So far zero, ever, yet Utah deems it necessary to ban them.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/23/utah-social-media-access-law-minors

https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2023/03/17/lien-tennessee-drag-ban-utah/

So far this year, 415 children have been killed by guns in America (leading cause of death in children) and we are not even 1/4 of the way through the year, projecting out till the end of the year that’s 1,660 kids will be killed in the US this year by guns.

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Yet not a peep out of any Utah (Mormon) politician about regulating guns as much as we regulate cars, much less an outright assault weapons ban.

Do UT (MORmON) politicians really care about kids or just the paycheck they get from their puppet masters (the NRA)?

The good news for Utah is that KOC (kids of color) are like way more likely to be shot than WKs (White Kids), so there's that Utahn can mention next Fast Sunday!

But that still doesn't mean Utahns should rest on their Laurels...and Beehives.

The next step is to outlaw Utah (Mormon) politicians and their puppet masters, the NRA.  Once Utah (Mormon) politicians and their puppet masters are banned from Utah, Utahns will be free to act on their feelings!

Yes, once free of the plague of Utah (Mormon) politicians, Utah residents will all gratefully and gleefully flock to turn in their weapons (including muskets) so that they can be turned into plowshares and motorboat propeller blades.

Keep Utah safe from Politicians!!!



Yes, I realize that my attempt at humor creates proof positive that I have less regard for life and limb than the OP, but now he has proof of his elevated status.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Mindless fear.

Can't ban .223 AR-15s, can't ban high capacity magazines (God's gun, you know) beause that's all that stands between EV NatC's and the evil (ZOG, "librul," "atheist," whatever, the label changes) "government" that's run by "Satan."

Their "fear" is more important than the body count.

So, ban drag queens! Ban gays! Ban trans people!

As soon as the "sin" stops, God will stop turning people into mass killers, right?

/s



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2023 05:28PM by anybody.

Mass casualty events pretty much all involve perpetrators who do not expect to survive the event.  So publishing a list of 'penalties' they might face is nonproductive.

The one 'change' that might bring the number of casualties way down would be to do away with religion.  Curing people of religion would, along with shootings, save victims of other forms of mayhem: bombs, vehicular ramming, setting fires, knife attacks, etc., etc.

Then maybe 'one-sided love' should be eliminated so that jealousy would not wreak the havoc it often does.  There should be a bottle of pills you can hand to the person you no longer love, but who continues to love you.  What a blessing that would be, not to mention the lives that might be saved.


I have this image of EVERYONE saying, "I'll turn in my guns as soon as everyone else does!"  And when further pressed for clarification, it becomes, "When I'm the last one owning a gun, and I've verified this by searching everywhere, then, and only then, will I turn in my guns!"

Everyone is all, "Yes, guns are bad, and it will be heaven on earth when all guns are eliminated, but you go first!"

I'm vaguely aware that the Australians did something to restrict gun ownership, or at least the types of guns the public could own, after the 1996 Port Arthur mass shooting.  And it did a great job of reducing mass shootings, no doubt about it.

But apparently, all Australia did was ban automatic and semi-automatic weapons.  That's a heck of a good start, but here in American, any such attempt to do this would still be fought.

And here's an interesting tid-bit, from a 2017 The Atlantic article: "There are estimated to be as many guns in Australia now as there were at the time of the Port Arthur massacre—though the level of gun violence is not comparable."

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/australia-gun-control/541710/

Getting rid of semi-auto and automatic weapons would be very useful, but what are the chances of that happening in the United States?

Who among us will voluntarily line up to turn in his/her automatic and semi-automatic rifles, including the ever so cute and popular Ruger 10-22?

America has a gun problem, and it may be incurable.  

We had an assault rifle ban in the US from 94-04, which produced the desired outcome. What makes America so different from 20yrs ago?

still in the minority, fortunately...

