I promise not to debate you…

Started by caligas
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
BLADEMDA said:
I generally think PGG is spot on about many things including the second amendment. I own high capacity magazines. I own .556 ammo. I own many AR15 magazines or “clips” as the uneducated refer to them. Still, I recognize we as a nation do have a problem. I don’t need or want a machine gun. I don’t support anyone owning such a weapon. I don’t need a stinger missle either or a hand Grenade.

But, the answer is not to take my AR15 from law abiding citizens such as myself; instead stop the mentally unstable and the criminals from getting these weapons. The key is a thorough vetting and a permit for all such rifles. By permit I mean a concealed carry license like I have in my state.

Social media sites need to be monitored and flagged for violent threats like murder. Please take those posts seriously and pass a law allowing law enforcement to intervene prior to those who are unstable committing mass murder.
Click to expand...

The killer here had no record. Worked at Wendy’s. No history of mental issues. Loner.

Know what? There are hundreds of thousands, if not more, 18-21 year olds who fit his profile.

Your posts here are reasonable. Something needs to be done to limit magazine capacity and purchasing ability for 18-25 yr olds.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
anesussy said:
Just lol

I pointed out how wacky the US is, and your response was "no, no it makes sense because our founding documents say it does."
Click to expand...

And I swore to defend it to the kids death. Too soon, I know.

I cannot get over the fact that we can “agree” on abortions on not “formed” human is bad; guns with capability to kill 11 year old kids is within my “rights”.
 
Dr. Rude said:
Even if that were done, many people would refuse to comply. Many in law enforcement wouldn’t follow their lawful orders to confiscate weapons.
Click to expand...
This thread is unfortunately typical.

I almost didn't post at all, because I knew the bingo card would fill within a day or two.

But I thought maybe we could talk about how the 9th Circuit decision a few weeks ago and SCOTUS's pending decision in NYSRPA might alter the landscape of gun control. That stuff is new, and relevant. I talked about that in post #63 and the only person who's posted anything remotely informed or related to what laws and courts actually say has been @vector2 who mentioned FOPA. He and I disagree about some things but he is well informed and articulate.

Maybe I should just look away from all the incoherent ranting, and accept that most of it is just understandably frustrated venting of grief and anger. I just don't have the patience to discuss inane bong-hit drum circle ideas like taxing ammunition to death, or that the 2A "really means" black powder muskets, or what a militia is for the 1000th time, all from people who apparently learned everything they know about firearms from comedians and actors.
 
pgg said:
This thread is unfortunately typical.

I almost didn't post at all, because I knew the bingo card would fill within a day or two.

But I thought maybe we could talk about how the 9th Circuit decision a few weeks ago and SCOTUS's pending decision in NYSRPA might alter the landscape of gun control. That stuff is new, and relevant. I talked about that in post #63 and the only person who's posted anything remotely informed or related to what laws and courts actually say has been @vector2 who mentioned FOPA. He and I disagree about some things but he is well informed and articulate.

Maybe I should just look away from all the incoherent ranting, and accept that most of it is just understandably frustrated venting of grief and anger. I just don't have the patience to discuss inane bong-hit drum circle ideas like taxing ammunition to death, or that the 2A "really means" black powder muskets, or what a militia is for the 1000th time, all from people who apparently learned everything they know about firearms from comedians and actors.
Click to expand...
Looks like you're smarter than all the rest of us doctors. Congrats.
 
RadOncDoc21 said:
It’s beyond having any reasonable thoughts at this stage.
Click to expand...

Baby steps, but even that people cannot agree.

Universal background check: no. Because the Constitution says I can bear arms, therefore I don’t need to be checked.

Better Storage laws: no. Because the Constitution says I can bear arms, therefore I don’t need you to tell me where I have to store my live killing machines.

Smaller capacities for magazines: no. Because the Constitution says I can bear arms, therefore I can have a big capacity clip to kill the whole platoon of government agents.

Stop selling military grade weapons: no. Because the Constitution says I can bear arms, therefore I can buy whatever the arms dealers are welling to sell.

I thought Sandy hook would change some minds, nah. Just a 20 kids who have their entire futures taken away from them. Along with all the collateral damage of all their schoolmates’ innocence.

