Why do they need backstories at all then? Games like Tekken or Street fighter or mortal combat are just two characters beating each other up- yet they still craft elaborate back stories to explain why they are fighting, give characters rivalries, spouses, kids, hobbies, etc. and guess what? If you don’t care- you dont have to know. After 20 years or whatever it’s been I still don’t know what Charlie’s back story is but I know most of the other characters. I don’t remember or know if I ever knew what the story behind X-men vs Streetfighter was and... I don’t care. So you don’t have to care, but they almost always give stupid one dimensional games back stories, and there’s no reason that a person should be told “if you want to see a character you relate to you’ll have to build it yourself..” Video game heroes come in all shapes, colors, sizes, and motivations. People seldom use this argument when discussing “straight” “cis” characters. Only when it’s anything else do people speak on it.

And then you get pregnant in jail with a butt baby and have to pay double support when the state takes it too.

And what separates these pro gun fighters from the taliban or any other terrorist organization that would use violence against their government and country men because they think the government is wrong? Why do you think that quote includes the blood of tyrants and patriots? In the end the winner is going to decide who was which. When a majority of the world says you’re wrong- by what supreme authority do you come to the conclusion that it is all of them who are wrong, and only you and those like you are right? Now- being in the majority DOESNT make you right by default- but it’s a very important question to ask because very few tyrants in history thought they were “the bad guy.” Saddam and his buddies, Bin Laden, Stalin- all claimed to be champions of right and the people. All claimed the moral high ground and that those who died were necessary sacrifices on the road to their high morality.

It’s a sweet theory. But who wins? There comes from that civil war, military uprising. Who’s to say what commanders and which troops would fight for which side? There are just as many who wouldn’t be happy but would see armed rebellion against a country and a democracy they chose to represent as treason. While the Us military and civilians fight each other to the death- what do you think the rest of the world- many of whom we’ve made enemies of or would love to have a chance to knock us down and take our place will do? The quest for this singular freedom could cost us countless lives, that very freedom, and the entire scope of American freedoms were we to be occupied. In the aftermath, of the “pro” gunners lost or were overpowered- what do you think the push back from the government or foreign occupying government would be after an armed rebellion about guns? Think it would be easier or harder to own a gun after thousands or more died in a war for guns by guns?

Well- to some extent we all get to choose how we die. If you love long enough- you will die of cancer. That’s a fact. But chances for most people who don’t die of cancer are that their heart might go, liver, they may die while riding a horse/bike/motorbike, rock climbing, etc. we know those things are more dangerous than not doing them as well- and all are optional activities. So you get to decide how you want to enjoy your time here on earth, and what risks you want to take on what it is that kills you. It also isn’t fair to say that eating meat WILL increase the risk of osteoporosis. It may. The link is still being studied and just like with veaganisn and osteoporosis- there are not sufficient long term controlled studies to show it is a fact. Science doesn’t debunk that vegans have brittle bones- it debunks that vegans MUST have brittle bones. It may or may not be stupid however- you can reduce your odds of dying in a car accident almost 100% by not being in a car. Are cars stupid?

... industry fail to self regulate, there will be problems that can be pinned back on those who aren’t part of the problems. That means wide sweeping, poorly thought out, vaguest legal and cumbersome laws imposed on the hobby and industry by those feeling irrational fear and seeking any remedy that satisfies their emotional need for a feeling of security. So yeah- I’m principal I just want to be able to buy, own, and shoot my guns. I’m not knocking over convenience stores or shooting up concerts, I keep my weapons secure from theft and don’t do stupid shit. I just want to do my thing. But- it is what it is.

accountable and to take demonstratable actions to display that commitment. If they made safety certification a requirement I would go out that same day and set up my classes. I do agree on principal that we shpikdnt have to- as long as it’s a constitutional right. But on principal Our “war on terror” and the steps taken afterwards legally were also wrong. When you put principal on one side of a scale and start stacking dead bodies on the other- most people reach a point where they no longer are willing to fight for principal. That’s America. People see mass shootings and they want them stopped. They’ll do irrational and extreme things to see that happen. It would be nice if before it had to become law- private parties took the initiative. If the gun industry started its own programs and simply refused to sell to those who didn’t comply. That would be a good start that wouldn’t infringe in any way on the constitution. I find it unlikely though- and as long as shooters and the...

IM NOT SAYINH IT SHOUKD BE OR THAT ANY OF THIS STUFF SHOULD BE DONE. I’m saying that it can. That in our representative republic democracy in which the constitution can be ratified, and laws can be used to stipulate and refine the scope of rights, that those things COULD happen. Treating rights as inalienable is dangerous. Every right we enjoy has been fought for, sacrifices for, and upheld by those in service to their country. Every right is a fragile thing, freedom is a fragile thing. We do need to protect it. So IF we can sit down across the isles of pro and anti gun ownership and come up with sensible laws which allow the preservation of a a vital right- then we should. Gun laws keeping passing and shootings keep happening. Eventually the non gun owning majority will get tired enough of the whole thing to just rewrite the constitution so that guns aren’t a right at all. So it’s the responsibility of gun owners to show in good faith that we are willing to commit to being...

