mindhog @[email protected]

Offhand, I don't think classifying trans people as disabled under the act is any worse than doing so for anyone else. But ultimately, it decreases the amount of freedom employers have to run their affairs as they see fit so I'd have to sign up for the "sad day" camp.

"you're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations." - Joe Biden, July 21, 2021

"This morning, President Biden tested positive for COVID-19." -- Biden's press secretary, July 21, 2022

My wife's (much younger) cousin is getting married this summer. They've insisted that everyone attending the wedding be vaccinated against COVID-19. I won't vaccinate my children, as they're at very low risk, the vaccines seem to have very high rates of adverse effects and their long-term effects remain unknown.

There was some family drama over this, but ultimately it seems that the boys and I will not be attending this wedding.

I am not disappointed.

I think the most interesting article for me personally was Damon Root's, which makes a case that abortion should actually be protected under the 9th amendment (the "catch all" amendment: "just because we didn't enumerate a right, doesn't mean the government can infringe on it").
The difficulty with unenumerated rights is it's very hard to establish exactly what they are. And, indeed, in this case you could certainly argue for the fetus' rights vs the mother's.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/alitos-abortion-ruling-overturning-roe-is-an-insult-to-the-9th-amendment/

In general, the sentiment on reason.com towards Dobbs seems to be mostly negative, a little surprising given that Libertarians have always been somewhat divided on abortion.
Nick Gillespie did note in one article that many of his own colleagues felt differently about it.

The FASTER program in Ohio and Colorado gives school staff training and concealed carry permits in the interest of dealing with an active shooter.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/01/faster-teaches-teachers-how-to-save-lives/

This is why I have to question either the integrity or the intelligence of anyone proposing this kind of solution. If you seriously care about the problem, you should be thinking outside of the boundaries of a particular solution, and clearly we're not getting anywhere with this line of reasoning.
There are a number of other potential solutions on the table. Maybe this would be a good time for us to elevate the broader discussion?

So why expend energy arguing for a solution that is a legal non-starter, not likely to solve the problem and ignores a wide swath of extremely negative side-effects?
The only conclusion I can draw is that the basic agenda here is not one of preventing school shootings, but simply one of ratcheting up gun control laws -- an area in which these kinds of activists have been quite successful.

There's also the question of personal defense. IIRC, Americans defend themselves with guns between 60 thousand and two million times a year (depending on whose estimates you believe).
By what moral calculus do you deprive a population of protecting itself from that many robberies, rapes or even murders in the interest of preventing one specific kind of extremely rare mass murder?

And, of course, there is the budding field of 3D printed weaponry and even ammunition that is likely to ensure a future supply of armaments to those willing to break the law.

Beyond this are logistical challenges: there are 20% more guns than people in the US. Even with a massive buy-back/confiscation program, such an attempt is likely to be thwarted by non-compliance.
That's not even considering how to deal with guns in the hands of police and the military.

At the forefront is always a chorus calling for banning all guns. Proposing such a solution is hopelessly naive, almost at the level of saying "just give all the poor people money" as a solution to fight poverty.
For one thing, you can't ban all weapons in the US because of the second amendment. You won't repeal the second amendment because there is no where near enough popular support for that (instead the current SCOTUS may very well only strengthen it in the near future).

Every time we have one of these mass school shootings, we go through the same ritual: the MSM immediately jumps to a "national dialog" on gun control and we get a flurry of new regulations that make life tougher for legitimate gun owners while failing to prevent future mass school shootings.

Arghhh. My good friend and band-mate is going off the rails on gun control right now (likely as a result of the days events).
I'm just gonna not engage on chat. If it comes down to a face-off, though, there's no holding back.
That's one good thing about band-mates, you're in each other's faces constantly. You get good at it, generally without breaking shit 🙂

In the (still unlikely, IMO) event the USSC strikes down Roe v. Wade, I propose we use this as an opportunity to introduce a "bodily autonomy" amendment to the Constitution.

Make abortion a right. Forbid vaccine mandates or any other forced medical intervention.

Seems like a clear win, to me.