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We had an assault rifle ban in the US from 94-04,
> which produced the desired outcome. What makes
> America so different from 20yrs ago?

I haven't a clue!


JULY 8, 2003
5 killed, 9 injured: Meridian, Miss.

Doug Williams, 48, a production assemblyman for 19 years at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., goes on a rampage at the defense plant, fatally shooting five and wounding nine before taking his own life with a shotgun.



DEC. 26, 2000
7 killed: Wakefield, Mass.

Michael McDermott, a 42-year-old software tester shoots and kills seven co-workers at the Internet consulting firm where he is employed. McDermott, who is arrested at the offices of Edgewater Technology Inc., apparently was enraged because his salary was about to be garnished to satisfy tax claims by the Internal Revenue Service. He uses three weapons in his attack.



NOV. 2, 1999
7 killed: Honolulu

Byran Uyesugi, a Xerox copier repairman, shoots and kills seven coworkers with a Glock 9-mm semiautomatic handgun as they gather for a meeting to discuss his light workload. Uyesugi is a former high school sharpshooter who legally owns 11 handguns, five rifles and two shotguns. He is later found guilty of seven counts of murder and one of attempted murder for shooting at a man who escaped. He is serving a life sentence without possibility of parole.



SEPT. 15, 1999
7 killed, 7 injured: Fort Worth

Larry Gene Ashbrook opens fire inside the crowded chapel of the Wedgwood Baptist Church. Worshipers, thinking at first that it must be a prank, keep singing. But when they realize what is happening, they dive to the floor and scrunch under pews, terrified and silent as the gunfire continues. Seven people are killed before Ashbrook takes his own life.



JULY 29, 1999
9 killed, 12 injured: Atlanta

Mark Orrin Barton, a 44-year-old chemist-turned-day trader, strolls into two investment offices and opens fire on fellow investors and office workers. The shootings at All-Tech Investment and Momentum Securities Inc., across the street from each other, leave nine people dead and 12 wounded. Barton eludes a manhunt for six hours before killing himself.



APRIL 20, 1999
13 killed, 24 injured: Columbine, Colo.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, students at Columbine High, open fire at the school, killing a dozen students and a teacher and causing injury to two dozen others before taking their own lives.



MARCH 24, 1998
5 killed, 10 injured: Jonesboro, Ark.

Middle school students Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden pull a fire alarm at their school in a small rural Arkansas community and then open fire on students and teachers using an arsenal they had stashed in the nearby woods. Four students and a teacher who tried shield the children are killed and 10 others are injured. Because of their ages, Mitchell. 13, and Andrew, 11, are sentenced to confinement in a juvenile facility until they turn 21.

Which leads to the conclusion that assault rifles are but part of the problem.

          "I think it must be the bullets!"
                             --Xavier Cugat

But what does Charro have to say about that ?

This is not complicated,”the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as large capacity.”

It worked, in America, for 10yrs.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-----------------------------------
>
> It worked, in America, for 10yrs.


Yeah, it worked well enough so that there was only one Columbine during that 10 year period ... along with the others I listed, supra.



Your suggestion, infra, to use drone technology to protect schools, and their fragile content, you mention weaponizing the drones, because it works so well in the Middle East...

Could you elaborate on that theme?

When I see or hear the word 'drone', and it's not referring to me and my lifestyle, I get two pictures in my mind, the hobbyist drones we play with and the big honker army drones, the ones armed with missiles. Are you using just one, or both types?

And you seemed to imply that one operator could 'supervise' up to 50 drones...

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> -----------------------------------
> >
> > It worked, in America, for 10yrs.
>
>
> Yeah, it worked well enough so that there was only
> one Columbine during that 10 year period ... along
> with the others I listed, supra.


Huge improvement over what we have now, 130 mass shootings in 2023 and we are not yet 90 days into the year. If 1.4 mass murders/day is an acceptable number to you, how many will it take for people like you to quit throwing up your hands and surrendering to madness?

