CdnFox

All factually accurate and there's tonnes more. But nice try I know i know - it just breaks your cold black little hearts when someone correctly and accurately points this stuff out. But - sorry, it's the truth.

So shop at walmart like everyone else Here's the thing. A crap tonne of research has been done on this by both pro and anti gun orgs. And when the data is actually analyzed there really isn't much correlation between availability of guns and homicides. Thats why anti gun orgs usually use the term 'gun violence' or the like. You can say "gun violience' is higher when there's more guns because it's a handy tool for that. But - the actual number of homicides is a different story. Which means if you take the legal guns away that doesn't mean the number of homicides changes much. And gun laws don't prevent violence - at best they can significantly reduce the number of accidents. Which is great, but not the picture they're trying to paint. But this has been studied to death, the rate of violence and the gun laws state to state don't line up - states with lots of gun laws frequently have much higher violent crime and death rates than states that don't. And it works out internationally too. Studies showed that a country's violent crime or death rate had no correlation to it's gun laws. Places with very strict laws freuqently had higher death rates than those without and vice versa - the presence of gun laws did not indiate what the homicide rate would be. But the anti gun mob spews this kind of nonsense every year and they all try to tie themselves to an org for legitimacy, but these are not doctors, they're not medical experts by and large, and even the intro sounds like a sales brochure "We gather only the very best in gun researchers to turn out this amazingly fantastic and unparalleled document". Hell, it isn't even peer reviewed.

Yes Stupid - you didnt' read the link? That is from EXPERTS IN THAT FIELD. God every day you manage to look more and more like a bot.

God i wish you'd learn how to talk like a normal person. Nobody knows what you mean 3/4s of the time.

As i noted - false. Your links don't show otherwise. Groom harder.

How many child mutilations are necessary before it should be a matter of national concern exactly? In my world one is plenty but if you have a different number in mind, lets hear your argument

The source doesn't jive with their conclusions, and it's jot johns hopkins - it's the johns hopkins center for gun violence which is a little anti gun club associated with the hospital. It's not a medical report after all, So propaganda on top of propaganda. A hint of their dishonesty is lumping suicides in as 'gun violence'. we woudn't call people who hanged themselves victims of rope violence. Or my fave - gun deaths in children are higher EVEN THAN covid 19!!!! Yeah - covid didn't kill children. But covid is scary so lets make it sound worse than that LOL - its so childishly transparent. This is why nothing will EVER move forward in the us with firearms safety or genuine issues. The left and the gun haters are rabidly insane in their nonsense and everyone can see it - while the right is scared that if they give up even a single thing no matter how reasonable the left will use it as an excuse to grab more and more

When they become adults and are no longer the direct responsibility of the parent. We hold parents legally accountable for their children's actions until adulhood - and the courts say that a child can be held responsible for their actions when they reach adulthood. Soooo - at that point the parents don't need to know and the kid can make their own decision. There's no crime being committed if the child becomes sick or injured either - but the school should probably tell the parent. In fact they're required to. You would expect the school would call the parent and say 'sorry, little jimmy is headed to the hospital with a fractured femur", you would NOT expect them to not do that and later say "Oh you found out about that? Ohhh wellll - we didn't want to tell you when it happened, we were afraid of how you might react". These issues are signs of possible serious medical or mental health issues - they should be disclosed to the parent. If the child has actual fears for their safety things can be done, including removing the child from an unsafe environment if necessary. but this 'future crimes' as an excuse to withhold critical info is just not ok,

But YOU clarified back at the start that it was the code - not the subssection that was the problem. I pointed out that they got the subsection wrong (it's c) but the code is indeed violated. And that's when you went into hysterics and doubled down on the stupid Like i said - all been explained slowly to you before. Very slowly. So - 1 - the flag is very clearly in violation of the code 2 - you can have that opinion but frankly just about every newspaper out there has done a story on a twittter post before. Sooooo yeah. 3 - However stupid you think i am, it's clear you're far less intelligent so keep that in mind when insulting me

Truthout org Nuff said Most of the facts are wrong or unsupported. Example - "highest death rate by assaults' which they don't back up and then claim it's because of guns, which they don't have any data for. Why even post this tripe. You might as well post crap from the 'white nationalist.org' showing why crime is all black people's fault'. Yeash.

