not a feminist because I want men beat down... I am a feminist because I want equality and in this subject there is certainly not equality.
Fully agree. And there's one part that gets overlooked. Children growing up in a home with domestic violence are constantly traumatized, but those that grow up where the man is the victim are also rendered invisible. Children aren't dumb, they learn fast that their very existence doesn't fit the preferred narrative of female victim, male abuser. For them it's not just the abuser who is telling them how much better life would be if they didn't exist - they get that from society too. These kids need to be seen and validated via the reality of what is happening in their homes being recognized for what it is.
My uncle was poisoned by his ex-wife (he luckily survived), and she weaseled her way out of things. He even caught on video her beating him and it was thrown out by the court because he filmed it without her consent... the abuse of male partners happens and it is disgusting that people don't talk about it much.
The biggest statistical change in areas with a lot of firearms is the number of women shot to death by abusive partners or spouses.
I was avoiding replying to this because it's so horrible I just didn't want to think about it.
But I feel I need to add my voice to at least say I am as appalled as you my friend.
Keep being you !! ^-^
The answer is fairly simple. They care about their personal interests above all else.
Their first thought is themselves, and they're not going to support anything they'd be afraid to have applied to them.
Makes you wonder what they've been up to...
That’s pretty much their position on most policies, WIIFM. I also think harming the other person vs disarming them is preferable because they want to inflict a painful retribution. I mean I get that last part, but I immediately think about consequences…
makes you wonder why the abortion bans don't allow exceptions for rape and incest. i haven't checked, but i also assume there's no exception for underage pregnancy.
@@sebcw1204
..."It's not the _child's_ fault the woman was r∆ped."🤦
... That's just it, though.
They think a human's personhood begins at conception.
To which I say: tell that fetus to quit freeloading and get a job! Down with the uterine welfare state!
@@grmpEqweer Yeah, I don't know why right wingers want to just open the country to unlimited numbers of uterus-immigrants. They'll take our jobs! And live on welfare because they're lazy and don't want to work! At the same time!
I've never seen a republican not put personal needs before any other matter on the table
"He violated your property rights, it waa an insult to you" right on the money Beau. Keep telling the hard truth.
Both of my sisters were physically battered. I remember calling the police and being told our officers don't respond to domestic abuse cases because it is good way for them to get shot. Our neighbor was being beaten by her husband and my Mom called. The Chief of Police picked up and answered, "wife beating isn't a crime it's a Saturday night sport."
I wasn't beaten I had furniture thrown at me, but I had damn good reflexes.
In the UK your second conviction for grievous bodily harm means a life sentence and that includes girlfriends and wives.There are a lot of people out there with undiagnosed bipolar disorder, men and women. This legislation could save lives.
There are bound to be more perpetrators who don't have mental illness.
Here's a thought: if you can't even conceive of getting shot at, maybe policing isn't for you.
If the cops don't respond, how does one get convicted?
@@lsingstock1646
I'm wondering when this was, and in what town, though OP probably can't say that last for personal safety.
Where I live, the police did come when I heard my neighbor beating the crap out of his partner. Took a while, but they came. I don't think he did any time, but I believe he was found convicted.
Edit: Found convicted. Wtf, brain???
@@grmpEqweer I thought somewhere in England, not positive. He said UK.
You also gotta make sure that prosecutors don't plead DV cases down, so that the perp can keep his gun. Any plea deal based on an arrest based on a credible DV police call, must include a DV rider that, whatever the charge plead to, it triggers loss of gun ownership rights. Also, if we get all of the Domestic Abusers out of the Police Forces, then, we will get nearly all of the Power Abusers out of the Police Forces. This would create a huge number of openings for police officers and that would give us the opportunity to train and hire Good Cops rather than the High School Bully that became a cop because it was a legal way to keep beating people up for the rest of his life.
You are spot on. My high school bully became chief of police . He and my ex are shirt tail cousins. He lied to the judge to get a warrant. The ex planted dope in my house and I did 18months. He 'retired' after he beat his wife and she was hospitalized. Now he is one of the heads of a local militia that he helped develope. He is an elder in church and makes a point to overly greet me when our paths cross. He is and always will be a bully and armed and dangerous even now. I was surprised that you knew the bully to cop story. Maybe its more common than I was aware of.
I shake my head at what could possibly be going through Republicans minds around these issues, too. There is no logic to any of it. But the solution for us is to vote every one of them out of office even with their gerrymandering and voter suppression laws.
Well, there is a logic, if you can call it that. It is fear based. I don't agree with it. But it says that any attempt to legislate firearms, will eventually creep toward confiscating all firearms. Many people feel that assault type weapons are too dangerous for unrestricted use, in the population. But that is a major argument against restricting their ownership. It fear based.
It’s very simple. “I have power. I want more power. I do not care about anything besides having and gaining more power.” They’re addicts, and they behave accordingly. They’ll lie, cheat and steal from their family to keep it. They’d turn their weapons on them for more of it. You can remember the term MARIE regarding motivation: Money, Addiction, Religion, Ideology and Ego.
