Do you really belief that those filters remove the more than 4,000 byproducts of incomplete combustion? They obviously don't remove the nicotine. My solution was to randomly stick mini fire crackers in cigarettes at the factory. This way nobody would be able to say that it calms their nerves, not when they're wondering if it's going to blow up in their face any moment.
Secondhand smoke contains the same stuff as firsthand smoke, just in lower quantity.
You mean that first-hand smoke is of better quality? (Wouldn't know myself. Never tried it, but the second-hand stuff is disgusting and does kill people who have never smoked..
On the one hand, she was awarded workmen's compensation for the cancer that eventually killed her, but on the other hand, it doesn't really compensate for being dead.
That's okay, let's give them all the FREE DRINKING WATER they ever wanted, direct from Flint, Michigan. The old pipes could stand a good workout to help slake off some of the metal contaminants that have accumulated since it was put out of service.
And FREE THALIDOMIDE to give them a reason not to breed any more like them.
And FREE ATOMIC WASTE to help keep them warm in the winter, because Fukushima is still too hot to handle.
And FREE KIDDIE PORN on their hard drives so we can then rat ou the rats.
And FREE MOVIE DOWNLOADS so Sony can kick their ass. (the two kind of deserve each other, don't you thing?)
And FREE WINDOWS PHONES just 'cuz.
You don't need new laws to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons. That law has been on the books (Federal Gun Control Act) since 1968, but enforcement is really, really slack. Also, the act was amended to include a ban on people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence in 1996.
The laws are already out there. The NRA could improve it's image and make some allies by actually lobbying for their enforcement, rather than just paying lip service to the principle.
The constitution applies to citizens and non-citizens alike on US soil only. Various other laws, such as the ban on sex with kids and taxation, apply to US citizens all over the world, but that's not constitutional law. Other countries are completely within their rights to execute someone, even an American tourist, for insulting their head of state so if you've done so anywhere in the world and you visit them, you could be in serious trouble.
The US has no jurisdiction outside US soil over non-American citizens, same as the Canadian constitution has no jurisdiction over Americans in America. Otherwise, you'd have to allow trans to use the bathroom they identify with, as that's a constitutionally protected right in Canada. Countries are sovereign, and their citizens don't have any recourse to US legal protections when they are not in the US, same as Americans can't bring a firearm that isn't registered with the Canadian government into Canada, no matter how many US permits they show.
1. I read the comments you replied to - you didn't admit you were wrong - you moved the goalposts and I called you out on it. You originally said "It never happens." Then you changed it to "It almost never happens" when I provided examples, without admitting that your original statement was wrong.
2. There are no "legal fees" involved with letting transsexuals use the washroom that matches their identity. To the contrary, there are legal fees in not doing so, because except for those places that have passed bathroom bills, you'd get your ass sued. As for the "upset customers", first off, transsexuals and their allies (which are a significant portion of the consumer public) also have the right to be upset by not letting transsexuals pee in the safest place for them. Walmart, McDonalds, Target, Starbucks, Hudson's Bay Co. (parent company to Lord & Taylor and Saks Fifth Avenue), Barnes & Noble and many more have no problem letting transsexuals use the washroom they identify with.
If you want to boycott companies that support this policy, you can't buy an iPhone, a Coke, use Google or Facebook or twitter, drink beer from Anheuser-Busch, fly United, or drive a car made by Ford, GM, Toyota, Nissan, or Volkswagen. No Nikes for you either. No MasterCard, Visa, Amex or Discover card. No Ikea. No Home Depot. Don't eat anything from General Mills, Kellogg, Kraft, or Kroger. No DirecTV. No Sony, Universal, Paramount, Disney, and Warner Bros flicks. No Comcast, AT&T, or Time Warner internet either. And no NBA games.
They have all discovered that supporting the rights of transsexuals is just good business. It makes economic sense.
Your arguments don't match reality, so again, what are you really afraid of?
It doesn't cost anything to use the new name and gender, so why do you have a stick up your ass on this issue? Are you equally rude in other aspects? Do you insist on telling strangers why their dress makes them look fat? Or that their newborn is on the ugly side? When someone asks you if they have any bad points, do you bomb them with a list? You don't know Chelsea Manning, so what is your problem? You have no problem using my new name, even though you were around when I was first outed on slashdot 10 years ago, and it's been a bone of contention with the religious nutters in lots of threads for the last decade.
