Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Should students be allowed to walk out of school to support pro gun rights?


KCitons

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, JerseyToughGuys said:

I dont hate different opinions.

I hate silly opinions and terrible analogies and strawman arguments. 

I can understand strawman arguments, but how do you decide what is silly. 

I find many stances on gun control silly. Especially when a person looks at a bolt action rifle or an airsoft gun that looks "scary" and thinks it should be banned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get a load of these jerkwipes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/mark-amodei-student-suspended_us_5ab1df82e4b054d118de17f1

GOP Rep's Office Got A Student Suspended For Cursing While Asking For Gun Control

Quote

A Republican congressman sparked outrage after his office had a student suspended from high school.

The reason? 

During a brief phone call, the teen had the temerity to use a four-letter word while advocating for gun control.

As students around the nation left class for 17 minutes to protest gun violence last week, Noah Christiansen called the office of Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), the Washington Post reported. The junior at Robert McQueen High School in Reno, Nevada, told the staffer who answered the phone that lawmakers need to “get off their ####ing asses” to pass gun control laws.

More specifically, the student asked Amodei to back raising the minimum agefor buying guns and banning “bump stocks,” which allow semiautomatic weapons to fire more like automatic weapons, the Nevada Independent reported.  

The aide who took the call apparently didn’t appreciate the sentiment.

Someone from Amodei’s office then called Christiansen’s school, and officials there gave him a two-day suspension. According to the Independent, he was also barred from taking on his elected role as class secretary-treasurer. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, KCitons said:

In my opinion people here are want to defend only one sides right to protest.

Despite the litany of responses in this very thread that say they should have the right?  "People here" is a pretty broad brush and why you're getting the push back.  I know it doesn't have the same pizzazz to have to name names especially when there are so few, but you see what you're doing right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Wrong. You could make the argument that bows and arrows were created to kill as well. And many knives. 

The guns I own were not created to kill humans. I bought them for hunting.  This is the problem that people have with the gun debate. They see a guns only purpose as killing people. Yet, with all the guns in this country, only a very small percentage are actually used for that purpose. And, it is becoming easier for people to build a gun at home. Technology is advancing. Which is why we will never be able to stop someone hell bent on using a gun to kill someone. Actually, there are two people that fully admit they want to ban all guns. I'm sure there are more, they just don't want to take that stand. There are also people in the general public that want to ban guns, so to say that only a few people stand for that argument is ridiculous. 

Do I want or believe in an alcohol ban? No. I think it highlights the ridiculous notion that we can ban guns any more than we can ban alcohol. Every comment and argument used for reasons why we can ban guns can be applied to alcohol. Alcohol leads to deaths of innocent people. It leads to deaths when people misuse it, it enhances depression that can lead to suicide. But, we want to say that these things are getting better. Give it a few decades and we will have smart cars to fix the problem. We say that education and awareness are enough to solve the alcohol problem. But the same can't possibly work for our gun problem. Yet, we won't even try. The reasons people commit these mass shootings is because they have a problem. Raise the age to buy a gun and all you do is delay the problem. The average age of a shooter will change from 18 to 22. The number of people dead will still be the same. 

He said they were created to kill.  You added the humans part.  He's correct.  They are created to kill.  There is no question about that.  Gun manufacturers won't even argue against the fact they are created to kill.  THIS too is a problem with the gun debate.  Be the change you want to see.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

Think I'm going to call and tell that representative he's a dip####.  Maybe he can tell my mom.

The school has an anonymous bullying/harassment reporting feature on their website.  Hmmmmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Wrong. You could make the argument that bows and arrows were created to kill as well. And many knives. 

The guns I own were not created to kill humans. I bought them for hunting.  This is the problem that people have with the gun debate. They see a guns only purpose as killing people. Yet, with all the guns in this country, only a very small percentage are actually used for that purpose. And, it is becoming easier for people to build a gun at home. Technology is advancing. Which is why we will never be able to stop someone hell bent on using a gun to kill someone. Actually, there are two people that fully admit they want to ban all guns. I'm sure there are more, they just don't want to take that stand. There are also people in the general public that want to ban guns, so to say that only a few people stand for that argument is ridiculous. 

Do I want or believe in an alcohol ban? No. I think it highlights the ridiculous notion that we can ban guns any more than we can ban alcohol. Every comment and argument used for reasons why we can ban guns can be applied to alcohol. Alcohol leads to deaths of innocent people. It leads to deaths when people misuse it, it enhances depression that can lead to suicide. But, we want to say that these things are getting better. Give it a few decades and we will have smart cars to fix the problem. We say that education and awareness are enough to solve the alcohol problem. But the same can't possibly work for our gun problem. Yet, we won't even try. The reasons people commit these mass shootings is because they have a problem. Raise the age to buy a gun and all you do is delay the problem. The average age of a shooter will change from 18 to 22. The number of people dead will still be the same. 

I'm not wrong.  The sole creation for a gun is to kill.  It's not an opinion.  They were meant for war.  They could also be used to hunt as well.  Spears along with bows and arrows were also meant for war but could also be used to hunt.  They are all weapons designed to harm or kill.  That is why they were created.

Alcohol is not a man made thing.  It occurs naturally and is not designed to kill.  Drinking too much of it can kill and can also lead to poor decision making which can lead to accidental death.

The only thing I can see that they have in common is that they can lead to death but like I said before they are with numerous other things that can lead to death.  It's time to stop comparing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I can understand strawman arguments, but how do you decide what is silly. 

I find many stances on gun control silly. Especially when a person looks at a bolt action rifle or an airsoft gun that looks "scary" and thinks it should be banned. 

You saying that I was wrong for saying guns were created to kill and then going on to say that your guns were made to hunt.  Hunting is killing.  The gun was made to kill a living thing.  What you said was silly and I have a feeling you'll agree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

You saying that I was wrong for saying guns were created to kill and then going on to say that your guns were made to hunt.  Hunting is killing.  The gun was made to kill a living thing.  What you said was silly and I have a feeling you'll agree with that.

No, he won't.  He'll just keep claiming that people are trying to ban guns, that alcohol is the same as guns, and that people want to prevent pro-gun "protests."   It's pointless.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -fish- said:

That will be a fun lawsuit.

Retaliating against a child for exercising his first amendment right to speak and to petition his government.  I do not approve.  It was profane, but certainly not beyond the pale.  It was not repeated, it was not personally directed, it did not interfere with governmental operation.  It did not amount to a threat.  It was unactionable by government either criminally or civilly as far as I can see and yet this staffer reached out to punish the kid and the school cooperated.  I believe they, the staffer and the school are likely to get a lecture from the courts if this kid pursues this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Matthias said:

So when you get actual data of what people here want, it doesn't change your opinion. Because some friend of yours somewhere at some school supposedly has his daughter prevented from protesting at one point. And since you heard that story, the motivations had to be that the school was simply discriminating against your viewpoint. And maybe not possibly, that on a day that the rest of the school was doing a moment which centered around 17 students dying, it would be a cad to tell and jeer. But since you decided that was their motivation, you decided it was the motivation of anyone on the left. Because 100% of people on the left want to ban all guns. And refuse to consider any reasonable measures. And since they can't see anything other than a full ban, it's your job to keep doing a false and bad comparison to alcohol. And since you want to keep doing it, you choose to ignore any fair criticism and flaws of your strawman. Then, when all else fails, you fall back on you don't need to listen to any dissenting opinion because someone said something mean about you and/or conservatives.

And then you complain that there is no reasonable conversations any more.

And here we are.

But think how good it's going to feel when you stop beating your head on the wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ignoratio Elenchi said:

 

lol

Alcohol was created to get people drunk. When mixed with the proper things like boating, automobiles, balconies the consequences can be deadly. 

Guns were created to kill only people? Then why aren't there more dead people with the amount of guns in this country. It's pretty narrow minded that people think guns only serve one purpose. In addition to hunting there are numerous sports that involve guns. The same way we could say that the football and hockey are nothing but barbaric, violent sports that serve no purpose in our society. They also encourage teamwork, physical activity and working through goals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Commish said:

He said they were created to kill.  You added the humans part.  He's correct.  They are created to kill.  There is no question about that.  Gun manufacturers won't even argue against the fact they are created to kill.  THIS too is a problem with the gun debate.  Be the change you want to see.  