Some men's sense of gender identity is tied up in gun ownership. And they LOVE their guns, far, far more than they can about human life because their powerful firearm makes them feel LIKE A BIG MAN.
Yeah. Their gender identity is often tied up in a perceived right to dominate women (especially) via violence, too.
@@cheriann6461 One of the loudest warnings of a mass shooter is spousal abuse.
Should it matter how they are related? Isn't the crime the same? Also, the statistics of people getting married are getting lower every year, so this only protects if people get married? Beau hit it on the nail.
Sadly laws take a long time to catch up with modern times
@good one Knock it the F off. You are spamming EVERY blasted comment, and NO ONE CARES about your nonsense. GO AWAY. STOP IT. You are getting INCREDIBLY OLD with this childish CRAP. Just KNOCK IT OFF.
@@willmorrison1022 Oh yeah, IC now, that stupid simpleton crap needs to be punished out-right!
They likely won't because the bar for DV is rather low, ie your ex gets in the way of the door when you break up with them and tells you you're not leaving until you answer all the questions they want answered. You push them out of the way of the door because they have no right to detain you, the relationship is over, you have not committed a crime and they are not the police. You're now a felon because you have no evidence they were detaining you. Regardless, they don't care about preventing arrests because police stations make their money from fines etc. If you prevent the arrests then no one is left to pay the fines.
As Beau said, it does cover cohabitation. And people who have not cohabitated but share a child, BTW. Look up Lautenberg Amendment.
That says it all, more worried about a bathroom than life...
Thanks for your time!
Thank you for trying to protect the mothers, daughters, aunties, sisters and friends of this nation. As well as others who would benefit from the protection.
After years of physical and emotional abuse from my ex husband, I know he would've killed me if he had a gun. I was 15 when I met him and I was 18 when I left him. Once I had my daughter I knew I had to run and run fast. I am in my late 50's now and no man will ever get away with beating me again. People like him have no business owning a weapon
Agreed. 100%. Even if the law changed, many LE agencies won’t enforce it just like they do for no contact orders?
LOL, why say you agree 100% but then point out how it won't work 100% of the time? Murder itself doesn't get investigated or prosecuted nearly as well as it should be in many jurisdictions, but the fact that some DO is because murder is illegal, otherwise the whole country would just be The Purge 24/7/365, ha.
If closing the 'boyfriend loophole' saves any lives at all, it's worth doing. Just leave it at that; they Republicans don't need any fuel for their stupid fires.
@@lir3379 Not sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that data suggests that the act of filing an order makes you more likely to be murdered? That's not very compelling if you actually bother to think about it. As of right now I don't have any no-contact/restraining orders on anyone, because I don't have anyone in my life who I feel might harm me. Call me naive but I suspect I am less likely to be murdered than anybody who DOES know someone they fear enough to file an order. The way you're framing it is that the order MAKES someone more likely to kill, when really the correlation is just about them having a clearly violent nature, so of course it's strong, duh!
@@lir3379 Let's see a link to "the facts" as you call it. If there are "several data collections", you shouldn't have any trouble finding at least one that you saw and linking it here, because I would like to see how this comparison was measured, what variables were involved. It sounds like you are either lying when you say you saw actual statistics (which I notice you're not even citing numbers for), OR you saw them presented by someone with an agenda, making a bad faith argument against filing restraining orders. Maybe you don't understand what I said before so let me put it more simply. OBVIOUSLY people who have filed a restraining order are more likely to be murdered than people who have not, because they know someone dangerous enough to commit murder! There is no way to get data on whether the murderer would have murdered without the restraining order! How do you not get what a ridiculously non-quantifiable comparison was supposedly made there? That's why I think you're just making it up.
Given the insane rate of domestic abuse by LEOs, I'm not surprised they wouldn't enforce this, and would go out of their way to cover it up, when it's their buddies that are the perps.
My ex, who was a black belt, got drunk and tried to beat up my 14 year old son. Then me, when I stepped in and said 'no'.
She was arrested for felony dv.
She violated the restraining order multiple times, the cops just made excuses not to enforce it.
Including telling me straight up that it was a woman and citing the current political atmosphere
In my less charitable moments, I wonder if they even care to protect their daughter if she’s dating someone they don’t approve of. This is another way to limit women by ensuring the world is too dangerous for them to have choices
They don’t care. You can’t look at these people like they’re human, because they’re effectively not. They’re drug addicts, and will behave just like them. They’d sell their daughter up the river if it meant more power and lobbyist money.
Yeah, back when I was still board of the GOP, this was one of the places I broke with the rest. Having ba daughter, it's even more important to me now.
That would potentially take a lot of guns away from the very ones who "protect and serve". 🤫
Those are some very hard-working quotation marks there.
@@Sableagle yeah, because they don't actually protect and serve... they are money fetchers for the government. And they get to swing their big "d!cks" (guns) around while they are "protecting and serving".
