Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Many Children Must Democrats Execute Before Parents Surrender?
That’s what’s going on here.
Democrats commit the vast majority of every type of crime imaginable, including school shootings. Democrats secretly rejoice in their heart of hearts at each school shooting. No matter who did it, the apparent solution to the apparent problem is one of their political Holy Grails — the disarmament of Americans. The solution to too many guns is indeed fewer guns, but too many guns is not the problem. The problem is too many lawless idiots; full-grown infants with no emotional continence or impulse control. Shrieking in public, raging at traffic, shooting at children.
The Second Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms. It recognizes the existing right and forbids the government from infringing upon it.
Hold on to your guns like they were your kids, and your kids like they are your guns.
Here’s a church school I’d happily send kids to:
Instead of giving up our guns, this is how we actually stop school shootings.
Pass it on. pic.twitter.com/IsNofj7MEh— Anny Sharma (@anny25717503) March 27, 2023
.
Published in General
I understand and agree Nathanael. Just trying to point out that it’s not even apples to apples comparison in our current environment. 1) there really are nefarious and crazy tyrants wanting to take our guns, so 2) there’s no institutional trust enough to engage in a sincere debate on the topic with opponents of goodwill and reason.
Don;t know what you’re banging on about. I’ll hand over a weapon if needed at a traffic stop. I’m not being unreasonable. I just am not falling for the disarmament line you’re pushing, “I support the second amendment BUT…”
They recognize their own gender, it’s their sex that they can’t see.
Nope. Gender isn’t even a thing (unless you’re talking about Romance languages). It’s made up. Anyone so far out of touch with reality as to deny one’s biological sex in favor of some made up “gender” should be treated for mental illness. Being incapable of recognizing reality is kind of the definition of psychosis.
I don’t want the groomers and their cheerleaders deciding who is normal.
And who’s an “extremist.” Already in heavy use by our pResident along with “domestic terrorist” used by the inJustice Department to refer to parents who speak out at school board meetings.
I give no weight to their insane rubric.
All models are wrong, some models are useful.
This one is destructive.
Anyone for Red Flag laws is against people getting the mental health treatment that they desperately need.
So, we know that DA Venters is against mental health treatment in pursuit of taking guns away from people.
Train and arm all teachers. Make it mandatory. If they don’t like it, they can find other jobs.
I want very much to agree with this….but have you seen the teachers featured regularly by Libs of Tiktok, James O’Keefe, etc? No way do I want to arm the groomers! I think selective armament of teachers & administrators is a better option.
I was objecting to the use of gender in place of sex. I guess I missed being clear.
Great discussion.
History has examples of regimes who have found it expedient to diagnose political opponents as “mentally ill” so as to stigmatize, silence or imprison them. It is awfully easy to imagine the Democrats deciding that conservative viewpoints are a symptom of madness, and responding with their trademark, lethal “compassion.”
What I did not anticipate was that the diagnostics could shift the other way—that the politically-useful, genuinely mentally ill, instead of being recognized and treated as such, are declared perfectly normal (if misunderstood) and then manipulated and exploited.
In other words, the category of “mentally ill” is evidently so elastic and so easily politicized that a prohibition on the exercise of any constitutional (that is, natural) right must be regarded with extreme suspicion if not outright hostility.
If I think about it, many whom common sense would recognize as diseased, addicted or both are re-defined as “persons experiencing homelessness,” for instance.
Except they’re not just “experiencing homelessness” in a vacuum. There are reasons, such as mental illness.
Easy there, Killer. You just caught a parked car.
My point is that the left wants to just label the result while pretending the causes don’t exist.
Which is what GrannyDude just said.
Exploitation is the M.O. of the Left. Dead Christian children isn’t about them. It’s about what they can do for the cause of “progress.” The pattern goes back to the early days of the Democrat party and slavery, they’ve just gotten sneakier about it and way more powerful.
I don’t think the direction or something was quite as clear. Now people have two ways of reading it.
No, it is just that I find no difference between the two words. See the usage over 5 centuries mentioned below.
From Oxford
The word “especially” in the first sentence does not mean exclusively.
From Miriam-Webster usage guide
I typically use the 20th century meanings, where sex refers to intercourse, while gender refers to equipment or grammar depending on context.
As for the opinion of those who “study gender and sexuality” I treat them as groomers and consider their contributions in the field of science to be evil.
If you would like more information, see the sections in “What is a Woman” regarding Kinsey, or the researcher that sexually abused twin boys until one commits suicide – there were more, but I forget the researcher’s name.
I’ve been objecting to the use of gender, complete with OED definitions, from the very start. I just got a new driver’s license and crossed out the word gender on the application and wrote in sex. I was being provocative above, insinuating that they recognize their own gender though it doesn’t exist, but don’t recognize the word sex which does; pointing out the difference between those deluded and those not. :)
Looking at the usage guide from Merriam-Webster that I showed above, it is apparent that biological sex is being erased from common usage. Since the word sex in the early part of the 20th century came to mean “intercourse” and the word gender in the latter part of the 20th century came to mean “gender identity”. The result is is that they replaced two single words that tended to mean the same thing with no words at all or a four word compound “sex assigned at birth”.
From The hitchhiker’s guide to the Galaxy,
The Marxist way to have a genderless and sexless society is not to have words for them.
I prefer the Edwardian usage.
As usual.
To show how far things have changed, in the early, wild days of the Internet, circa 1997, I did something similar. I didn’t like that some web form was asking for my gender. I wrote to the webmaster and pointed out that people have sex and words have gender and to please change the form. He did. No way would that happen today.