Kept at some sort of armory of safe deposit when not in use. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again- if you genuinely believe you have an unqualified right to bear arms then go to a public appearance of a president in an open carry state and bring a long arm. You can be told when and where you may use a gun, what kind of gun you may own, no constitutional provision prevents a waiting period of prohibitive length to take possession of a gun, nor does it say anything about ammunition, we may infer it to if we wish- but the document is very vague on what exactly the right to bear arms is or what restrictions may be placed upon it. A non gun related felony can block your right to own a gun just as a non voting related felony can block your right to vote- so there also isn’t a provision to limit under what circumstances one forfeits that right, and like any right it can be forfeited or suspended.

Overall I agree with you. However- no right is unqualified. As you say- every single one carries expectations and regulations. It is in the legal and constitutional power of the government to limit the exercise of rights. Your right to exercise any of your rights only extends so far as thatrifjt does not impinge or endanger the rights of others. Your right to free speech is not unlimited to say anything g you like at any where or any time without legal consequence. Your right to own a weapon is not unlimited and in fact- you are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. That is what the constitution says. It does not say WHERE or HOW one may do so. You cannot bear arms on an aircraft. You cannot bear arms in a federal building. It is upheld as constitutional that one he required to store or lock weapons in various ways and in transport- and we can infer from that that it is in THEORY then legal to dictate WHERE one keeps those arms- for instance requiring all private guns to be...

TL:dr- vegans tend to have lower bone density due to the protein sources availible to them and quantities consumed. A vegan diet does not have to give lower bone mineral density- but a vegan diet that supplies the nutrition of an omnivorous diet is harder to achieve by default since one has limited their possible sources and combinations of nutrition. It is just harder to be vegan in general and takes will, dedication, research, vigilance, etc.

And most meat protein sources such as red meat provide the amino acids for break down, whereas plant sources must generally be supplemented with a secondary source of amino acids. There’s more complexity to how exactly plant vs meat nutrients are processed and all this minutia. However it’s fair to say that based on current short term studies there is a link between a vegan diet and low bone density- we cannot say that all vegans must have low bone density, but it is likely they do. Take it with a grain of salt though because vegan diets also tend to be lower in calories, certain types of fats, and vegans tend to have less heart and blood pressure problems than their meat eating peers.

No credible long term studies on the subject present conclusive evidence. However on the whole vegans measured in short term or billing studies have a lower average mineral density in their bones than meat eaters. A properly planned vegan diet can, at least in theory, supply the same level of beneficial nutrition as an omnivorous diet. However- properly planned is the key. We are talking about levels of research and discipline usually used by athletes and high level physical performers. A professional nutritionist and blood screenings and other tests would be needed by most to formulate a proper diet of this nature- so the common method is to either copy a diet that has worked for others or to count macro nutrients based on product labels. Also of note is that plant based proteins do not generally provide the amino acids required to use them, and humans lack them naturally. Plant protein is not as effective dose per dose in most cases as meat proteins-

.. competence and will in the matter. So making people take classes makes sense to me. A lot of people could learn a lot from it, and those who already knew are at least showing they give enough of a shit about it to sit through a class and pass a test. It’s easy to exercise a right or even abuse it when you think or it seems there is no responsibility and nothing expected of you. Every right we have has an expectation. Citizenship isn’t a card or a way to exclude people- it’s a certification that a person has accepted the rights and responsibilities conferred by and expected by the United States and the principals for which it stands. The oft quoted Kennedy quote: ask not what your country can do for you- but what you can do for your country. I can make a meaningful pledge backed by action to be a responsible gun owner, and to help ensure others do the same so that we can continue to enjoy that right and it isn’t taken from us because those who do not understand the right live in fear

Every time someone shoots themself in the foot, or some kid gets on a liter sports bike and lane splits at 120 after having a beer- they become statistics. Statistics that are used when someone wants to point to responsible users and say that the passion is inherently dangerous and the numbers don’t lie. If you show me a stat that 90% of people using power tools are injured I’d believe it. Because if believe that 90% of people are ignorant, don’t take things serious, are irresponsible, or are just plain too dumb or clumsy to have any business operating something as dangerous as a stapler. But if we take as a truism that the majority of people lack the discipline or dedication, the grasp of the gravity of a thing to the point we need laws about not watching DVD’s while you pilot 3000lbs of metal through populated areas in ever changing conditions- yeah. It’s no surprise that the “average” person shouldn’t be given many types of responsibility without proving they have a level of...