It's scary, I know. Maybe they need to take the word "women" out of the title of the bill. Maybe we should make it clear it applies to all domestic/romantic/stalking "partners." Is it different if a gay man stalks his crush, then kills him? Which is what happens with this "boyfriend" loophole. What if it's a woman beating up her boyfriend? It happens. Does she lose her guns? She absolutely should.
Yeah but see that would make too much sense for congress to comprehend
ABSOLUTELY. That's what I was thinking through the whole video, even though Beau's framing was excellent as usual; he should have included a "your son" hypothetical. For that matter, he could even say "your niece, your sister, you single MOM" because this kind of crime happens to people on the dating scene at all ages, and not all Republicans have daughters but they DO seem to need at least one personal reason to care about something, since they don't give a F about anybody outside their little circles.
You really think a gay man killing another gay man matters to that crowd?
@@tygrkhat4087
Heterosexual violence is more prevalent. There's just many more heterosexuals.
Hell, I’d go farther. I was beaten, threatened and had belongings destroyed by my best friend/housemate, a person of the same (apparent) gender (to clarify, we were both seen as women at the time, though that is not my gender identity); we had considered each other family for many years and raised two of our kids (still close friends/siblings) alongside each other. We were not romantic partners or biologically related, though. I’ve survived two abusive marriages before that. Everything about the situation was “domestic” for me, including my housing, support system, financial entanglements and relationships that expressed familial love.
But it wasn’t officially “domestic violence.” The cops wouldn’t help (they told me I was “wasting their time, keeping them from dealing with *real* crime”). DV organizations wouldn’t help (though some individuals were sympathetic). I was (and still am) already disabled, and the event led directly to a seizure and eventually homelessness.
This is partly why I consider myself a Relationship Anarchist: we need to stop assuming there is some higher value to intimate/loving/familial/connected relationships solely on the basis of romance, sex or biology. Abuse and violence can occur in any kind of relationship, and the effects are devastating regardless. When we hold up certain structures as more important, we also lay the groundwork for making those relationships more vulnerable as well, since there is societal pressure not to end them; while relationships that might be part of a significant network of support, but considered less “important,” will be viewed as disposable even if ending them for safety also causes a withdrawal of the larger network. We need a broader and more comprehensive view of, and interventions for, abuse/violence within connected networks, whatever the designation of the specific relationship.
Damn! Did not intend to go on like that… my appreciation and admiration to anyone who read it all! Stay warm and safe, folks.
Support Beau, don't forget to hit the like button.
Thanks, I literally did forget until I saw your comment, ha.
Most of the arguments I see on this are all tied inextricably to the "you won't take MY gun."
It doesn't matter to those people about anything further than their nose. If you could take that arsehole woman beater's gun then you might be able to take theirs. I've actually seen the argument "well what about police officers? how could they do their job if they can't have a gun?" Really? People who assault women (or anyone else) should NOT BE police officers! It's not even cognitive dissonance because there is no conflict within them :(
Because the issue is really about "control".
As a 50+ year old Republican who is a total gun fan and worked at many gun show, all I can say to you is, I'm with you on this 100% Work a few gun show tables for a few years and you will walk away mumbling to yourself ," Dam, we need to do something about this. This ain't right, not a little regulation but a lot". Growing up and living in the woods a gun can sometimes be handy. However, as I have explained to my two teenage daughters, " A gun is a single purpose tool. It has one job. To end life. and by that I mean, you are ending a life." There is no joy in this, there are no trophies no grand stories of conquest; what kind of person brags about taking of a life. There is only sadness. Yes, I'm a gun guy. Regarding regulation? Oh yah...
In my state, if you're convicted with an assault on your boyfriend or girlfriend, they ban you from ever owning a gun. You can't even live in a house or drive in a vehicle if someone else is in possession of a firearm.
Which state is that? I wouldn't mind living somewhere like that.
Illinois?
The IDVA is one of the broadest in the US.
I should clarify it is up to a judges discretion for all violent misdemeanors in Wisconsin. Every judge invokes this decision because they don't want it coming back at them if someone is killed.
@@NoName-OG1 Yes.
@@NoName-OG1 Yes. Wisconsin is unique. Actually more left leaning people here have CCW permits and open carry. Up until the 80's we had shooting clubs and ranges in the basement of schools and firearms safety was taught. We never thought of it as strange when you and dozens of other kids walked to school or got on a bus on range day with our .22's and 410's. We had contest, sponsors and scholarships. Even drawings to win. 30-30's before deer season.
Beau I'm afraid I understand completely. It's us silly women being hurt by our partners, that's no big deal or kinda our fault or not as important as everyone ever getting to have pew-pews... It's dead or bruised women mostly, no big deal overall
Women own guns too!
@@wildbill71855 Sure. But giving more guns to women won't fix DV issues; it would just make DV crime scenes even messier.