And if you think you can tell, you're wrong. Twice last year I rented out my spare bedroom to men for 4 months each. Neither had a clue. When I told the first one, he flat-out refused to believe it, even after I showed him newspaper clippings that mentioned it. Kind of embarrassing for him because every time he saw Caitlyn Jenner on TV he went off on how transsexuals should stay as god made them (even though he wasn't religious), that they weren't really women, etc.But now he things we're great. So does the second one - he would have moved back here a few weeks ago if he had gotten a job locally.
So you can't necessarily tell, and you run the risk of assuming a genetic XX is actually a transsexual because, as I said before, not all women pass as women.
4 of my sisters are just like you. Refused to use the right name and gender. One of them even did the same thing when her best friend brought one with her to visit my sister. Embarrassed the crap out of her best friend, with the same excuse you used - "I knew him as a man, and he'll always be a man to me." Even though it's obvious that she didn't know him, not really.
Being rude "on general principles" on a subject that you are not qualified to pass judgement on in the first place is just ignorant. You are not a medical specialist in this. I use them as my sources to justify my stand - what do you use to justify yours?
Even if they remove the second amendment, what will change? Nothing. People will still have the acquired right to own firearms. It's simply not possible to find and confiscate the more than 300,000,000 firearms in the US. Any such attempt would be challenged in state courts first, and an injunction issued. Even if Hillary wins, she's (at most) a 1-term president. The legal wrangling won't be over before she's out of office.
Do people have a right to own firearms even without the 2nd amendment? Of course. Is it reasonable to have restrictions on the types of weapons, and to treat them like cars, with requirements for licensing the user and registration of the gun? Why not - people should be required to go through enough training so that they don't just pull their gun out in a parking lot and shoot the owner of the truck that was being hijacked instead of the robber (thinking that they could actually hit their target at 50' with a handgun with no training), or young kids finding guns in purses or on the floor of the car and shooting their moms.
Everyone would be better off if the root causes of gun violence were tackled. When I was 15, I bought a semi-auto rifle, and would go to Canadian Tire once in a while to pick up a box or two of bullets to plink tin cans. No permission from parents, no registration, no proof of ID, nothing. It was no big deal because the sale of hand guns was prohibited to almost everyone.
I think my parents found out about it when two of my sisters went snooping in the room, found where I had hidden it, snooped around and found the magazine (which was separate from the rifle) and the bullets (which were separate from both), and shot the neighbor's underwear hanging on the clothes line. Or maybe they didn't. We never talked about it because owning a rifle was no big deal, people weren't going around shooting each other.
So what are the root causes of gun violence? Most deaths by firearms are suicides, so better access to mental health care would cut the death rate by almost 2/3. Legalizing and controlling soft drugs would cut the money flow to organized crime. Reducing the economic disparity between different groups would go a long way to getting rid of the "us vs them" mentality and replace it with "we are all in this together" A big part of that last one is to remove municipal taxes as the base for funding schools. The schools should meet the same standards for everyone, regardless of where they live, not have some be high-tech wonders and others with moldy ceilings and text books that are held together with duct tape.
Really? A "phony fact?" Even today the law says that the militia is limited to able-bodied men between 17 and 45 and women who are members of the national guard. Other ages are not legally part of the militia, and neither are women who are not in the national guard. Both organized and unorganized militia have the smae limitations.
Strange, but Canada has the highest percentage of immigrants in the population of any G6 country (1 in 5 Canadians is an immigrant) and people aren't nearly as xenophobic. It also takes in more immigrants per capita every year than the US, and there's no public outcry to stop taking in refugees. On the contrary, half the refugees that came in from the Syrian war since December were sponsored by individuals and community groups, and requests for donations of winter clothes, etc., had to be stopped because there were just too many donations, the donation centers were overwhelmed with the response.
Perhaps Canadians aren't worried about "losing their culture" because Canada is a post-Christian secular country so there's nobody playing politics portraying immigrants as threats to the church. Most people simply don't give a sh*t about religion in their daily lives. Mellow out already.
Don't be stupid. If it had nothing to do with the militia, why include them in the wording? They could have just written "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Let's look at the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" You don't see them preceding that with "In order to promote a free and open society" or any other such, because there's no need to. So why mention the militia in the 2nd amendment unless they meant it to mean something specific?