> Your suggestion, infra, to use drone technology to
> protect schools, and their fragile content, you
> mention weaponizing the drones, because it works
> so well in the Middle East...
>
> Could you elaborate on that theme?
>
> When I see or hear the word 'drone', and it's not
> referring to me and my lifestyle, I get two
> pictures in my mind, the hobbyist drones we play
> with and the big honker army drones, the ones
> armed with missiles. Are you using just one, or
> both types?
>
> And you seemed to imply that one operator could
> 'supervise' up to 50 drones...

It’d take one person to monitor the cameras to keep an eye on 50 schools at a time. We have computers that we could use to keep an eye out for people carrying rifles and walking towards schools or any other ‘soft target’. Once the armed intruder is identified a small drone swarm could be deployed to neutralize the would be murderer, using Tasers or in extreme emergencies, lasers to give the gunman free LASIK surgery or a Lobotomy.

> ... people like you ...

Luckily, it's just me!

Yes, EOD, stop surrendering to madness!

Define what an "assault rifle" is? That's easy enough. Just look at the laws.

But asking me that question is a bit silly since I just said it doesn't matter. Let me repeat: it does not matter.

LW, answering for herself.

From someone (i.e. me) that has actually fired these weapons:

Assault Rifle:

A short barrelled, automatic or semi-automatic weapon optimised for close range (100m or less) that fires many small calibre, high velocity bullets in a short period of time to maximise lethality and kill as many of the enemy as possible at short range (i.e. "spray and pray")


Battle Rifle:

A name retroactively applied to traditional long barrelled rifles of larger calibre, usually semi-automatic or bolt action, optimised for controlled, accurate fire at long range (up to 300m) that only fires a few rounds (less than ten) at a time (i.e. "pick your target").


The only thing that a .223 calibre M-16 / AR-15 round is good for is killing humans. That is what it was designed to do. You can't hunt with it. You would blow a squirrel or rabbit to bits, and the range is too short for deer or elk, and you be more likely to wound rather than quickly take down the animal. If you used it for home defense instead of a shotgun, you would shoot through the walls of your home and kill people in the other room or the house next door.

I'm not going to get into the constitutional arguments here ( most scholars agree that it's not absolute, isn't meant to give people the right to overthrow the goverment), but if you want to have one just to play Rambo, you should at least be trained, keep it in a gun safe, make sure it has a trigger lock, and make sure it's nowhere to be seen if kids are around. Psychological screening wouldn't be a bad idea either.

The people who go to grocery stores or restaurants with an AR-15 slung on their backs aren't protecting my "rights," just trying to be provocative and intimidating people for kicks to allay their fears of living in a modern, multi-racial and multi-cultural society in which they are equal, but not dominant.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2023 01:16PM by anybody.

Just the facts, Jack...

Good overview.  

There's an argument to be made that the Vietnam War birthed this category simply because 'spray and pray' felt good and seemed to be effective, given some of the terrain and conditions.

There's also the fact that smaller caliber rounds meant more bullets in each clip and more clips could be carried by each soldier compared to traditional battle rifles.

Most people are unaware that most militaries frowned upon individual soldiers carrying automatic weapons until after WW2 -- they thought they would waste ammunition.

The Gatling and Maxim guns were initially rejected by the US Army, and wound up being used mostly by European colonial powers against natives before WW1.

The first weapon that could be thought of as an "assault" rifle meant to kill as many troops as possible at close range was the WW1 era Thompson sub-machine gun that could fire 1500 rounds a minute.

After Korea, the shorter and lighter M-14 carbine replaced the heavy M-1 Garand.

Combat at increasingly close quarters is another reason.

The AK-47 was developed for the same reasons -- less accurate at a distance, but lighter and faster at close range.

Regulating firearms. Do you mean taking them out of the hands of law abiding owners?

Most who own them do not commit crimes. Just as most who own cars don't commit crimes - past infractions like speeding, etc.

Perhaps The Cat is hoping that those who might misuse a firearm should instead find a way to dispose of it so that no one, who doesn't deserve it, is harmed.

...ooooh.... But what if someone DESERVES to be shot?  And who better than 'you' to judge that?



And this probably little-known statistic: Unhealthy Eating Linked To 400,000 US Deaths Per Year.
      --https://www.ndtv.com/health/unhealthy-eating-linked-to-400-000-us-deaths-per-year-study-1668102



  

EOD: living proof of the 10% rule!

No. I mean like we regulate cars.
License, registration, and insurance.

Or boats

Or fishing

Or hunting

Or owning a dog or cat

I don’t think Australia, New Zealand and Canada are better than the US. They are able to ban assault rifles and prevent mass murders. What makes them so much more capable of doing the pragmatic thing than the US?

Aha!!  No one will ever get a majority of adult Americans to concede that they don't have the Right to 'bear arms', but what if it became a hard and fast rule that you have to have insurance to 'keep' the 'arm/arms' in your possession?

All guns must have a liability insurance policy attached to them. Just like at the car dealership, you can't take the gun out of the store without proof of insurance.  And if you let the policy lapse, and don't immediately turn the gun over to your insurance company, they, the insurance company, will tell the cops, who come and take it from you.

Of course, after a couple of mass shootings, insurance rates will go up among certain groups of people and in certain parts of town, and pretty soon, there will be many American Citizens who won't be able to keep up the insurance payments, so their guns will be taken away!  And after awhile, only rich people and crooks will have guns, and pretty much no one in either group is likely to commit a school shooting!!!

YAY, me!!!

Happy now, The Cat?

Okay, you win.

20%

Nobody needs 10,000 rounds of ammo at home.
Black powder, ballistic propellants, rocket fuel, etc. are already heavily restricted by the ATF.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2023 08:52AM by anybody.

At the very least, reclassify assault rifles as Title II Firearms. If you really are a law abiding citizen, you would still be able to own them if you wanted to bad enough.

Most mass killers are law abiding until they are not. But then I come from a culture that never provided me the opportunity to even see a gun until I was 27 and I arrived in north America.

Mitt Romney tops the list of NRA welfare recipients at $13.6 million with 400 gun deaths per year in UT and crickets from him about regulating guns as much as we regulate cars.

https://elections.bradyunited.org/take-action/nra-donations-116th-congress-senators



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2023 09:39AM by schrodingerscat.

..they were purchased LEGALLY

Were they registered, licensed or insured? No. So not regulated.

Any crazy homicidal killer can go out and purchase an arsenal of military grade weapons of war in this country and there’s not a door on a school in America that will stand up to them.

I’m of the belief that it’s too late to stop the spread of guns when there are more guns than people in America, but,
We have an easy solution, that doesn’t require confiscating 330million guns, drone swarms in every janitor closet in America, armed with lethal and non lethal weapons to disarm or disable an intruder upon a moments notice. One person could monitor 50 schools full time and could stop a would-be mass murderer before they entered a school or fired a shot.
We have the technology to remotely take down the worst bad guys from half a world away, but can’t stop the bad guys in our own back yard?
I don’t buy it.

For all the rocking they can do, hobby horses don’t really go anywhere . . .

There's something terribly wrong. Might be a good idea to find out exactly what is terribly wrong and then fix it.

Mass shootings are not what is wrong. But they are a result of what is wrong.

Fix that and the numbers of guns owned might not be a problem anymore.

Good excuse to do nothing.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
----------------------------
> Good excuse to do nothing.


Only a few very special people were assigned the job of trying to save the world.

You should start a blog...

Or a podcast!!

There are just too many of us moral lightweights here on this simple pro-Exmo bulletin board, frustrating your efforts, so you don't get the recognition you deserve.