@@wildbill71855 how unhelpful in the larger conversation happening. What an annoying, frustrating, distracting thing you said, completely removed from the fact that so many are willing to sacrifice women and children to heartless violence for the sake of defense against imagined threats to their rights to guns. I don't know if you meant to be distracting and annoying but here we are I guess
Sadly the Republicans think women have no rights and are just property to be used however they see fit to be used. We need this bill to be passed.
@@IreneBrownMeow totally agree with you...he's an idiot.
Why any man would not care about the women in their lives is beyond me
Because anyone who makes legislation would turn a weapon on their own family before giving up the power they’re addicted to. Gun lobby says no, and the scum grovel. They don’t give a fuck about anyone besides themselves.
It seems that to some people, freedom is not the freedom to live but the freedom to kill...
Requblican motto: "Not What Smart People Would Do".
Does this fit the motto? Yes. Makes perfect sense in a nonsensical way.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that `my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.`”
― Isaac Asimov
@Adam Johnson The fact that Ernst and Murkowski have an R after their name is irrelevant. They are women, and women are only tolerated if they toe the line (eg. MTG); but the oppostion has a lip lock on the gun lobby's kiester.
@@tygrkhat4087
Lots of donations from the gun lobby.
they like dumb people
Beau: it would fit in with being a responsible gun owner.
Well there you go. these governors know a big part of their voter base is not.
Thank you. I spent a number of years working in an ER and saw so much domestic violence. The people who commit that violence should not have firearns.
The last person who slapped my Daughter, ended up in hospital, I may be 30 years older now, but I would do it again.
They’re more concerned about trans women because of their own disgust in them. Protecting their daughters and loved ones who are women doesn’t even factor between their reflex to sell out to 2nd Amendment gun fanatics and their intense disgust about trans women. I’m speaking from experience as a woman who is trans.
@good one ESAD, MF.
Guns work both ways, I sadly know to many women who pull the gun out of the safe every night after they tuck in their kids and check all the doors and windows just to be sure their ex can’t get in.
From a DV victim advocate, thank you so much for bringing this up, Beau!! So many people don't understand what is in or not in the VAWA.
I tend to be spoiled here in Illinois because our IDVA so comprehensive. It covers dating relationships without cohabitation. It even allows for "booty calls" to be relationships covered. Guns can be confiscated with or without criminal charges. If there's an OP and in some cases during an initial EOP, guns can be court ordered to be surrendered.
The issue that I continue to come up against is the judicial system not treating DV as the serious crime that it is. Not just to the people involved but to law enforcement responding.
And the continuing flaw in these arguments is that you're trying to make a rational argument to people who are not rational.
Those people aren’t really who he’s talking to. He’s talking to their kids or to those adjacent. Most of those people are too far gone and just need to be taken care of and kept from hurting other people.
I was at a town hall meeting with Oklahoma's Sen. Lankford I think several years ago, a little before those went out of style, but when citizens were having to raise red or green papers to signal their reaction to the subject, because some elderly woman got a little too persistent with one of our politicians and made him feel a little threatened. One woman he was familiar with as not being a supporter of his finally got a question in just before the allotted meeting time was up. She asked him why he did not support the Violence Against Women Act, and his response was something about a "poison pill" being attached that he couldn't go for. He did not specify what that was and got to scurry away without any further discussion, as the time was up. Now that I've watched this video by Beau, I'd bet that's what it was about. I had previously thought it might have had sonething to do with protections for LGBTQ folks. Republicans are not normally a big fan of those.
How about when people beat anyone up (aside from self defense) we take their guns?
I mean it's the unnecessary violence that matters right? Not the relationship to the one who is being violated?
Heck yes!... and make a better system of reporting those violent crimes, so victims don't have to go into a police station, praying the local authorities are going to believe them.
Jessica Ladd. "The System Survivors Want" 6 minutes, free on TY, and can be implemented at your workplace or school. (from 2016) Just start asking those in charge to be protected with a better system. If they say no, I suggest asking why they don't want to help protect their community.
We know most people don't commit violent crimes, but the ones who do are getting the opportunity to re offend, so it seems like there's a lot of em. We could prevent them from even committing these acts just by changing our old as heck reporting system. It's like oversight voodoo magic. I know y'all got 6 minutes and can use TY, get on it! Jessica Ladd. :)
Love y'all, take care!
I could be wrong but I did think partner violence was a much bigger predictor for attempted murder of the partner than other violence is for attempted murder in general. However, your suggestion would work as well, as long as all forms of domestic violence are included, and it might prevent a few more shootouts :)
Liberal/NDP Canadian here.. never owned or have any interest in guns .. so no skin in this game. But, I would say ...
I've known people who have beaten up a bully or two in their lives; even those who have started the fights. The law would have to be very carefully worded so that it doesn't hurt people who use physical violence proportionally and constructively, or it'll end up empowering the bad guys.