Actually, that fact can easily be made relevant. Water under pressure due to being heated to the point it changes phase makes a fine propellant for a plastic 3d printed gun. A battery and heating coil and there's not a single trace of explosives for a dog or a detector to find.
With the lack of respect for citizen's privacy rights, the unconstitutional mass surveillance of citizens, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any president to enforce that law. They all crap their shorts when the NRA rattles their cage.
If someone no longer has a functioning penis and testicles, what harm is there in letting them use the women't washroom?
Are you saying transsexual men will have to demonstrate that their penis and testicles no longer function before using a women's bathroom?
Just what are you afraid of?
No - I'm asking what you are afraid of. That's exactly what I asked. What credible threat is there? So far, it's been all noise, no facts in the bathroom debate.
I'm not afraid of anything. I just correctly identified who started this bathroom legalization nonsense. I already told you about the common sense "rule" that's been in effect as a matter of reality, and the whole thing is a gigantic waste of time, money, and political energy. Pretty much what Blair White says -- a passing trans who's actually sane and not the kind of entitled authoritarian that you find on the "progressive" left.
And what is the problem with one that is the same in all respects except for appearance? Why the discrimination? What is there to fear? Besides, we've had cases of men following women into the bathroom because they wrongfully thought the woman was a transsexual. ABC video. Even women born with 2 x chromosomes don't all "pass."
You are posting in a public forum which transsexuals read.
Yes, that's the nature of public debate and discussion. You don't have a right not to have your feelings hurt in such matters.
Mice way to avoid the question by not quoting the rest. That's pure chicken-shit.
By your thinking, the government shouldn't be spending money subsidizing the development and distribution of orphan drugs. Orphan drugs, in the US, are those developed for conditions that affect less than 200,000 people.
It depends. How much money is spent as a percentage of all drug research spending? You have to allocate your resources sensibly, because resources are finite. That doesn't mean zero should go to less common diseases, but it's be stupid to use the equivalent of cancer-level research on a rare disease.
The amount of political capital being spent on trans issues is ridiculous, and it's precisely because the "progressive" left has achieved their goals and kept moving down the "oppressed" stack.
How much money does it cost to let transsexuals use women's bathrooms? None. How much money does it cost to address transsexuals by their legal name? None. You have an issue with both of these, and there is NO financial justification for it. How much money has been wasted in courts fighting over this? A lot. And let's look at Charlotte, North Carolina as one example. They lost expansions by Deutsche Bank (250 jobs) and Paypal (400 jobs), among others. They also lost the NBA All-Star game, with the millions that brings in. Was it worth it, when there has never been an incident perpetrated by a transsexual in a woman's bathroom? No.
And transsexuality, at least in male-to-female transsexuals, also starts in the womb. So what's your point?
I'm talking about preventable birth defects. I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you saying we should do genetic studies and cure transsexuals in the womb? Because I can't equate preventable birth defects due to a disease-carrying mosquito with not calling Bradley Manning "Chelsea".
And you know that transsexuality isn't preventable in the womb? We don't know enough to say one way or another.
"Virtue signaling?" Hardly.
So "Brave and Stunning" that South Park had to do a show on it.
Never saw it. I have better things to do with my time than sit around watchi
Keeping guns out of felon's hands isn't going to happen no matter how many laws you pass. That much is obvious. The real problem is that it's possible to 3d print a gun that's almost all plastic. Sure, it'll one work once, twice at most, but often that's enough to make a credible threat to, for example, robbery victims.
The subject is the constitution. Besides, there are far too many guns in the US to actually enforce a clamp-down without the populace being on-side. Better to work on better mental health to reduce the number of firearm deaths by more than half (suicide is the #1 cause, almost 2/3 of all gun deaths).
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with ovaries is that women are born with all the eggs they're ever going to have, so you can rack up years or decades of exposure.
You'd die of thirst if all you drank was heavy water. The body can't use it.
Actually, it's so 50's. By the 90's nobody could claim ignorance.
Do you really belief that those filters remove the more than 4,000 byproducts of incomplete combustion? They obviously don't remove the nicotine. My solution was to randomly stick mini fire crackers in cigarettes at the factory. This way nobody would be able to say that it calms their nerves, not when they're wondering if it's going to blow up in their face any moment.