Shame on you.
 
secretasianman said:
Yeah you say that like it’s such an easy thing to get done, especially in a trump-stacked court where one of the judges had indirect involvement in Jan 6 but totally denies it. Just because it’s the law doesn’t make it right.

Your wish to discuss current court developments followed by your ad hominem attacks and condescending tone is completely discordant. You just want someone to agree with you, and you don’t even see it..
Click to expand...
The Court has nothing to do with repealing amendments
 
secretasianman said:
Yeah you say that like it’s such an easy thing to get done,
Click to expand...

That's the point. It's not going to be repealed. Rage if you want, or work within the system to get what you want.

secretasianman said:
Your wish to discuss current court developments followed by your ad hominem attacks and condescending tone is completely discordant.
Click to expand...
Yeah, go figure, I'd like to talk about what's possible, and probable, in the actual real world we live in. That is interesting to me.

And yeah, I'm dismissive of blather.

secretasianman said:
You just want someone to agree with you, and you don’t even see it.
Click to expand...
I want intelligent, informed people to disagree with me. People like vector2 make me think, and force me to reconsider whether I'm as right as I think I am. My opinions and positions evolve over time, in the face of new information and good arguments.

I understand that's not the case for everyone.

secretasianman said:
No one cares about your bingo card bro..
Click to expand...
I care. It's a joke. It amuses me. You're not required to care about it.
 
pgg said:
That's the point. It's not going to be repealed. Rage if you want, or work within the system to get what you want.


Yeah, go figure, I'd like to talk about what's possible, and probable, in the actual real world we live in. That is interesting to me.

And yeah, I'm dismissive of blather.


I want intelligent, informed people to disagree with me. People like vector2 make me think, and force me to reconsider whether I'm as right as I think I am. My opinions and positions evolve over time, in the face of new information and good arguments.

I understand that's not the case for everyone.


I care. It's a joke. It amuses me. You're not required to care about it.
Click to expand...
You’re the only one joking about this here. I have to say it’s not amusing and in very poor taste but like, that’s just my opinion bro. Maybe no one wants to discourse with you because you are already decided. Or maybe they are just as dismissive of your humorless bingo blather.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
secretasianman said:
You’re the only one joking about this here. I have to see it’s in very poor taste, but like, that’s just my opinion bro. Sorry my blather.
Click to expand...
If you can't see the difference between mocking bad arguments in the midst of a debate, vs joking about a tragedy, I don't know what to tell you. Sorry if it rubs you the wrong way.

If at any point you feel like discussing things the nation could do, within the bounds of the legal system we've got and the laws of physics, I'm all ears.
 
pgg said:
This thread is unfortunately typical.

I almost didn't post at all, because I knew the bingo card would fill within a day or two.

But I thought maybe we could talk about how the 9th Circuit decision a few weeks ago and SCOTUS's pending decision in NYSRPA might alter the landscape of gun control. That stuff is new, and relevant. I talked about that in post #63 and the only person who's posted anything remotely informed or related to what laws and courts actually say has been @vector2 who mentioned FOPA. He and I disagree about some things but he is well informed and articulate.

Maybe I should just look away from all the incoherent ranting, and accept that most of it is just understandably frustrated venting of grief and anger. I just don't have the patience to discuss inane bong-hit drum circle ideas like taxing ammunition to death, or that the 2A "really means" black powder muskets, or what a militia is for the 1000th time, all from people who apparently learned everything they know about firearms from comedians and actors.
Click to expand...
Not a lawyer here. But I think the historical context of a militia matters. It never was every Tom, Dick, and Harry. It was able bodied persons who worked as a unit. It was a collective through small groups or townships, though not with federal oversight akin to today’s military.I get that military and militia are different terms. But militia was not a single person writing a manifesto. I think the intent mattered to the framers and it should still matter today.
And Scalia essentially threw out the well regulated militia term in Heller because to use that as a complete term could arguably make gun ownership contingent on military service. Scalia said the 2A was an individual right. But the 1st amendment is all about individual rights. I’d argue the 2A is a collective right, contingent on being well regulated for the neccesity to the safety of the Union.
Scalia said that the well regulated clause is not sufficient to overwhelm “common sense” implications of it, whatever that really means. In grammatical terms, a clause not surrounded by commas, it is necessary for the meaning of the sentence. So we’ll just throw out grammatical rules to fit our legal/political end goal? Alright alright alright.
So I’m sorry you don’t have patience to discuss what a militia is for the whichever superfluous number it is, but I disagree with the assertion that this guy from Uvalde or name any other tragedy meets definition to bear arms.
Recently Texas passed laws to allow open carry with practically no upfront requirements and passed other laws loosening restrictions. None of this seems well regulated to me.
 
Southpaw said:
Here’s where I am today:

If you vote Republican you care more about the right of 18 yr olds to buy unlimited numbers of weapons and unlimited amounts of ammo MORE than you care about a child’s right to attend school safely.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why we can never agree on topics like this (and most right/left issues). Hyperbole like this is killing this country.
 
secretasianman said:
Fuc the second amendment. At some point one has to honestly ask if the positives of having guns even comes close to the negatives for our country. And if you think so then you are fuc’ing deluded. No one is buying an AR15 with the purpose of defending themselves against tyranny. Why even stop there? Why not tanks? RPGs? Nuclear weapons? Then again some of you are so indoctrinated with your belief system that there’s no coming back to reason. You are the same fuc’ers that want to save all fetuses but let school shootings happen every week. Because fuc the libs right? Truly, fuc y’all. God save the rest that actually do care and have to live or die because of your bullsht.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, the radicalism is strong in this one. People will definitely respond well to your extremism.
 
Onefellswoop87 said:
Not a lawyer here. But I think the historical context of a militia matters. It never was every Tom, Dick, and Harry. It was able bodied persons who worked as a unit. It was a collective through small groups or townships, though not with federal oversight akin to today’s military.I get that military and militia are different terms. But militia was not a single person writing a manifesto. I think the intent mattered to the framers and it should still matter today.
And Scalia essentially threw out the well regulated militia term in Heller because to use that as a complete term could arguably make gun ownership contingent on military service. Scalia said the 2A was an individual right. But the 1st amendment is all about individual rights. I’d argue the 2A is a collective right, contingent on being well regulated for the neccesity to the safety of the Union.
Scalia said that the well regulated clause is not sufficient to overwhelm “common sense” implications of it, whatever that really means. In grammatical terms, a clause not surrounded by commas, it is necessary for the meaning of the sentence. So we’ll just throw out grammatical rules to fit our legal/political end goal? Alright alright alright.
So I’m sorry you don’t have patience to discuss what a militia is for the whichever superfluous number it is, but I disagree with the assertion that this guy from Uvalde or name any other tragedy meets definition to bear arms.
Recently Texas passed laws to allow open carry with practically no upfront requirements and passed other laws loosening restrictions. None of this seems well regulated to me.
Click to expand...
I think reasonable people can disagree about the Framers' intent regarding an individual vs collective right, but there isn't room to disagree what SCOTUS thinks about it. It's an individual right.

The "well regulated" phrase, in the context and syntax of the times, meant something more akin to "competent" rather than under orders or restrictions of a central (government) authority. Times change, warfare changes, and there's really no role for a militia in that sense any more, especially given the existence of our enormous professional full-time standing Army. Today's "militia" groups are mostly Trump-cult LARPers playing in the woods with their tacticool gear. They sure aren't "necessary to the security of a free State."

But anyway, a simple literal reading of the 2A should 🙂 make it clear that although militia participation is ONE enumerated reason that the people may keep and bear arms, it doesn't preclude other reasons. And certainly in those days - same as today - there are other reasons for the people to be armed. Beyond self defense, the most obvious being resistance vs the government. The purpose of a militia was for defense against external forces. No one can reasonably argue that the Framers didn't ALSO want people armed to resist tyranny from an internal source. They talked and wrote about this a lot.

Ultimately though, this is all philosophical and historical and linguistic hair splitting, because for all practical purposes, and not to put too fine a point on it, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.

The majority opinion in McDonald clearly incorporates the 2A as an individual right in the States. The dissenting Justices were smart and educated people, but whatever merits their arguments hold, the simple end result is still that the 2A guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.

I'm not sure there's much point in debating that further, though I can respect the view that the decision was wrong, even if I disagree with it. Maybe the Court will revisit Heller in 50 years the way they're revisiting Roe today.


So what's next? There's an individual right. How does it get regulated in a way that will be upheld by today's Court, and impacts unlawful use of guns?

Again, a lot has been said about this guy's age. The 9th Circuit just ruled banning rifle sales to 18-21 year olds is unconstitutional. I don't see the current SCOTUS disagreeing with that. Do you?

Reformed background checks and red flag laws at the federal level? My guess is that these probably won't pass the Senate, but maybe they will. But they won't reduce or prevent mass shootings, because most of these people aren't prohibited people, and I'm skeptical red flag laws will stop them. They're awful, crazy humans, but they're motivated.

There's no way any kind of ban of semiautomatic rifles gets passed at the federal level, much less survives the courts. If anything, I think state level bans are going to fall before SCOTUS in the next decade. NYSRPA is going to give us a big hint how fast or slow that happens, but it'll happen.

Same with normal capacity (sometimes erroneously referred to as "high capacity") magazines.


Beyond all that, is the fact that renewed focus on gun control in the next few months is absolutely going to cost Democrats votes, particularly in swing states. Whatever momentum had shifted their way with the Roe decision, is going to be lost. There's still inflation and the economy looming large over these issues. Republicans will retake both houses of Congress. Probably the presidency in 2024 too unless some Trumpist loser runs.

The actual answer to these societal ills is to make society better. That's a broad topic I touched on in my first post in this thread. I think Democrats have better ideas in that direction than Republicans, but they don't seem capable of remembering that every time they get distracted by gun control, they lose power for a decade and have to watch policy get made by people who won the election.
 
Onefellswoop87 said:
Killing this country? Maybe a poor choice of verb
Click to expand...
I guess if one wants to pick at the choice of verbs and not the entire statement, I agree. So substitute destroying for killing.

Once we label those of the opposing political party with as not caring about murdered children, we no longer can have conversations about the topic. Might as well call Republicans Nazis. And once you play the Nazi card, ...........
 
TJRock said:
I guess if one wants to pick at the choice of verbs and not the entire statement, I agree. So substitute destroying for killing.

Once we label those of the opposing political party with as not caring about murdered children, we no longer can have conversations about the topic. Might as well call Republicans Nazis. And once you play the Nazi card, ...........
Click to expand...
Right… let’s see how far pleasantry take us. If a bunch of dead kids can’t get anyone to do anything, nothing will.

We’ll just have to accept the republicans thoughts and prayers and continue this conversation in the future. I just pray we or any of our children will not be the next victims.
 
Last edited:
RadOncDoc21 said:
Right… let’s see how far pleasantry take us. If a bunch of dead kids can’t get anyone to do anything, nothing will.
Click to expand...
After Sandy Hook, a similar sentiment prevailed. Democrats tried and failed to do something, anything. They failed to get anything done but the mere attempt led to 2014 midterm electoral losses and contributed to Trump's win in 2016.

I'm really not trying to be antagonistic, but a different plan might work out better this time.

Gun control is Democrat kryptonite.


What would a better plan from the Democrats look like? Win enough Senate seats in November to burn down the filibuster and do the social stuff and other domestic governance things they can't get through a 50-50 Senate. Govern well, keep winning, let the GOP out-circus themselves into helpless hapless perma-minority status.

There's a plan that might work. I probably wouldn't agree with a lot of they'd do, but I'll concede that some of their agenda might make the country a better place.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
secretasianman said:
Many countries have successfully banned guns and the death toll has gone down. There is zero reason other than entertainment for a common citizen to own an AR15. If believing this makes me radical then I can live with that.
Click to expand...
also states with the strictest gun laws also have less death rates than states (texas and florida) with less strict laws.

If 1st amendment (free speech) can be somewhat held back, then I'm sure Judicial branch can do something regarding the 2nd amendment.
 
nimbus said:
Very resourceful and clear thinking girl. I hope she eventually recovers from this. What a juxtaposition, Lilo and Stitch to smearing herself with her dead friend’s blood.


www.cnn.com

She smeared blood on herself and played dead: 11-year-old reveals chilling details of the massacre | CNN

An 11-year-old survivor of the Robb Elementary School massacre in Uvalde, Texas, feared the gunman would come back for her so she smeared herself in her friend's blood and played dead.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
Click to expand...

I don’t think she or anyone else there will fully "recover."
 
Also I wish there were a better legal definition of a "well regulated militia" for people who keep saying well what about the 2nd amendment.
To me, regulated doesn’t mean that every Tom, Dick and Harry can buy high capacity guns and have unlimited access.

Lastly the constitution was made by people who owned, raped and tortured people like me. Why are we clinging to what they said would make our country run well?? Do people really think nothing should change over hundreds of years? Some people’s views have not changed over time though, so I guess it all makes sense.
 
pgg said:
After Sandy Hook, a similar sentiment prevailed. Democrats tried and failed to do something, anything. They failed to get anything done but the mere attempt led to 2014 midterm electoral losses and contributed to Trump's win in 2016.

I'm really not trying to be antagonistic, but a different plan might work out better this time.

Gun control is Democrat kryptonite.


What would a better plan from the Democrats look like? Win enough Senate seats in November to burn down the filibuster and do the social stuff and other domestic governance things they can't get through a 50-50 Senate. Govern well, keep winning, let the GOP out-circus themselves into helpless hapless perma-minority status.

There's a plan that might work. I probably wouldn't agree with a lot of they'd do, but I'll concede that some of their agenda might make the country a better place.
Click to expand...
I honestly don’t care how it happens but if there is one issue that should be bipartisan, this has to be it.

I honestly don’t think the democrats can follow through even with full control but I’ll take whatever needs to happen if it means we are trying to make schools safer.
 
AMEHigh said:
Also I wish there were a better legal definition of a "well regulated militia" for people who keep saying well what about the 2nd amendment.
To me, regulated doesn’t mean that every Tom, Dick and Harry can buy high capacity guns and have unlimited access.
Click to expand...
I commented on the "well regulated" bit in post 173.

AMEHigh said:
Lastly the constitution was made by people who owned, raped and tortured people like me. Why are we clinging to what they said would make our country run well?? Do people really think nothing should change over hundreds of years? Some people’s views have not changed over time though, so I guess it all makes sense.
Click to expand...
That's why there's a mechanism for amending the Constitution. It's been done 27 times. There's no reason why there can't be a 28th Amendment.

Edit - I can't count
 
RadOncDoc21 said:
I honestly don’t care how it happens but if there is one issue that should be bipartisan, this has to be it.

I honestly don’t think the democrats can follow through even with full control but I’ll take whatever needs to happen if it means we are trying to make schools safer.
Click to expand...
But it's not bipartisan and it never will be.

Sure, you might swing enough votes to get universal background checks, and everyone can declare victory and pretend that will make a difference (it won't), but the kind of gun control wistfully wished for in this thread is just not going to happen.

And Democrats trying and failing just so they can say they tried, and then handing the federal government to the other side for the remainder of the decade, doesn't seem like a great plan.

Maybe start with the lower hanging fruit, like universal healthcare, curing world hunger, and convincing Putin to announce his withdrawal from Ukraine during his resignation speech.
 
I can only imagine that if slavery were still legal today, these same people would be arguing, "Well, the founders enshrined slavery within our constitution. It clearly says that black people are 3/5 of a person. But if you think slavery is wrong then just amend the constitution. There's already processes in place for that."

Zero empathy. Borderline psychotic, honestly.
 
anesussy said:
I can only imagine that if slavery were still legal today, these same people would be arguing, "Well, the founders enshrined slavery within our constitution. It clearly says that black people are 3/5 of a person. But if you think slavery is wrong then just amend the constitution. There's already processes in place for that."

Zero empathy. Borderline psychotic, honestly.
Click to expand...
Splitting hairs here, but it was 3/5ths of enslaved people. Free black people counted the same as everywhere else.

It's also a good example of fixing something that was wrong.
 
anesussy said:
I can only imagine that if slavery were still legal today, these same people would be arguing, "Well, the founders enshrined slavery within our constitution. It clearly says that black people are 3/5 of a person. But if you think slavery is wrong then just amend the constitution. There's already processes in place for that."

Zero empathy. Borderline psychotic, honestly.
Click to expand...
Granting for the sake of this increasingly absurd discussion that the 2A is a "flaw" in the Constitution -

So ... your reason that it's "psychotic" to attempt correct a flaw in the Constitution by amending it ... is to bring up other flaws in the Constitution ... that were corrected by amending it?