Where would you draw the lines? My first real job was working the floor at a small but raucous live music club, and things got violent sometimes. All through high school until recently, I've never tolerated bullies of any sort, and I've stepped in to help those that might not be as comfortable or adept with violence as I am, to stop them from getting hurt. I'm the opposite of a threat to anyone in my life, but a blanket ban on anyone with any violence in their past means people like me would have to be less likely to help, which means more victims of DV and the like.
Partner violence is a much greater indicator of likelihood to both escalate and reoffend than just violence. A law like that would have to be written very carefully, or it might just lead to more DV. Or, rather, some more intense DV reports.
@@RevShifty I mean this kindly. No sarcasm. Please read it like a maternal figure that loves you dearly.
If violence happens around you, maybe you're in the wrong place, enabling the wrong people?
There's a lot of Travis Scott attendees questioning why they supported a system that was willing to let them get hurt. I believe they made a mistake giving their time to people who didn't care about their safety because you shouldn't have to be the police or security at a music venue.
If you are actively protecting someone, you aren't going to be reported for that. Witnesses can see. Patterns of violent behavior can absolutely be seen if we create a database for it and convict people based on multiple allegations. We don't right now tho. Rarely do victims get to use the perps past offenses to prove intent. That needs to change. I mean just imagine this, it's backasswards:
Can you imagine a "friend" stealing your wallet 3 times, and your brother being like "He stole mine too!!!" Then honest and kind Sandy pops up from summer camp 6 months earlier and is all "omg my hello kitty wallet was in his luggage! I thought no one would believe me!"
But you could only tell people about how he stole from ***you***. Not about how other people also said they were wronged by that person. Only how YOU were wronged.
Kinda screwy. But that's exactly how convictions work in the USA.
I helped put ped0s in jail for the feds when I was 15-16 years old. I can't unlearn the shi^ I saw completely broken. I highly suggest Jessica Ladds system wherever you can implement it. It's far better than what we have.
Thanks for listening.
I am a gun owning democrat and I believe we need better laws against dv or any crime. More women are killed in dv than anything else some with guns and some without. I believe that any physical violence in a dv should have a ban on owning a gun. A gun to these people are another tool to be used for dv. This law need to be passed to protect all women in any type of relationships.
You don't leave a loaded gun in your kids room to play with, why in the name of god would put a gun in the hands of someone who has a record of violence towards anyone.
Beau, if you close the boyfriend loophole, there won't be that many cops left. Won't that send us into chaos if we get rid of horrible people abusing their power?
This is constantly trotted out, but the reality is the overwhelming majority of departments have policy that closes that loophole.
The only two reasons I can think why the republicans would oppose closing the boyfriend loopholes are because they themselves are abusers (which isn’t that surprising for a group that goes on and on about “family values” all the time) and or because the private prison system and weapons manufacturers profit off it.
What about the 40% of police though?
Seriously, could police unions be the ones keeping this loophole?
No, despite the fact that that's trotted out on the regular, the overwhelming majority of departments have policy that actually closes that loophole.
Beau - don't EVER stop creating content. Millions more need to hear from you. Keep doing this and they WILL.
Because the thirst for truth is unquenchable.
Thank you, brother!
Wow, “…insult to you and your property rights.” That hit a truth nerve.
Love everything you do Beau. Don't forget most cops are wife beaters :D
I cannot express in words how utterly sick I am of reading about women and children murdered by the man who professed to love them. I cannot glance at news without seeing another case of it. Yet it's "normal" in our sick twisted culture. Patriarchy is alive and thriving in the USA.
Hey Beau, I'm just posting to confirm your DV facts, and add that Australian Police have noted that DV escalation is the most reliable indicator in behaviour patterns of both future terrorists and serial killers (at least here). Like, if they're beating up a partner or their kids, they could harm others.
I feel like Ivan Milat, the Backpacker Murderer, is the best example. There's been others too.
I always ask myself "Would a republican do that thing?" If the answer is yes, I don't do that thing.
@Adam Johnson *too partisan.
I was being snarky by slightly altering a quotation by the fictional character, Dwayne Shrute, of the popular American show, The Office. Sorry you didn't see the intended humor. See, I sometimes use humor to make me feel better about appalling situations. But to each, his own.
@Adam Johnson Touché! My bad. Getting baked as the power fails due to ice storm. Love the show!
My opinion on the second amendment is this. It is an amendment it is not "GOD"given right. It is meant to be amended when needed. When it was written firearms only fired one bullet at a time taking up to a minute to reload. It's hard to murder enmasse with that type of weopon. It's time to do some amending to the second amendment. This is coming from a lifelong gun owner who is sick and tired of seeing our babies murdered on a daily basis. As for the regulated militias well I don't see much regulating going on.
God gave commandments, not rights.
That's exactly what I say all the time. Took forever back then to reload and shoot. Totally different today. And yes I'm sick of all children and innocent people getting caught in cross fire.
@@kendallsmith1458 God gave Commandments mostly about how to worship him, the rest was just simply copied from The Golden Rule.
@@why-even-try-brotendo "Thou shall not murder" was one.