Maybe you could create a sub-Reddit... Call it, r/let-me-save-you, or r/follow-me-to-salvation, or r/stop-look-listen ...

It’s not really even about drag queens. It’s about exposing children to inappropriate sexual imagery. I don’t care if it’s a stripper or a drag queen. Shaking your junk in front of kids and having them stuff bills into your garb should be illegal.

But at least Drag Queens don't expose children to ... BOOBS!!

Americans are nuts (pro & con) about boobs!

Ages 0 to about 30 months, kids can have all the boobs they can handle.  Then 3 to 18 years, NO BOOBS allowed, can't show'em, can't touch'em!

After that, it's all about keeping nipples from public view...

'Merica is one confused country.





                        FREE THE NIPPLE!

Freeing my nipples is the only thing that has made the pandemic bearable. And no pants.

There are drag shows with nudity?

Only drag shows I've been to, the queens and kings all kept their clothes on and took the bills by hand.

And what kind of parents would take their kids to a strip club? Are you aware drag and stripping aren't the same thing?

Of course, I've known strippers who were nicer people than moral guardians.

Go figure.

Notice the same people who take their kids to Hooters and watch gun stuff and violence all over have a problem with drag queens.

I don't go to drag queen shows. I haven't watched any of their TV stuff. They can do their thing. I don't go to Comic Con stuff. I don't go to Star Trek conventions. It's no big deal if they are doing their thing around town or on TV. Most people wouldn't notice or care one whit about things they don't want to attend.

Why all the hoopla about drag shows of all things? Guess. It's all about attacking the LGBTQ and creating a giant flipping culture war by certain political types who are using it as a tool. Everyone appears to be taking the bait, unfortunately.

I will go so far as to say the people who are complaining about drag queens are the ones magnifying them and pushing them into the spotlight that would have normally been off in the fringes like other things. But no, certain types are making it an issue for their "kids" on purpose to force outrage.

Strippers? Drag shows? Funny how "monsters" appear everywhere when you decide to look for them everywhere. Jesus, leave them alone to do their thing. Quit taking the bait.

Agree on the moral panic. "Think of the children" is a cheap tactic that suffers the misfortune of working.

Here's something that would piss some folks off even more: all the drag shows I attended were in Moscow, Idaho. The local drag production company has been in Idaho longer than most of the far-right politicians condemning it.

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It’s not really even about drag queens. It’s
> about exposing children to inappropriate sexual
> imagery. I don’t care if it’s a stripper or a
> drag queen. Shaking your junk in front of kids and
> having them stuff bills into your garb should be
> illegal.

I'm no fan of drag queens or social media for kids, but we do have bigger things to worry about, like kids actually dying and having to live under the constant fear of being victims of mass murder, simply because they are in school, "Learning".

And when they, naturally, developed anxieties, we drug them up. And then we wonder why our kids are so anxious?

Which is the point of this post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2023 01:28PM by schrodingerscat.

Oh, Rubicon.

The junk is tucked and duct’d. No swinging dicks or freeballing allowed.

So no worries about junk in the face.

The best part? No one is going to force you to take a group of 4th graders on a field trip to your local drag show! You don’t have to take your kids, grandkids, nieces, nephews, neighborhood kids…. Nobody’s kids! YOU don’t have to take them!

Imagine that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2023 12:59AM by Beth.

Actually, has anyone ever been to a drag show where there was nudity? Any nudity? Maybe a low cut dress but that is all I have ever seen. All the ones I have been to were in bars so it was 21+. Now Hooters... I have seen some pretty inappropriate stuff there and it doesn't have an age limit.

Having the performers naked would defeat the purpose of the drag show, wouldn't it?

Nope. All the performers I saw kept their clothes on. The closest things to "sexual" was an Elvira costume and an Austin Powers (Rated PG-13) sexbot. Both the queens pulled off the looks quite well, though!

