The Bipartisan Senate Gun Control Agreement - Anyone Care to Explain Why This Grandstanding Piece of Pseudo-Legislative BS Wearing Lipstick Is Supposedly So "Significant?"

Because 10 Democrat and 10 Republican Senators reached an agreement on a bill for gun control measures, which must now be voted on in general Congress?

So what, that's their job - we're supposed to praise them for even attempting to finally do it?

Also ...

What it does: 

1)  Enhanced background checks and mental health records of any prospective buyer under the age of 21.

2)  Prohibit anyone convicted of domestic violence, or under a restraining order for domestic violence, from purchasing or owning a gun (previously only if married to and currently living with a domestic violence victim).

3)  "Red flag laws," granting law enforcement the indiscriminate authority to confiscate the guns from anyone law enforcement deems dangerous or at risk due to prior violence or mental health concerns.

4)  Funding for states to bolster safety and mental health resources at schools.

What it does NOT do:

1)  Ban assault rifles or guns with large magazines of many rounds.

2)  Change the legal age of gun ownership from 18 to 21 (or 25).

3)  Require gun safety training courses.

4)  Increase the "cooling off" waiting time to buy a gun from 3 days to weeks.

*5)  Define the term "dangerous" with those "Red-Flag" laws for law enforcement to be able to take a person's gun away, nor or outline any legal consequences for false accusations made by law enforcement or those reporting to law enforcement*.

6)  Define any other consequences for  anyone who breaks the new laws, other than your gun being taken away. 

At first, I was surprised Republicans didn't balk more at #5 on the second list - but then I remembered they're all about allowing law enforcement to have the power to do whatever the eff they feel like doing, especially when it comes to people of color :(

As a result, if these red flag laws are not well defined - in fact, even if they are -  I foresee people of color getting their guns taken away at an alarmingly faster rate versus whites just because law enforcement feels like it !

Additionally, false accusations coming law enforcement's way from junior high and high school students towards other students could become just another form of bullying. 

Thus, there should at least be steep legal consequences for those reporting false accusations by law enforcement, staff, or other students - and conversely, for law enforcement who does not take tips seriously, IMO.

Therefore, though press is hailing this as "a significant step in the right direction," IMO, it's vague and not very well thought out - and it most certainly doesn't go far enough.

Until we ban rapid-fire assault rifles unnecessarily in the hands of civilians, particularly under the age of 21 (which most school mass shooters have been), this is the gun equivalent of a restraining order - basically, a piece of paper that will do little to stop the American epidemic of teenage school shooters.

I suspect the reason press is hailing this as significant is because it's bipartisan and not voted upon/signed into law yet.

So we're all supposed to now essentially reward Republicans with positive reinforcement for good behavior, like "Good Republicans - Treat?" LOL

I don't think so.

We need to call this piece of grandstanding pseudo-legislation they came up with, just so they could appear to be doing something to get re-elected,  what it is - bullshit.

Bullshit that I actually foresee as actually potentially being quite problematic for the above reasons I stated - sorry.