Stop for one second, re read the conversation, and the link. I’m criticizing teaching 7 year old kids to shoot, not criticizing teaching actual gun safety. That was a straw man you set up to knock down.
- 8 Posts
- 570 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
Cake day: August 20th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Teaching kids to use guns doesn’t save kids’ lives. If you want to teach em to stay away from guns, that they’re deadly, they shouldn’t touch it and should tell an adult right away go ahead.
Teaching kids to use guns in the name of gun safety is like saying you need to teach them how to drive in case they find some car keys lying around and decide to take it for a spin.
Already in the comment, click the links.
https://www.safekidsinc.com/hero-program-overview
Here’s where it goes through their curriculum per grade level including pre schoolers.
The 'heroes" program is not teaching pre schoolers to use guns, it’s teaching them about active shooter situations.
The other link was the one offering actual gun training (for 7 year olds and up so second graders potentially).
My comment was that it’s sad we apparently need programs to to teach pre schoolers about how to deal with active shooting situations now.
The one I linked specifically mentions shooting afterwards for kids as young as 7…
But yes if guns are at home they should be locked (and really locked, like a trigger lock plus a safe that’s set to something besides 1111, holy crap you’d be surprised at how cavelier some people are) and totally inaccessible to kids. Teaching single digit age kids about guns is not a substitute for that, but of course I’m not saying you shouldn’t teach your kids that they shouldn’t touch guns and what they can do.
And teaching kids about guns will not solve the serious gun problems in America. The gun problems unique to America that pretty much every other industrialized nation has figured out already. And it’s a horrible tragedy that stuff like “the heroes program” to teach preschoolers how to deal with active shooters is necessary in this country. All to please gun nuts.
Most gun nuts aren’t too interested in education anyways:
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/01/which-states-require-firearm-safety-course-concealed-carry/
Kindergarten? Ridiculous. They gotta be at least 7.
Sure I mean give a perfectly normal person a stimulant and they might feel like they have more energy for a bit (though to an observer they might just appear anxious, jittery and amped up even if the person themself feels great). Calling it performance enhancing for something like a debate is a huge stretch. Equally likely to hurt a speaking performance, unless someone maybe actually had true adhd or something.
What I mean is, the narrative being pushed here is Biden is this old man with dementia who can’t string two words together, and then he takes adderral or modafinil and suddenly he’s magically cognitively normal but just for a few hours. Dementia does not work this way, you would just get a very energetic and equally confused person. It’s all a ridiculous fantasy, something for Trump supporters to hold in their heads to help with the cognitive dissonance as they watch the debate. Otherwise they’d be forced to reckon with the fact that Biden speaks like a normal human being with coherent thoughts while Trump sounds like a rambling lunatic on a barely traceable flight of ideas.
I also don’t want this false narrative giving people ideas that force feeding their relatives with dementia stimulants would be a good idea that would improve their cognition for a while or something.
This whole thing is so dumb. Stimulants do not make you smart, and they certainly would not treat or reverse dementia. I mean this guy knows this I’m sure, he’s just an asshole.
Absolutely, on so many levels.
And so many wasted constructions that were only used for a brief time: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/abandoned-olympic-venues-sites/
I have a wild idea here. What if, they didn’t build an entire Olympic sports complex with multiple stadiums and other infrastructure every 2 years around the globe? Maybe that would save a bit on carbon emissions. And hey, the billions that would have gone to building that complex? Maybe that could go toward building up renewable energy resources instead.
But no that’s crazy, it’s the portable air conditioning units for some athlete’s apartments that are the problem. /s
Though some props to Paris, it sounds like they didn’t have nearly the amount of insane new constructions that some Olympics have had. Sounds like only one major new venue with most venues being used already pre-existing.
I don’t disagree with you. Only stating that he’s less of a piece of shit than every republican senator. Admittedly, an extremely low bar to clear. Like Mariana trench low bar.