That drag show was in a bar and drag at a public Pride celebration were more tame than stereotypical frat houses or one conversation with a sailor (I can confirm that last one). Never been to Hooters though; it wasn't my kind of place, so I never went.

Is it necessary to expose children to drag? idk I feel like the liberals were whipping ass in the culture war and then they felt the online mob pressure them into reflexively defending that shit. So now the other side has rebounded with renewed purpose.

It’s no statement at all about whether parents have the right to let some drag show they don’t know read a book to their children. It’s just, optically, stupid. Culty even.

Ya, just like Bosom Buddies:

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1642266217355558913?s=20

And don't say it that it is just because of what the competitors are wearing.

Exactly. People used to not get so wound up about it. There was even one drag queen in early Mormon Utah that was esteemed by higher-ups in the church.

Brigham Young's son.

Cold-Dodger,

Did you ever see Some Like it Hot (1959)? How about Tootsie (1982)? Maybe Mrs. Doubtfire (1993)?

Did you ever see I Love Lucy (1951-1957)? The Carol Burnett show (1967-1978)?

Seriously, cross dressing and drag were common fair for Americans for decades. Did that damage US society? Did it turn people gay or make them vote for democrats?

You're being played again. Like Ron DeSantis, who got married at Disney World and then decided that Disney is undermining American values and must be stopped, you have decided that a common motif in US culture for over a century, including the truculent Cold War, is somehow destructive of healthy social values.

Do you not realize that right-wing pols keep coming up with enemies they can demonize and that every once in a while they find something that works for half an hour? Does that minute of prominence for some conspiracy theory--trans people are "grooming" American youth, trans people are undermining US values--mean that the logic is real and that suddenly, after at least a century of manifestly harmless laughter, men in dresses or Lucile Ball in a mustache are corrupting our youth?

Don't be played.

Think.

No, I will not enter into this stupid issue on the side of drag queen story hour. Let the opposition have it. It makes us look completely bonkers to Christian parents and undermines other more important issues.

Cold-Dodger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, I will not enter into this stupid issue on the
> side of drag queen story hour. Let the opposition
> have it. It makes us look completely bonkers to
> Christian parents and undermines other more
> important issues.

I don't think that paragraph makes you look very good, CD.

I can’t begin the list the contexts in which people have dismissed other things I have to say because the left is associated with this. Drag Queen Story Hour did not exist before 2015, and it doesn’t need to be a thing.

Let’s talk about how the planet is cooking in solar radiation because of carbon pollution or how we’re on the precipice of world war three with two major rival nuclear powers or how to reduce the occurrence of mass shootings without using language likely to engender a gun nut backlash every single time. I can think of so many things more important than drag queen story hour getting banned in Idaho or Utah or wherever.

Let’s get back to picking fights we are likely to win, cuz this isn’t one of them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2023 07:56AM by Cold-Dodger.

I think it's all about the training...

You know how when you see photos of mormons in full temple regalia...? Probably 95% of TBMs have been trained and acculturated to feel a positive response or at least to be neutral.

But what do ordinary people think when they see those photos?

In that same sense, when a person sees 'drag queens' their response is likely based on training...unless they are kids who have not yet been acculturated.

CD, you're a solid thinker, and I enjoy your writing style if not all that you write, but I credit you as a thinker. Ask yourself, is it possible that you were born with an ingrained antipathy towards men dressing as women? Were the Romans of old cross-dressers? South Sea Islanders?

We all develop antipathies; a few of us take the time and trouble to question where we got them and why. Some of them are worthwhile, like my antipathy toward going barefoot in the desert, but many have to be reined in, like my antipathy toward bullies, which all in all, I feel is justified.

If you equate bullies and drag queens, I've at least had the fun that typing my little heart out gives me...

There’s a huge chasm between Shakespearean thesbianism and people with pathologies that exist on and off the stage in the same way.

