...but don’t worry, Jezebel and the porn industry have assured us violent porn doesn’t correlate to real-world violence or violent tendencies.

Also missing in this piece of journalism is reference to the gestational period at which abortions are prohibited by federal law to date. Surely there’s something in place, right, but I wouldn’t know it by reading this. Where’s the data? Where are the answers to questions the readers are certain to have? Are you a…

I’m not a mathematician, but the first trimester is weeks 1-12; the second, weeks 13-27. So saying that the bill bans “second trimester abortions” isn’t accurate, because any second trimester abortions up until week 20 would not be affected, right? Why use fuzzy language? If you think the bill is bad/wrong, explain…

The piece above says the 20 week ban wouldn’t apply to medical need. Why would women “need” to abort a 20+-week pregnancy? What about 30 weeks? The day before birth? You can’t seriously think women should abort fully-developed babies in the womb. Where would you draw the line?

Fair. But maybe the issue isn’t payment but more along the lines of - one is helpful and the other destructive.

Well, he didn’t have the “right” to shoot those people. If he were alive, he’d be criminally charged, tried, and sentenced.

You could see how killing a fetus at a stage it could potentially live outside the womb because it has a disability is viewed as gross and immoral by some, right? Where would you think it’s appropriate to draw the line? 30 weeks? 1 month before birth? 3 days before birth? As long as the “fetus” is still in the birth…

In fairness, criminalizing abortion probably would protect fetuses. And gun ownership is protected by the bill of rights. I don’t like those people any more than you do, but how can you argue against that?

What’s wrong with a 20-week ban? If you want an abortion, do it before 20 weeks. I mean, preemies born at 20 weeks have a chance to live. Why would you need to abort in late term outside of health reasons?

That....actually would work. I mean, in the parallel universe where they wouldn’t all be murdered by police for doing so.

One of the country singers in attendance has addressed that topic. I forget his name. He said he is rethinking his stance on gun ownership - that several of his band/crew had concealed carry and it didn’t matter one bit. The country radio stations will probably be burning his albums in the street later this week.

Hunting. Interest. Investment. Hobby. Multiple residences. Fear of government taking guns.

It’s an interest/hobby for some people. They like to collect, buy/sell, modify, and basically play with them. It’s like collecting baseball cards, I guess, but with death tools. I know such people. Assuming none of them becomes mentally ill, politically radicalized, vigilante, temporarily enraged, confused,…

It’s not so much that they need to change to my liking. It’s just that they’re so... white.

Jezebel is one of the pioneers of the “whites suck” movement. No surprise their zombie followers regurgitate the idea here.

Hey, look! A fresh attack on “the whites!” My favorite part about the brilliant community that has become this site.

Real question - what is the issue then with Chicago? Is it a case of correlation not causation, where the city is already so violent that the effect of gun laws can’t be compared to other cities? Is it that Chicago is still part of America, so different gun laws wouldn’t really matter in the big picture? I don’t get…

I like how you’ll take my edit but not approve the comment. Professional, indeed! Keep at it.

Another day, another piece published by Jezebel using a wrong it’s. Have millennials just decided to change the English language and nobody told me? When people ask what you do for a living, do you tell them you’re a professional writer?

I really am not sure which is more terrible - Anna Wintour’s hairstyle or that other woman’s ridiculous outfit. “Fashion,” I guess?