Maybe not to you, but from my perspective listening to people hork up a lung and then light up, rinse and repeat, doesn't seem like much of a life.
You know the end is near when they say "Why should I quit smoking? It's the only thing left that I enjoy!"
So it's only just that cyclists should receive compensation for having to breathe auto exhaust, no?
Yes.
Secondhand smoke contains the same stuff as firsthand smoke, just in lower quantity.
You mean that first-hand smoke is of better quality? (Wouldn't know myself. Never tried it, but the second-hand stuff is disgusting and does kill people who have never smoked..
On the one hand, she was awarded workmen's compensation for the cancer that eventually killed her, but on the other hand, it doesn't really compensate for being dead.
die in a fire.
That's what yo'all gets for smoking in bed. That'll learn ya not to do it ag'in :-)
That's okay, let's give them all the FREE DRINKING WATER they ever wanted, direct from Flint, Michigan. The old pipes could stand a good workout to help slake off some of the metal contaminants that have accumulated since it was put out of service.
And FREE THALIDOMIDE to give them a reason not to breed any more like them.
And FREE ATOMIC WASTE to help keep them warm in the winter, because Fukushima is still too hot to handle.
And FREE KIDDIE PORN on their hard drives so we can then rat ou the rats.
And FREE MOVIE DOWNLOADS so Sony can kick their ass. (the two kind of deserve each other, don't you thing?)
And FREE WINDOWS PHONES just 'cuz.
Sometimes, free stuff ends up costing a lot more.
Sorry, this is just a British consumer rights lobby. Call me when Elizabeth Warren goes on the warpath over this.
You don't need new laws to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons. That law has been on the books (Federal Gun Control Act) since 1968, but enforcement is really, really slack. Also, the act was amended to include a ban on people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence in 1996.
The laws are already out there. The NRA could improve it's image and make some allies by actually lobbying for their enforcement, rather than just paying lip service to the principle.
The constitution applies to citizens and non-citizens alike on US soil only. Various other laws, such as the ban on sex with kids and taxation, apply to US citizens all over the world, but that's not constitutional law. Other countries are completely within their rights to execute someone, even an American tourist, for insulting their head of state so if you've done so anywhere in the world and you visit them, you could be in serious trouble.
The US has no jurisdiction outside US soil over non-American citizens, same as the Canadian constitution has no jurisdiction over Americans in America. Otherwise, you'd have to allow trans to use the bathroom they identify with, as that's a constitutionally protected right in Canada. Countries are sovereign, and their citizens don't have any recourse to US legal protections when they are not in the US, same as Americans can't bring a firearm that isn't registered with the Canadian government into Canada, no matter how many US permits they show.
1. I read the comments you replied to - you didn't admit you were wrong - you moved the goalposts and I called you out on it. You originally said "It never happens." Then you changed it to "It almost never happens" when I provided examples, without admitting that your original statement was wrong.
2. There are no "legal fees" involved with letting transsexuals use the washroom that matches their identity. To the contrary, there are legal fees in not doing so, because except for those places that have passed bathroom bills, you'd get your ass sued. As for the "upset customers", first off, transsexuals and their allies (which are a significant portion of the consumer public) also have the right to be upset by not letting transsexuals pee in the safest place for them. Walmart, McDonalds, Target, Starbucks, Hudson's Bay Co. (parent company to Lord & Taylor and Saks Fifth Avenue), Barnes & Noble and many more have no problem letting transsexuals use the washroom they identify with.
If you want to boycott companies that support this policy, you can't buy an iPhone, a Coke, use Google or Facebook or twitter, drink beer from Anheuser-Busch, fly United, or drive a car made by Ford, GM, Toyota, Nissan, or Volkswagen. No Nikes for you either. No MasterCard, Visa, Amex or Discover card. No Ikea. No Home Depot. Don't eat anything from General Mills, Kellogg, Kraft, or Kroger. No DirecTV. No Sony, Universal, Paramount, Disney, and Warner Bros flicks. No Comcast, AT&T, or Time Warner internet either. And no NBA games.
They have all discovered that supporting the rights of transsexuals is just good business. It makes economic sense.
Your arguments don't match reality, so again, what are you really afraid of?