It is not bigoted to feel uncomfortable with “drag queen story hour” and the importance it has stolen for itself in the liberal mind. IDK where this idea even came from, but the fervor with which people defend it after having lived their whole lives with no opinion on it smacks of social media cult behavior.

It is not brave and bold to take up this issue; it’s optically suicidal.

It’s not a clever deconstruction of gender stereotypes trying to make some point that needs making; it’s just making people feel conflicted for no good reason and driving many who were on the dense into the opposing camp. Because it came across to them as sheer malevolence.

You’re not scoring any points with the people most likely to harm a drag queen or a trans person, and the blanket tolerance given to drag queens fails to assume that it might even be possible that some of them are getting a sick sexual kick out of it. It just isn’t necessary to have this a thing.

God forbid someone call you a transphobe or a bigot for urging caution and thoughtfulness with messaging around the kids. There is no serious pushback to any of this on the cultural left.

Before this became a cultural staple of the left, I think some of us recognized how weird this was going to look to the right and begged for a reasonable discussion about optics, but those voices were silenced pretty quickly in this ever polarizing tribal environment.

You strawman people who are uncomfortable or cautious about this thing and assume you need to do it even harder because there are still bigots in the room. That’s a miscalculation. You’re failing to comprehend what is going on in other minds or how you’re being construed by those minds, and your sometimes hamfisted and other times patronizing approach does not persuade anybody or help your position. You’re tee-ing up the ball for Republicans to knock it out of the park with their constituents. That’s all you have accomplished.

Just keep it away from people’s kids who it is likely to offend. You wouldn’t burn a Quran in front of Muslims even though it’s your 1st amendment right, because you’re not stupid. But you’ll subject American kids to that shit because you think the cultural exposure is good for them and then you act surprised when Y’all Qaeda retaliates legislatively.

Let me state my firm opinion that this matter is destructive to other causes which actually matter that are associated with the left.

“Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) is a program in which drag queens read children's books to young audiences in libraries, schools, and other community spaces. The idea for DQSH originated in San Francisco in 2015 when writer Michelle Tea and RADAR Productions organized the first event at the Michelle Tea Bookstore. The event was a success, and it quickly spread to other cities across the United States.

In 2016, DQSH was held in Brooklyn, New York, for the first time, organized by children's librarian Jonathan Hamilt. The program gained attention after it was covered by the New York Times, and it quickly spread to other libraries and schools across the country.

DQSH has been praised for promoting diversity and inclusivity, but it has also been met with controversy and opposition. Some conservative groups and individuals have criticized the program, arguing that it is inappropriate for children and promotes a harmful agenda. In some cases, protests and demonstrations have taken place outside libraries and schools that host DQSH events.

Despite the controversy, DQSH has continued to grow in popularity, with events now being held in cities across the world. Proponents of the program argue that it promotes acceptance, tolerance, and understanding, while opponents argue that it is a form of indoctrination and sexualization of children.”

Did not exist before 2015, but it has since become one of those litmus test things that sorts the sheep from the goats, people think. There are a lot of these wedge issues that seem to be popular only because it makes people on the internet think they see who are all the malfeasants in society are plain as day by their failure to kiss the ring, and I hate all of them for this express reason. It does not need to exist, although I’m not personally offended by it. It’s just I have a front row seat to a very conservative sector of society and their reactions make me think just as hard as many gender critical arguments I’ve heard in favor of this thing. I’m not a fan. I think it’s a losing position. Have your drag shows in some red light district somewhere and stop scaring the bejesus out of people who don’t want to think about it. It’s just not important to drag this into the national spotlight over other things, and it wouldn’t be an item in conservative agendas if someone somewhere hadn’t been intentionally annoying about it.

"Have your drag shows in some red light district"

Obviously, you have no clue what you are talking about. Hooters is much more sexual, I suppose you think they should move to a "red light district" too. BTW, there ARE NO RED LIGHT DISTRICTS in the US except for rural areas in Nevada.