There’s summer EBT, available nationwide for states that opt in, bringing eligible families $120 as a summer grocery benefit—which has been found to decrease by a third the number of households with children who sometimes went hungry. (But despite that, 14 states, including Georgia, Alabama, and Texas, have not opted in.)
State governments that would prefer children starve
He did sometimes:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act
I mean he made the law worse too let’s not give him too much credit, but a republican wouldn’t have even bargained on it.
The quote gets even crazier.
Really!? You were treated the worst of any president?! Lincoln was assassinated!!
The Moores were backed by anti-regulatory and business groups.
So they weren’t really paying for the case most likely. I’ve also seen some articles mention that the facts of the case as presented to the court may not have been entirely accurate, possible the Moores or their lawyers lied or misrepresented some things in the case. I haven’t been able to find more details on what exactly they’re referencing though.
Churches should be required to have supervising drag queens, would help prevent abuse. Priest you need to meet one on one with a kid? Fine, but only if this fabulous queen here sits in the room with you both.
So same as always?
Presidents don’t make laws, congress does. There would have to be something in the constitution or in a law already passed that gives the executive branch the power to do that. An executive order is just an enforcement, a more specific guidance of application of already existing laws or powers. If the law the article is talking about is passed, he could issue executive orders to delineate more specific actions to help make sure it is enforced.
If Biden just sat down in a chair one day and wrote “I declare state laws and state constitutions restricting ivf are void!” like some kind of dictator it would do literally nothing.
Go on to the federal register and look at some executive orders. You’ll find most of them pertain to things the president directly controls, like the operations of executive department agencies. When it’s not something the president clearly controls in the constitution, it will cite the authority of which specific laws it’s basing this on.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/03/2021-26459/the-national-space-council
Purpose.
The National Space Council (Council), as authorized under Title V of Public Law 100-685, advises and assists the President regarding national space policy and strategy. This order sets forth the Council’s membership, duties, and responsibilities.
So for an example, here’s what law passed by congress this executive order is fulfilling, here are my more specific instructions about how we as the executive branch are going to fulfill that law. Clearly the authority to establish a national space council does not come from the constitution, so it’s a law passed by congress that makes this order possible.
If congress passes a law protecting ivf and gives some power to the executive branch to enforce those protections, then maybe there would be situations where an executive order would be helpful.
And Biden clearly supports this law, has repeatedly urged congress to pass it, and headlined the issue in his state of the union address.
https://time.com/6898688/biden-ivf-abortion-state-of-the-union/
Or this one:
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.
I think that’s a misreading of one statement, I think in context he’s communicating, the president cannot pass laws. He’s done everything he can within the powers of the executive branch to support reproductive rights. Without a congress that is willing to pass a law he can sign (including senators willing to overturn the filibuster), there is not much more he can do at this point.
I guess you could say maybe he could veto all legislation unless they pass something codifying Roe v Wade? But I think that would backfire, as people begin suffering from massive government shutdowns and a few people just splinter to start voting with Republicans to over ride the vetos and effectively the Republicans are in control now and Roe v Wade still isn’t codified.
In the end Biden is right, at least with this form of government and this Supreme Court, a pro choice president isn’t enough no matter how ferverent (though I would argue Biden has been the most ardent pro choice president there’s ever been). We need a pro choice congress too, and senators with the courage to scrap the filibuster to protect a fundamental right and pass a law. Or a congress that is willing to pass a bill to expand the supreme court. It’s just not something the president can do on his/her own.
Re read, and stop setting up straw men. I criticized teaching seven year olds to shoot. Not teaching actual gun safety.
I seperately said it’s sad that we have to have the “heroes program” to teach pre schoolers about active shool shooters, because gun nuts don’t allow real gun controls or solutions.
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1848971668
People from other countries are shocked and horrified by everything in this thread.
And the “well if it wasn’t a gun it’d be something else” yeah guns aren’t necessary to kill but it sure makes it a whole lot easier and faster. I don’t think this guy could have killed 60 people in ten minutes with a knife:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting