did nothing wrong
If Lindsay Clancy is found innocent because hormones made her emotionally unstable, women better be very careful celebrating that verdict.
Because the law loves PRECEDENT.
From that day forward, every job application is going to have a new question:
“Are you currently hormonal?”
“Well, I’m a woman.”
“Thank you. I think we’ll be going in another direction.”
You can’t carry a weapon anymore. No female police officers. Sorry, but we cannot hand a loaded gun to somebody whose legal defense might eventually be, “My hormones were acting up.”
No more high-stress jobs, either. No air-traffic controllers. No surgeons. No nuclear-launch codes. One bad hot flash and boom 
Canada is glowing.
And women definitely can’t be judges. How can you decide whether somebody else is emotionally stable when your own gender just established in court that hormones can make you kill three people?
No female politicians, either. You can’t be trusted to run the country if, according to your own argument, your endocrine system occasionally takes over the government.
And custody hearings are going to change overnight.
The judge will say, “Ordinarily, children belong with their mother. However, according to the Lindsay Clancy precedent, she may be only one hormone away from a Netflix documentary. The children go with Dad.”
Dad doesn’t know their shoe sizes, the pediatrician’s name or which one is allergic to peanuts, but his testosterone has never been successfully used as an insanity defense.
Feminists spent a hundred years saying women are not hysterical, irrational creatures controlled by their biology and one defense attorney walks into court and says, “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury… have you considered the uterus?”
You cannot demand equal authority and then ask for discounted accountability.
If women want equal rights, great. But equal rights come with equal wrongs.
Otherwise, that glass ceiling is about to become a padded ceiling.
-Steve McGrew (X @Remasculate)
… And who will do this dishes in all the sinks at our jobs then! Hmmmmm! Leave it to the Men?–I predict a Plague will run coast to coast of Botulism ! ‘I don’t need to wash no stinkin’ dishes!’ they’ll proclaim. ‘I’ve been using the same Spoon for everything for the last 15 years and I ain’t never washed it yet sissyboy!’. 
All kidding aside here folk’s: If this Woman get’s clear of MURDER charges—That’s 3 LIFETERMS SERVED CONSECTUIVELY The VALUE of owning a friggin’ Goat may be the equivalent of having a Wife.
THIS could be the TRUE life altering event the Devil needs to win over us— You just read @BeanCounter post, this would be a monumental mind-phuck!
This is a note to self: Just for the record if you TRIED to take away my Wife’s guns and tell that Warrior Queen she DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND HERSELF, HER HUSBAND or HER COUNTRY! Now there would be a Ballistic event I would gladly overpay to see. The sheer carnage of any poor slob sent on that one way journey to disarm her—(shaking my head and chuckling softly)
Bettern’n TV huh? 
UN Told Merchant Ships Not to Arm Themselves Against Pirates as Piracy Escalates
By Harold Hutchison August 29, 2026 at 2:30pm
A United Nations agency told countries to “strongly discourage” merchant ship crews from acquiring firearms to defend against piracy, despite 90 sailors being held hostage by Somali pirates.
Piracy rose in 2025, according to the annual reportfrom the International Maritime Organization (IMO) released in June, with 171 incidents of successful or attempted attacks on the high seas. However, the agency, tied to the United Nations, took a hard position against potential targets of pirate attacks using firearms to defend themselves, referring to a circular released in June 2015, in a press release issued days after Somali pirates seized an Eritrean oil tanker on August 22.
“For legal and safety reasons, flag States should strongly discourage the carrying and use of firearms by seafarers for personal protection or for the protection of a ship,” the circular said. “Seafarers are civilians and the use of firearms requires special training and aptitudes and the risk of accidents with firearms carried on board ship is great. Carriage of arms on board ships may encourage attackers to carry firearms or even more dangerous weapons, thereby escalating an already dangerous situation. Any firearm on board may itself become an attractive target for an attacker.”
“The use of privately contracted armed security personnel on board ships may lead to an escalation of violence,” the circular adds. “The carriage of such personnel and their weapons is subject to flag State legislation and policies and is a matter for flag States to determine in consultation with shipowners, companies, and ship operators, if and under which conditions this will be allowed. Flag States should take into account the possible escalation of violence which could result from carriage of armed personnel on board merchant ships, when deciding on its policy.”
As of Monday, 90 mariners were being held by Somali pirates alone following the August 22nd seizure of the Eritrean tanker, according to an IMO release. IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez urged countries to follow guidance issued by the agency in the release, referencing the June 2015 circular.
The Strait of Malacca and the waters around Singapore saw the most attacks or attempted attacks, accounting for 122 of the 171 incidents, according to the annual report. The narrow waters, large amount of traffic and the numerous islands, inlets and coastal areas that can provide concealment and escape routes for pirates contributed to the frequency of attacks in that region, according to a Security Outlines report.
The IMO did not respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation regarding their recommendations, while the Department of War and Maritime Administration (MARAD) declined to comment.
MARAD referred the DCNF to the United States Coast Guard, which did not respond to a request for comment about whether the recommendations actually make American merchant mariners safer. Some called for allowing crews to be armed, saying it could serve as a deterrent to pirate attacks because pirates would be less likely to target victims due to the possibility of facing armed resistance.
The circular also stated that when going into a port or entering territorial waters, merchant ships were subject to the laws of the country whose port or waters were involved. Some countries, like Australia and Japan, have strict gun control laws.
According to research published by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), many studies have found that right-to-carry or concealed carry laws are associated with reductions in violent crime by increasing the potential risks faced by offenders. CPRC President John Lott did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF about the application against maritime piracy.
The United States has clashed with piracy since the first decades of its independence. In the early 1800s, the United States used naval power to combat piracy that threatened American commerce, with the most significant conflicts being the First and Second Barbary Wars in the Mediterranean, where pirates seized merchant ships and demanded tribute.
The United States later carried out a similar campaignin the Caribbean and Gulf of America, forming the West Indies Squadron. Since 2000, the United States Navy was involved in multiple engagements with pirates, notably off Somalia in violent incidents that included the 2009 Maersk Alabama hijacking.
Sounds like a gun-grabbing California politician 
The UN can’t be trusted.
Unlike Lindsay Clancy
Give them a shot of arsenic and call it a medical mistake.
Disgusting POS. He also needs a dose of medical malpractice.