Laws exist because the “honor system” doesn’t work. A promise or pledge or assurance that a person will familiarize themselves and follow the practices of safety, responsible operation and basic care and function of a weapon is useless. Guns aren’t toys. They are tools, potentially dangerous tools. It makes sense to me that there be a system in place which teaches the responsible use and ownership. I’d like to see them do the same to bicycles honestly. If you rode motorcycle and have any business doing so- you won’t learn anything in an MSF program. However- I still support that many states require or make it extremely difficult to get a license if you don’t take such a course. The people you don’t have to worry about- you already don’t have to worry about. It’s the people you DO have to worry about that cause the rest of us problems.

Certification I’m less with you on. I do agree that it is a sort of backdoor loophole to registration. You’ve got a roledex of gun owners and a legal president to hold them to a standard of operation and judgment. However- certification in a general class of firearms- even where one specific model is recorded as used- doesn’t give them the information on every gun younown- and most legal purchases are registered in the system to an owner anyway. While there is a possibility for abuse of the information and it does give a possible twinge of “big brother-“ it is sensible and defensible to require some degree of responsibility. Every right carries with it responsibilities, and if we want to hold up our feeedom to enjoy rights we can’t negoect the fact that there are costs to every right.

The standards for excessive force are flawed, but they just need little tweaks. A center mass hit on someone who could reasonably be inferred to be an immediate threat to property or safety is not unreasonable. Panicking and putting 10 rounds in someone is not ideal- but that one needs some dressing- but reloading or putting 40 rounds in someone, shooting someone without a fire arm after they’ve gone down or while they are escaping (where they did not use violent force-) those are a bit excessive. The whole “you shoot you lose” definition some states employ is ridiculous. One should be required to call the police if prudent. But such cases should also be reviewed by a panel with experience to say wether a civilian virgin shooter acted with the judgment levels one would hold as sound for such a person and the scenario. Not just any fat bastard with a hammer and a degree in law.

... and that’s the trick. It can take lifetimes or generations to overcome bias and deep held beliefs. Pretending we don’t have these biases isn’t constructive when we continue to allow them to motivate our actions and thoughts. So society is biased to believe men are stronger, tougher, and should be held to higher standards. The dark byproduct of traditional ideas of masculinity and gender roles. So it would seem that when we look at it- traditional gender roles and ideas not only paint women as weak and subjugate them- but also treat men as though they cannot he victims, that they cannot have vulnerabilities and that as “masters of destiny” that which befalls them is their own fault on in their strength as a man to fix themselves. So... men and women are hurt by these traditional gender ideas and maybe that means instead of playing sides against each other we need to agree to throw them away and create something healthier.

.. a woman does the same to a man. I know that if a woman slaps a man or pounds on his chest and arms furiously that I often think “what did this guy do?” Or “wow. She is really mad and making a scene...” I wouldn’t think that if I saw the opposite. I would, and have, gone over to let that man know that he doesn’t get to lay hands on that woman. But that’s not right is it? We all have social biases. But after the 1960’s it became very rare for people to admit that. People don’t come out and say “yeah- I’m sexist..” or “yeah- I’m racist...” they hide it inside and try to justify their bias actions through logic. Only the most extreme and obnoxious bigots tend to admit to their bigotry openly. I acknowledge that some of my ideas are rooted in old gender tropes like chivalry or the idea that one treats a lady with a certain dignity regardless of her actions as one can’t control of others have class, only themselves. But BECAUSE I’m conscious and admit my bias I can overcome my bias...

The fact that the term “reverse sexual harassment” being applied in a likely fake green text meme doesn’t prove anything beyond the likely intent of the OP to illicit that exact response. There IS a double standard in society, and we DO need to make sure that men and women are educated on what is and is not harassment, what to do about it, empower them to report it, and as a society not shame or diminish the victims, and take male reports as seriously and in the same light as female reports. Sadly there are people who do not believe that a man can be harassed or raped or assaulted, and others who think they can but should “man up” or by default would “enjoy it.” The proof of the double standard doesn’t exist because of one, likely fabricated or embellished meme however. It exists because we know and most will readily admit it exists. I know hands down that I have to work harder at being unbiased when a man tries to justify hitting a woman because of her violent behavior than when..

Unless the danger is immediate (not so when you have time to go get a shovel...) and even then- one has a responsibility to confirm a target before engaging. If you cannot positively identify a target, the rules of engagement in a civilian area are quite clear. You may observe and monitor until a critical danger is likely, or you can confirm the target.

I’d disagree on the mandatory training part- but agree on the rest. “You can’t own that weapon! It’s a dangerous tool of war with no practical civilian use! Oh... but you’re willing to grease the wheels a few grand. Well... enjoy it responsibly citizen...” Bullet tax and bullet registration requirements.... uhg. Don’t get me started. That’s why I just wish that people who know about firearms could sit down and work out reasonable laws. We end up with laws that don’t really make much difference to “bad” gun owners, but make life a mess for “good” owners. Then when the new laws fail to make a difference (duh...) they say “see?! We need more laws! Stricter laws!” No. We need laws that make freaking sense and actually can help prevent irresponsible and illegal weapons use and mitigate the damage, versus laws which seek to simply make it so difficult and obtrusive to own firearms that law abiding citizens don’t bother.