It doesn't cost anything to use the new name and gender, so why do you have a stick up your ass on this issue? Are you equally rude in other aspects? Do you insist on telling strangers why their dress makes them look fat? Or that their newborn is on the ugly side? When someone asks you if they have any bad points, do you bomb them with a list? You don't know Chelsea Manning, so what is your problem? You have no problem using my new name, even though you were around when I was first outed on slashdot 10 years ago, and it's been a bone of contention with the religious nutters in lots of threads for the last decade.
And if you think you can tell, you're wrong. Twice last year I rented out my spare bedroom to men for 4 months each. Neither had a clue. When I told the first one, he flat-out refused to believe it, even after I showed him newspaper clippings that mentioned it. Kind of embarrassing for him because every time he saw Caitlyn Jenner on TV he went off on how transsexuals should stay as god made them (even though he wasn't religious), that they weren't really women, etc.But now he things we're great. So does the second one - he would have moved back here a few weeks ago if he had gotten a job locally.
So you can't necessarily tell, and you run the risk of assuming a genetic XX is actually a transsexual because, as I said before, not all women pass as women.
4 of my sisters are just like you. Refused to use the right name and gender. One of them even did the same thing when her best friend brought one with her to visit my sister. Embarrassed the crap out of her best friend, with the same excuse you used - "I knew him as a man, and he'll always be a man to me." Even though it's obvious that she didn't know him, not really.
Being rude "on general principles" on a subject that you are not qualified to pass judgement on in the first place is just ignorant. You are not a medical specialist in this. I use them as my sources to justify my stand - what do you use to justify yours?
Even if they remove the second amendment, what will change? Nothing. People will still have the acquired right to own firearms. It's simply not possible to find and confiscate the more than 300,000,000 firearms in the US. Any such attempt would be challenged in state courts first, and an injunction issued. Even if Hillary wins, she's (at most) a 1-term president. The legal wrangling won't be over before she's out of office.
Do people have a right to own firearms even without the 2nd amendment? Of course. Is it reasonable to have restrictions on the types of weapons, and to treat them like cars, with requirements for licensing the user and registration of the gun? Why not - people should be required to go through enough training so that they don't just pull their gun out in a parking lot and shoot the owner of the truck that was being hijacked instead of the robber (thinking that they could actually hit their target at 50' with a handgun with no training), or young kids finding guns in purses or on the floor of the car and shooting their moms.
Everyone would be better off if the root causes of gun violence were tackled. When I was 15, I bought a semi-auto rifle, and would go to Canadian Tire once in a while to pick up a box or two of bullets to plink tin cans. No permission from parents, no registration, no proof of ID, nothing. It was no big deal because the sale of hand guns was prohibited to almost everyone.
I think my parents found out about it when two of my sisters went snooping in the room, found where I had hidden it, snooped around and found the magazine (which was separate from the rifle) and the bullets (which were separate from both), and shot the neighbor's underwear hanging on the clothes line. Or maybe they didn't. We never talked about it because owning a rifle was no big deal, people weren't going around shooting each other.
So what are the root causes of gun violence? Most deaths by firearms are suicides, so better access to mental health care would cut the death rate by almost 2/3. Legalizing and controlling soft drugs would cut the money flow to organized crime. Reducing the economic disparity between different groups would go a long way to getting rid of the "us vs them" mentality and replace it with "we are all in this together" A big part of that last one is to remove municipal taxes as the base for funding schools. The schools should meet the same standards for everyone, regardless of where they live, not have some be high-tech wonders and others with moldy ceilings and text books that are held together with duct tape.
Really? A "phony fact?" Even today the law says that the militia is limited to able-bodied men between 17 and 45 and women who are members of the national guard. Other ages are not legally part of the militia, and neither are women who are not in the national guard. Both organized and unorganized militia have the smae limitations.
Read it and weep.
They obviously don't support it enough to lobby strongly for it. Actions speak louder than words.
Plastic and ceramic guns and knives aren't going to trigger a metal detector.
Strange, but Canada has the highest percentage of immigrants in the population of any G6 country (1 in 5 Canadians is an immigrant) and people aren't nearly as xenophobic. It also takes in more immigrants per capita every year than the US, and there's no public outcry to stop taking in refugees. On the contrary, half the refugees that came in from the Syrian war since December were sponsored by individuals and community groups, and requests for donations of winter clothes, etc., had to be stopped because there were just too many donations, the donation centers were overwhelmed with the response.