ROFLMAO - a meme to make your argument? Jeezzz - did i break you AGAIN? What is that, third day in a row or the like? Pointing out your lies and hypocrisy isn't whataboutism. It's just pointing out your lies and hypocrisy I thought you'd be a little tougher than that!

The left certainly did. Sorry bud - parents can NOT disagree with whatever they like. Or they get called "Uncanadian" or their kid gets banned or otherwise cancelled. You think doctors have never been child abusers? This is from february. https://www.theprogress.com/news/breaking-ex-top-doctor-in-b-c-alberta-found-guilty-of-child-sex-crimes/ Sorry - happens all the time. But i was thinking more along the lines of them not realizing it's child abuse and hurting the child anyway. The evidence is becoming clear that there's more problems than previously thought https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-danger-of-letting-children-transition-gender-too-early/ https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-regret-changing-genders/ And more importantly from a canadian expert https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-transgender-treatment So - why are you ignoring the science? why aren't you listening to the medical professionals? Can i see your medical license please? Oh you don't have one? Then maybe you should shut up and listen to the experts

THaT opINIon iS USELESS withOUT pROoof

Who said slavery is a right? Property ownership is a right. I'm sorry if that offends you - but the fact is that slaves were considered property. Until someone came along and said "no they are human beings and your right to property doesn't extinguish that. NOW - trans people and to an extent the letter people are claiming that their rights extinguish the human rights of others. And the argument is just as flawed now as it was with the slaves. The right to free speech, the right to religious belief, the right to protect your children etc etc are being called 'Uncanadian" if they are in conflict with this agenda. So just as property rights did not extinguish the human rights of others, (or shouldn't have and eventually that was corrected), so too should gay/trans rights not extinguish or override the rights of others (or shouldn't and eventually that will probably be corrected). It's that simple. If this conversation is too complicated for you - i can try to dumb it down. But i've already explained that you're way off here a few times and your cheezy attempts at emotional arguments are the stuff of elementary school debates. Well we know all of that is pretty much false. Lets face it - you know painfully well that if you don't start grooming someone from birth immediately you're NEVER going to get a date

And where was that written? As far as i know there is no 'right to confidentiality' from the parent

Still can't find a single example that's wrong eh? LOL - say hi to the other kids in the playroom when you get back there, we adults will continue talking.

Republicans DID condemn the jan 6 rioting and i absolutely do agree that they were entirely right to do so. There's no excuse for that behavior, those people should be deeply ashamed and those who committed crimes should go to jail.

if it ever happens i will. They've said they don't approve of the violence but they support it. Which is what i said. Kamala Harris raised cash for them. https://nypost.com/2021/09/08/bail-fund-backed-by-kamala-harris-freed-man-charged-with-murder/ And seeing as youre using USA today which is OUTRAGEOUSLY partisan, i'll counter with this: https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/08/10-times-democrats-urged-violence-against-trump-and-his-supporters/ Lets look at some quotes “Please, get up in the face of some congresspeople,” Booker said at a conference. Hillary Clinton said civility was only an option if the Democrats controlled the legislative branch. “You can’t be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for and what you care for,” she said in 2018. Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder encouraged a group of “liberal activists,” to fight back, a sentiment that was met with applause and laughter. “Michelle [Obama] always says, ‘When they go low, we go high,’” Holder began. “No. No. When they go low, we kick them.” In 2019, Rep. Joaquin Castro said Democrats would “fight [Trump] and challenge him in every way that we can in the Congress, in the courts, and in the streets and protests,” if the president declared a national emergency about a government shutdown. More recently, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that, in politics, “when you’re in the arena, you have to be ready to take a punch, and you have to be ready to throw a punch … for the children.” Sen. Jon Tester of Montana took it one step further, encouraging people to “punch Trump in the face.” “I don’t think even in states where Donald Trump won big that it does you any good running away from [him],” Tester said. “I think you need to go back and punch him in the face. I mean, the truth is, is this guy is bad for this country.” How about this? https://nypost.com/2021/04/19/dems-abandoned-all-principle-by-signaling-approval-of-some-rioting/ Some, such as the excitable Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), are cheering the prospect of another round of Black Lives Matter riots, er, “peaceful protests,” if the Derek Chauvin trial doesn’t go their way. They’re also up in arms about a new Florida law that strengthens punishment for those who take to the streets to commit violence. Waters told demonstrators to “get more confrontational” with law enforcement if the Chauvin jurors decide wrongly (by her political lights). Not long after she uttered those words, some “mostly peaceful” protesters committed a drive-by shooting of National Guardsmen, there to protect against riots. (She never condemned that btw). I could go on for days. Bottom line is one highly paritisan 'fact check' from a source known for misinformation doesn't change the truth - NUMEROUS times the dems have actively supported the rioters and called for more violence. But hey - thanks for the opportunity to point out their hypocrisy again