You're not very good at this argument thing.
 
TJRock said:
I guess if one wants to pick at the choice of verbs and not the entire statement, I agree. So substitute destroying for killing.

Once we label those of the opposing political party with as not caring about murdered children, we no longer can have conversations about the topic. Might as well call Republicans Nazis. And once you play the Nazi card, ...........
Click to expand...

I’m going to ignore most of your post as it’s irrelevant to the topic. The reality is judicial activism by Trump appointees, in the case of the 9th circuit decision just before Buffalo and Uvalde, and what will almost assuredly unfold in NY with Trumps 3 SCOTUS appointees, directly affects us and our children. We are seeing it. Contrast it to FL and what they did (with Rick Scott (R)) after Parkland.

Consider that in TX it’s easier for an 18 yr old to buy guns and ammo than it is to get a drivers license. The killer in Uvalde didn’t have a drivers license, but over 3 days bought 2 ARs and 375 rounds of ammo. And TX is ever looking for ways to loosen gun laws. On the day of the Uvalde attack Daniel Defense put out an ad with a toddler holding an AR.

We have evidence (Sandy Hook, Parkland, Uvalde, and many many other school murders) that 18 yr olds have no business owning ARs, high capacity magazines, and massive amounts of ammunition. And yet every day judicial activists add their own interpretation to law that make it less safe for our children at school.

No Sir. I can find no reason to vote R precisely over guns and keeping our children safe. No reason at all.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
RadOncDoc21 said:
Right… let’s see how far pleasantry take us. If a bunch of dead kids can’t get anyone to do anything, nothing will.

We’ll just have to accept the republicans thoughts and prayers and continue this conversation in the future. I just pray we or any of our children will not be the next victims.
Click to expand...
Dead kids won’t, but money will. We had to talk about what to do in this situation to our oldest yesterday ie hide, barricade etc. it’s sad that that’s the best we can do.
 
pgg said:
I commented on the "well regulated" bit in post 173.


That's why there's a mechanism for amending the Constitution. It's been done 27 times. There's no reason why there can't be a 28th Amendment.

Edit - I can't count
Click to expand...
Except republicans are using the second amendment as a reason why they can’t change the second amendment. The fact that the constitution lays out a pathway to adjust itself is proof that the founders didn’t think it was a perfect, infallible document.

We need to at least be open to the fact that the framers weren’t perfect and didn’t know everything. They were dead wrong on issues of slavery, voting, and women’s rights. I think guns have changed more than women or minorities have, so why do we think the second amendment is perfect?
 
The Duck Knows said:
Except republicans are using the second amendment as a reason why they can’t change the second amendment.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this sentence. What do you mean?

The Duck Knows said:
The fact that the constitution lays out a pathway to adjust itself is proof that the founders didn’t think it was a perfect, infallible document.
Click to expand...
We agree? No argument.

The Duck Knows said:
We need to at least be open to the fact that the framers weren’t perfect and didn’t know everything. They were dead wrong on issues of slavery, voting, and women’s rights. I think guns have changed more than women or minorities have, so why do we think the second amendment is perfect?
Click to expand...
So go ahead and get started on repealing or amending it.

Really. What's stopping you?

If your retort to my invitation is to complain that repealing or amending it is too hard, that there aren't enough votes to get it done and ratified, that should inspire you to wonder if the whole idea is less popular than you think it is.

Vocal minorities (on both sides) like to proclaim that their ideas have broad public support and it's just a few extremists getting in the way. But when the vote actually comes up, the proof is in the counting.

Right now we're (again) being told that there's broad support for gun control. Maybe there is, for background checks. Possibly red flag laws, but I doubt it. Count the votes. Now, at the midterms, and in 2024.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Not an anesthesiology topic but share with your OB-GYN colleagues.
Replies
4
Views
1K
cittykat
cittykat
C
New, annoying debate thread?
2
Replies
84
Views
7K
arsene19
A
A
If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin', Invalidated test scores
Replies
22
Views
2K
JoelJoel84
J
G
Can you ask to work involuntarily?
Replies
32
Views
5K
deleted1130227
D
M
AAMC not longer promoting American medical school
Replies
1
Views
1K
HalO'Thane
H