@@kendallsmith1458 "thou shall not kill" and that is because you wouldn't want someone to kill you either. Golden Rule 101
👋🏾Add: That’s because they know it could be them next or their son. Basically the men have picked themselves over THEIR OWN women.
Add2: As they’ve always done.
Good morning ✌️❤️😁
@@Chuck-e7d heya!!! ☀️🙂👋🏾
Good morning D.
🌼👋🌹
inept selfish humans
@@d123mahesh2
Good morning dear lady 🌞👋🏼💐🥇🥳
Hope you and your family have a wonderful day 🙏🏼
ANY violent crime should suffice to remove a person's firearms. If they've already proven themselves violent, why allow them to use a firearm for their next violent episode?
Good, take their guns, but Good buddies, dad, brother, uncle, grandfather, mom well I'll just "borrow " one of their's. Then doesn't make the one borrowing also complicit in the crime?
@@dianadickerson749 yes and that's why the crumbly's are in trouble right now.
Gun owner here. Some of my guns were taken from men that beat women in my family. My grandfather took them if I beat someone the RCMP would come and take them from me here in Canada. I wouldn’t get them back until the victim thought it was ok. If convicted probably never. Up here domestic gun violence is about 1/3 of gun suicides. If the State has to intervene in anything shouldn’t it be to keep citizens from getting murdered? What else is Law Enforcement for.
It's sad that that "Cruel Intentions" T-shirt comes out so often these days. :-(
Wow. Just sad to see how Republican men lose logic about what they love and who matters. This is what the #GOP is saying: "The Republican's gun is more important than the life of the Republican's daughter."
Its not just republican men. I have seen republican women make the exact same arguments. I have heard republican women say "oh they probably deserved it"
@@Isador911 They are drinking out of the same Kool-Aid pitcher, I see it everyday here in Texas.
@@Isador911 Because they want their pos men to be proud of them! As in: "you're safe with me big-daddy. Please don't make me your ex with a 🎯 on my back."
@@patthenry3568 Just like mean wives of wealthy men (see Florida, Texas, etc): they have to keep themselves forever thin, tan and blonde or just like a 2-year-old car they're traded in. Patriarchy forces women into competition and abuse rather than help and support.
@@patthenry3568 yup, add to that the long term (as in from childhood) indoctrination they get in their "Christian" Churches. American Christianity would have been called Heresy against Jesus by the church leaders where I grew up.
Ik vind het tof om te horen (steeds weer) hoe je je verzet tegen 'incongruentie'. Dingen kloppen niet met elkaar en jij legt je vinger op de zere plek; 'pointing it out'. Het maakt niet uit of het vuurwapens zijn, oorlogsdreigingen, sociale achterstanden, oneerlijkheid over politieke keuzes, etc. Als het 'niet klopt' wijs jij erop....en daar ben ik je dankbaar voor.
You are on 🔥 today. Female, IND, EMS & RN, & former GUN owner here. Nothing to add. Carry on & thank you.
NRA's answer to the probem; every girl should carry a handgun.
GOP; great! this solves everything.
Slogans are very powerful things. Humans are just not that nuanced.
At least the ones who choose not to be
...We can be. But simple slogans are often meant to shut down complex analysis.
@@grmpEqweer : Very true! Whereas others have the opposite intention. Here is one of my own..
_Conservative-capitalism is an all out war against humanity, against life itself._
I'm hoping that has the opposite effect of shutting down complex analysis, though I don't doubt it has the effect of just shutting down any thoughts whatsoever for some people. :/
Do they see themselves as the "boyfriend"? Do they remember their lives when they were the boyfriend and think they'd not like it if they'd lose their gun "just for being violent"?
I think their twisted reasoning is similar to what keeps drunks driving on the roads. They can identify or empathize with the offender too easily. We see this attitude from judges and cops on down to the general public. They know it's wrong and dangerous but their mindset is squarely aligned with the bad guy's because it's a guy after all and they find it easy to insert themselves into HIS place potentially than in the role of ANY victim.
Take guns from domestic abusers, insurrectionists, and anyone connected to any group deemed a terrorist organization. Full Stop.
Animal rights activists are often deemed extremists and or terrorists. What organization is responsible for properly labeling individuals? They need proof where there is none.
@@thegratefulsteve I agree with that, must have open accountability. Can't take someones guns over a fistfight once with a rando, but when there's a pattern that's when it needs to be documented and shown as cause.
Southern Poverty Law has a system for sorting out hate groups, I don't see why we can't do the same for hateful individuals. Sure.
@@JustSomeGuyInTheMtns any group deemed a terrorist organization by the state... what????
Do you know what that means?
I totally agree! As usual, no rhyme or reason.
I am glad that this bill is designed to revitalize Biden‘s original bill.
Republican here - I'm ashamed of my damn party. We've gone from being conservatives to being authoritarian fascists. Domestic violence CONVICTIONS (just being accused isn't enough, sorry) should 100% lose you your right to a firearm. Period! Beau, any idea where I can find out my representative's support (or lack thereof) for this?
It is all about control. You said it right when you said they think of their female relations as property.
Several years ago my cousin got into a fist fight with his dad and lost his rights to own a firearm and the right to vote. I totally understand why he lost the right to own a gun but am still baffled why he isn't able to participate in self governance.
Fellons lose their right to vote. So, he must have been convicted of a felony.
@@nans969 Losing your right to vote is freaking draconian. This and not having an effective form of universal healthcare is what shocks me the most about USA.
@@nans969 yes, domestic assault but I still don't understand why people who make a mistake lose the right to vote. It must be the monopoly on violence that the government wants to maintain.
In at least some States, the loss of voting rights is ended after the sentence (including parole) has been served.
@@nans969 that is a lie ,your rights get re-instituted when you complete your sentence in most states.....I went thru this in FL....my rights were returned by the feds......then later the state passed a stupid law......it took the feds to make them step off.....only costed $1500 to get a right I had a right to...it's all about the Benjamins.....I now have a CCP an assortment of full auto .....and a class #3 permit......
Well howdy Beau!
I live in an area much like you Beau, the response that I get is “if your girlfriend gets mad at you she can have your guns taken away from you” or the one that really gets to me “I don’t want to loose my guns because sometimes you gotta straighten her out and it says so in my holy book.” In these troglodytes minds they figure loosing your 2nd amendment rights even for violent behavior is worse than death.
Fourth!!! 💐👍🏾 and ☀️🙂👋🏾
Fifth! At the Fifth Column! 🥳💐👍🏾 and goooood morning, Sir!!! ☀️🙂👋🏾
Hey Florida!🌼👋
@@d123mahesh2
Thanks dear lady but I believe Chuck Hall is 5th 😬
@@daisyelmir1289
Hellooo 👋🏼
I believe in what Beau is saying. If we make the right laws and enforce them, there will be much less reason for anti gun people to push for taking everyone's guns. Proactive approach.
Agree. But I'm disappointed at Beau's misrepresentation of the opposing side here. The difference between the government taking Jack's gun, and Jill's brother taking Jack's life, is the government. The US "justice" system is a joke, defendants are rarely afforded sufficient, competent legal support, plea deals are common, and those making the arrests are often corrupt and/or racist. Thus, this new provision could allow the government (even local government) to target key individuals who would otherwise stand in its way or help train others in responsible gun ownership. In fact, the fact that the law could apply to short-term relationships is precisely the problem: as the UK Spycops scandal (among many other examples) demonstrated, undercover police routinely dupe peaceful activists into relationships, using rape as a weapon of political control.
You will find very few Americans who believe that neither a Trump-led, nor a Sanders or AOC led federal government would not abuse its power. And fewer Americans still who believe that local government and the local justice system can be trusted and is not corrupt. Why give your worst enemy that much power?
And as I recall, Beau supports the above argument. In the Fall of 2020, when people were asking him whether a far right government could impose its will on the country, he said that it could not. Because the potential of 1) a general strike, and 2) mass armed resistance was too great. The threat of mass defiance is the only thing that has kept tyranny in check throughout much of the world for the past 100 years.
Now, I don't think that the proposed law is the biggest threat or would be the most important means for the government to target activists and leaders, and for that reason I support it. But failing to address the argument that most opponents of this law would use shows that Beau's target audience is not pro-gun opponents of this law, but liberals who want to feel good about themselves.
Those advocating for the removal of fire arms are responding to the mass shootings in schools, whole sale murder of woman and children by almost exclusively men, murder/suicides, running gun battles in the streets, random attacks on coworkers, bus drivers and armed robberies also predominantly by men. If gun violence didn't dominate the news the active anti gun crowd would never think about guns or feel the need to insist they be restricted. They would happily go about their gun free lives.
@@katiehettinger7857 it looks like most of these people are not law abiding citizens. The people that are law abiding citizens don't murder people. But the laws to take or restrict guns are only effecting law abiding citizens. Outlaws and criminals will not be effected buy taking or restricting guns.
Women shouldn't be able to drop charges against spouses/partners if they hurt them and the police arrest them. Violence is violence.
You should lose the privilege of gun ownership for violence against women and elder persons. All persons with restraining orders should lose gun ownership also.
So many comments and little reaction to the true answer dropped at 3:42.
"Beau, it's called acceptable collateral damage. If a few innocent women have to die for me to be armed so I can protect myself and my family from the dark hordes that's a sacrifice I am willing to accept", said the average gun owning WASP Male.
Am I wrong?
Good morning Beau and internet folks. I'm a rural democrat living in a red state, have a concealed carry permit. I have 3 daughters. They were given a firearm on their 21st birthday. If any of them beat up their partner, I'd support having their firearm confiscated.