Word has it? What word? Where? and where are these threats and dog whistles. No offense but for that kind of thing you'd usually post a source just because there's nothing factual for us to look up. Looking up trump dog whistles threats indictment aren't turning up any recent results. At the very least you would post them here. I have a funny feeling you're full of shit but hey - prove me wrong

Seeing as it was my point that's pretty unlikely. Nope. Property ownership is a right. Property has no rights. The slave had no more 'rights' than your cow or rooster had. That was the law. What the slaves said was 'your rights don't erase my human rights" and others agreed that human rights attached and they're not property. That's the same here - "trans" rights don't erase other peoples' rights. And that's what they're attempting to do - claim their rights take precedent over anyone else's. As if their rights should nullify everyone else's. again - stupid argument. If two things are comparable then they can be compared. I can compare a regular apple to a golden apple even tho they're not the same value. Likewise i can compare the cost of a 50 dollar watch with a 50 dollar pen even tho they're not the same thing. You're trying to make an argument based on emotion and it's dumb. Ohhhh THE HORROR!!! HE COMPARED SOMETHING TO ANOTHER THING!!!!! WAAAAAAHHHH. yeash. Grow up. Nobody is claiming one is better or worse, but the arguments are the same and can be compared. Put your big boy pants on. You are a little confused. The trannies are the ones who claim there's a right to pee pee and poo poo so the question is what rights of THEIRS are being violated. And ... good question.

Sorry @BeaverFever but he's right and so were the pro-segregationists, wheter you like what they were protesting or not. Your reply basically says "but if we have the same rules for everyone then people i disagree with will have a voice". Yep. that's the problem with democracy - that's the whole "disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it" thing.

There is no right to the child's confidentiality. Point that out in the charter. The parents under the law have full responsibility for the actions of the child so no information should be kept from them. Here's the thing. The whole premise is that somehow the child's safety will be compromised if the parents knew the truth about them. That these are dangerous people and dangerous parents. Well - if that's the case then why are we letting the kid stay with them at all? If theres a serious threat of violence then the kids shouldn't be there. AND - if they're concerned about violence when the kid tells them what's going on imagine what the threat would be like if the parents find out later that the kid lied to them telling others that they were afraid for their safety if their parents knew. Do you think they'd be LESS angry? Teaching kids to lie to their parents is not the answer here. That is a simple fact. If there's a problem with the parents then the teachers or a councillor or the like should be available to meet on the kid's behalf and teh kid should be monitored to make sure nothing bad happens. Becoming a nation of liars isn't a great solution.

I'm sure the 'principled' democrats will be right behind them to condemn the violence and destruction of the riots the year before.

Hey Jackass - the code was cited in the twitter post and article - and that's what we're discussing. Don't get mad at me just because you can't get your head around something this basic. This was already explained to you in detail. I'd have though you would be ashamed enough of your stupidity before to maybe think a little before speaking now but i can see that's not going to happen. Gawd - if stupid was jet fuel you'd be supersonic.

Congrats - you just hit 101 percent on the hypocrisy scale LOLOL The funny thing is you talk about morals It would have vastly more. They always do. Welcome to team trump