It’s like that time when Al-Qaeda told Isis to chill the fuck out

“The bullet” is what Trump nicknamed his penis

The official renter ban is a bit of a loophole - a lot of Bay Area counties are taking over old federal properties (Navy and Coast Guard bases, former superfund sites, etc) and turning them into housing. Federal laws prevented having firearms in these places (for obvious reasons, can’t bring a gun to a navy base lol). During the “transition” period where the housing is partially built but not completed, there’s typically a joint ownership with the gun rules carried over from when it was purely federal property. The municipality could get these rules removed, but they really don’t want to. It’s a benefit to them.

But more typically, you’ll see every large landlord in the area ban firearms as a part of the lease agreement, with the tacit encouragement of local governments. So it’s not law, but you still can’t really have one.

Edit: plus the ban on all these places: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-02/judges-let-new-california-law-barring-guns-in-many-places-take-effect-challenge-ongoing

It’s illegal to have any firearm (even with a concealed carry license) in almost any public setting.

I mean, it does sound reasonable if you don’t know the stats. Which I don’t.

The SF law (that’s where I live), various “may issue” concealed carry permit policies, extra taxes, local ordinances banning renters from having firearms in the home or in their car, it’s just a litany of small encroachments that add up to great difficulty.

Merde!

Can we pick the nature of the upgrade? I want to pee champagne

That’s the state level laws, but many local jurisdictions are much more restrictive.

Don’t get me wrong, I loved that movie. But when I grew up a bit I realized that in the pivotal moment, the military would ABSOLUTELY have gunned down that crowd of people wearing masks. It’s happened before, a lot.

Every citizen has the same access

sad California noises

Words have meaning

It’s incredibly sad that this has been turned into a meaningless phrase.

That’s stupid bullshit and you know it. The Civil War was a war between one group of guys and another group of guys. We cannot use the same term to describe both groups of guys. The historical accounts would make no sense.

And history has ALWAYS referred to rebels and insurrectionists by the name they give themselves, it’s nothing unique to the Confederacy. Pretending it somehow “legitimizes” the Confederacy is pure bullshit dreamed up by someone who wants to puff up his “I am so very very woke” cred. It’s a solution in search of a problem.

What do we call George Washington’s army? The same name they gave themselves, the Continental Army. What do we call Irish nationalists during the Troubles? The same name they gave themselves, the IRA. What do we call the militant Islamic fundamentalists who took over Afghanistan as the US pulled out? The same name they gave themselves, the Taliban.

The fact that you think referring to a rebel group by the name they gave themselves has ANYTHING to do with ANY kind of narrative means you are being either disingenuous or ignorant.

There are many, many ways to fight against bigots and racists nowadays. This is not one of them.

Historical revisionism is a goddamn plague and should be met with a firm slap to the face any time it’s suggested, even if it’s in favor of the side we agree with.

I don’t know what kind of fucking obsession gen Z has with labels, but you need to chill the fuck out about it. Calling the North “the United States” instead of “the Union” does absolutely fuckall to make anything better whatsoever, and it chips away at the foundations of historical accuracy.

Did you never go to high school? It’s not like this is a new phenomenon.

Lemmings don’t really like when people argue against the majority opinion, on any topic. The Fediverse is incredibly tribal.

The numbers are pretty much a consensus among researchers. If you disagree, then the burden is on YOU to do a deep, critical analysis. I’m just reporting the conclusions of others, not doing any critical analysis. If those conclusions make you feel uncomfortable, maybe you should explore that feeling more. Although if you want to do a critical analysis, I’d welcome it.

Well, you’re really just throwing out what-ifs. But you happened to chance on one theory that some researchers think could partially explain the discrepancy:

Being bi or lesbian still comes together with a special type of discrimination that a straight woman most likely will never experience;

Being oppressed causes stress, stress causes lack of control. The idea is it’s a similar driver to why poorer couples have higher rates of abuse.

That’s probably not the SOLE cause, but it’s likely a factor.

Just because someone was victimized doesn’t mean every thing they do afterwards is a smart idea. It’s a fundamentally flawed approach and her being a victim doesn’t change that.

There’s 4 billion men on the planet. If you want to find men with 3 arms, you’ll find a lot of them.