Not too long ago I heard some right-wing politician dismiss this legislation as unfair because, "A man could give his wife a little shove during an argument and she could run to the police and his Second Amendment rights would be taken away! That's not fair!" I found it infuriating that he was dismissing domestic violence so easily. As if a "little shove" would have gotten the man arrested. And besides that a man shouldn't be shoving his wife in the first place, no matter how mad he is! I don't care if it's a "little shove" or not. That in itself shows a predisposition towards violence and yeah maybe his guns should be taken away. I will never understand the fanaticism that the NRA and right-wing politicians have against even the most common sense gun laws.
Great point-they consider women property rather than human beings.
Wow thank you for teaching me this today. Intimate partner violence is intimate partner violence. I do not understand this at all.
I am a gun-owner, several times over. I have no problem with certain people losing their right to own a firearm.
For the past few years, whenever people discuss changing gun laws, I always think of the congressional baseball game in 2107. If the then Majority Whip/Current Minority Whip gets shot and essentially nothing changes, then it's going to be a while.
Good morning everyone
Second!!! 💐👍🏾 and ☀️🙂👋🏾
Good morning ✌️
Good morning.
Morning Keith.
🌼👋
😊🥈
Good morning everyone and we are here Beau watching.
Yessir!!
Good morning 👋
Yup. As a responsible gun owner I completely agree with this. Just about all other gun related laws are pretty worthless regarding violence reduction and mostly punish responsible citizens, but this one excludes responsible folks and targets only bad guys with a gun.
Sabrenia Roper 1963-2005. That's why I support common sense gun legislation. Don't wait for a reason. It hurts too bad.
I had a guy, just recently, start bitching about Obama taking all the guns. Instead of telling him he needs new material, I just asked him how. How is that going to happen? It always shuts them down with a confused look because they can't explain how something, physically impossible, is going to happen.
If someone is willing to beat someone, other then self defense, they are capable of other violence. I'm a gun owner that thinks taking guns away in these cases is ok with me.
Sparky:. I am also a gun owner who agrees with you 100 percent.
Is there such thing as an NRA but, you know, for sane people? Perhaps said group could apply the proper leverage and get the ball rolling somehow.
Unfortunately, the freedom to own a gun outweighs the freedom from being physically abused.
You know what else I do not understand? Why so-called conservatives and the gun culture are OK with taking away a convicted felon's right to vote, right to privacy, and right to own a gun, but not that of a domestic abuser.
That tells you where they value striking a woman you're involved with in comparison to owning some marijuana.
It's more than likely more common in dating relationships because women get caught and stuck in these very early, before it's even established as a healthy relationship that would lead to long term, healthy cohabitation or marriage. This is a major gap in defense on behalf of women, and it is unsurprisingly the most vulnerable. thank you for bringing it to light. Imagine getting caught quickly into a predatory dating relationship that immediately entraps you. You know you're in danger early on but you're stuck, fight flight freeze fawn. I would have bet a lot of money majority of these issues happen in these kinds of relationships. These people don't care about what their kids are exposed to in terms of mental health and well being, critical thinking or empowerment. As always, it's about money, power, perpetuating ignorance and control.
@Just Dope Every comment? EAT YOUR OWN CRAP.
Me too. And I come from a relatively privaleged upbringing. I have a college degree - so I am somewhat smart. Submitting to this kind of behavior is learned, learned, learned - from the pulpit where the preacher pounds "women shall submit to men", right down to our mothers. Logic and critical thinking are in a hard fight with upbringing and emotions. From the outside, people say, "well, why didn't you leave... " (sometimes can't due to finances); or, "Well, you should've seen it comin' ". In my very personal experience, abusive husbands and boyfriends don't show their colors right away. In fact, the most psychopathic of them are very good actors, and manipulators of the opinions of those around them. They are the Kings of the Gaslight routine. They even have you doubting yourself, and apologizing. And in my case, when I did leave - I was told to "go home" by my mother and father. It's very isolating and confusing. So it's not always about ignorance. Smart & relatively well-off women can be abused and murdered too.
@@willmorrison1022 Just ignore or report as misinformation. Don't interact with paid trolls
@@willmorrison1022 it does. But why?
You sick of the crap too?!
Report.
Well, it will get passed if democracy survives. Unfortunately, that's not looking very likely.
The same men who would bury a guy for touching their daughter know the law would apply to them as well-that’s why they oppose it.
Beau, I, along with millions of others, find such wisdom and strength in your musings. Segue. . .In the mid '80s the book The Handmaid's Tale was published, written by Margaret Atwood. I was then in my mid-thirties and though the tale was chilling and fright-inducing, I believed nothing like that could ever come to pass. In America particularly. Over the last decade I have come to believe it is not only within the realm of possibility, it might be likely, and this dreadful feeling has grown exponentially over the past several years. And one of the devastating elements of this scenario is that it seems there is a subset of women actively promoting this. I guess I woke up this Sunday morning wondering what religion these people really espouse. It doesn't sound like Jesus' version of Christianity. Thanks, Beau. You express so beautifully what I often think.