Perhaps Canadians aren't worried about "losing their culture" because Canada is a post-Christian secular country so there's nobody playing politics portraying immigrants as threats to the church. Most people simply don't give a sh*t about religion in their daily lives. Mellow out already.
Don't be stupid. If it had nothing to do with the militia, why include them in the wording? They could have just written "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Let's look at the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" You don't see them preceding that with "In order to promote a free and open society" or any other such, because there's no need to. So why mention the militia in the 2nd amendment unless they meant it to mean something specific?
Actually, that fact can easily be made relevant. Water under pressure due to being heated to the point it changes phase makes a fine propellant for a plastic 3d printed gun. A battery and heating coil and there's not a single trace of explosives for a dog or a detector to find.
With the lack of respect for citizen's privacy rights, the unconstitutional mass surveillance of citizens, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any president to enforce that law. They all crap their shorts when the NRA rattles their cage.
If someone no longer has a functioning penis and testicles, what harm is there in letting them use the women't washroom?
Are you saying transsexual men will have to demonstrate that their penis and testicles no longer function before using a women's bathroom?
Just what are you afraid of?
No - I'm asking what you are afraid of. That's exactly what I asked. What credible threat is there? So far, it's been all noise, no facts in the bathroom debate.
I'm not afraid of anything. I just correctly identified who started this bathroom legalization nonsense. I already told you about the common sense "rule" that's been in effect as a matter of reality, and the whole thing is a gigantic waste of time, money, and political energy. Pretty much what Blair White says -- a passing trans who's actually sane and not the kind of entitled authoritarian that you find on the "progressive" left.
And what is the problem with one that is the same in all respects except for appearance? Why the discrimination? What is there to fear? Besides, we've had cases of men following women into the bathroom because they wrongfully thought the woman was a transsexual. ABC video. Even women born with 2 x chromosomes don't all "pass."
You are posting in a public forum which transsexuals read.
Yes, that's the nature of public debate and discussion. You don't have a right not to have your feelings hurt in such matters.
Mice way to avoid the question by not quoting the rest. That's pure chicken-shit.
By your thinking, the government shouldn't be spending money subsidizing the development and distribution of orphan drugs. Orphan drugs, in the US, are those developed for conditions that affect less than 200,000 people.
It depends. How much money is spent as a percentage of all drug research spending? You have to allocate your resources sensibly, because resources are finite. That doesn't mean zero should go to less common diseases, but it's be stupid to use the equivalent of cancer-level research on a rare disease.
The amount of political capital being spent on trans issues is ridiculous, and it's precisely because the "progressive" left has achieved their goals and kept moving down the "oppressed" stack.
How much money does it cost to let transsexuals use women's bathrooms? None. How much money does it cost to address transsexuals by their legal name? None. You have an issue with both of these, and there is NO financial justification for it. How much money has been wasted in courts fighting over this? A lot. And let's look at Charlotte, North Carolina as one example. They lost expansions by Deutsche Bank (250 jobs) and Paypal (400 jobs), among others. They also lost the NBA All-Star game, with the millions that brings in. Was it worth it, when there has never been an incident perpetrated by a transsexual in a woman's bathroom? No.
And transsexuality, at least in male-to-female transsexuals, also starts in the womb. So what's your point?
I'm talking about preventable birth defects. I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you saying we should do genetic studies and cure transsexuals in the womb? Because I can't equate preventable birth defects due to a disease-carrying mosquito with not calling Bradley Manning "Chelsea".
And you know that transsexuality isn't preventable in the womb? We don't know enough to say one way or another.
"Virtue signaling?" Hardly.
So "Brave and Stunning" that South Park had to do a show on it.
Never saw it. I have better things to do with my time than sit around watchi
Keeping guns out of felon's hands isn't going to happen no matter how many laws you pass. That much is obvious. The real problem is that it's possible to 3d print a gun that's almost all plastic. Sure, it'll one work once, twice at most, but often that's enough to make a credible threat to, for example, robbery victims.
The subject is the constitution. Besides, there are far too many guns in the US to actually enforce a clamp-down without the populace being on-side. Better to work on better mental health to reduce the number of firearm deaths by more than half (suicide is the #1 cause, almost 2/3 of all gun deaths).