This is what I am doing. I guess I should go buy an AR15, I don't own one of those yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm not wrong.  The sole creation for a gun is to kill.  It's not an opinion.  They were meant for war.  They could also be used to hunt as well.  Spears along with bows and arrows were also meant for war but could also be used to hunt.  They are all weapons designed to harm or kill.  That is why they were created.

Alcohol is not a man made thing.  It occurs naturally and is not designed to kill.  Drinking too much of it can kill and can also lead to poor decision making which can lead to accidental death.

The only thing I can see that they have in common is that they can lead to death but like I said before they are with numerous other things that can lead to death.  It's time to stop comparing.

So your 22 rifle was created for war?

Not many people eating berries that have naturally fermented. It takes man to create, package and sell. I'm ok if we change the laws that only naturally occurring alcohol can be consumed. Should cut down on drunk driving. Anything else is man made alcohol and your argument is moot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

You saying that I was wrong for saying guns were created to kill and then going on to say that your guns were made to hunt.  Hunting is killing.  The gun was made to kill a living thing.  What you said was silly and I have a feeling you'll agree with that.

Sure, I'll give you a win. Some guns were created by the military for killing people. Some were created to kill big game. Some were created to shoot targets. 

Can you agree that not all guns are bought with the purpose of killing someone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Matthias said:

So when you get actual data of what people here want, it doesn't change your opinion. Because some friend of yours somewhere at some school supposedly has his daughter prevented from protesting at one point. And since you heard that story, the motivations had to be that the school was simply discriminating against your viewpoint. And maybe not possibly, that on a day that the rest of the school was doing a moment which centered around 17 students dying, it would be a cad to tell and jeer. But since you decided that was their motivation, you decided it was the motivation of anyone on the left. Because 100% of people on the left want to ban all guns. And refuse to consider any reasonable measures. And since they can't see anything other than a full ban, it's your job to keep doing a false and bad comparison to alcohol. And since you want to keep doing it, you choose to ignore any fair criticism and flaws of your strawman. Then, when all else fails, you fall back on you don't need to listen to any dissenting opinion because someone said something mean about you and/or conservatives.

And then you complain that there is no reasonable conversations any more.

And here we are.

What data was that. This thread is just one example. I've shown other example of how people here and in society feel about someone standing up for gun rights. People here may respect the right to protest. I concede that. They would however say that the person is stupid for doing so.

So here we are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, KCitons said:

So your 22 rifle was created for war?

Not many people eating berries that have naturally fermented. It takes man to create, package and sell. I'm ok if we change the laws that only naturally occurring alcohol can be consumed. Should cut down on drunk driving. Anything else is man made alcohol and your argument is moot. 

Guns in general were created for war.  My gun specifically was not but it was created to kill and that's what I use it for.  Not sure how you can argue this.

Alcohol occurs naturally regardless if humans mass produce it or not.  The fact that man mass produces it does not take away the fact that it occurs naturally.  It is not built and created by man like a gun is.  Just because a man brews his own beer does not mean it's not being created naturally.  I can not force yeast to eat sugar and poop out alcohol.  I can put them together and let it occur naturally though.  There's a difference.  My argument is not moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, KCitons said:

Sure, I'll give you a win. Some guns were created by the military for killing people. Some were created to kill big game. Some were created to shoot targets. 

Can you agree that not all guns are bought with the purpose of killing someone?

Guns in general were created to kill.  There are specific guns that are not meant to do that.  Paintball guns are not.  Airsoft guns are not but could probably still kill some small animals.  BB and pellet guns are still meant to kill small animals.  The general purpose for all guns is to kill and like anything there can be certain exceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/21/2018 at 0:44 PM, -fish- said:

That will be a fun lawsuit.

Free speech in schools has never been absolute.  There has always been a gray line between what a student does outside of class and what they can be held responsible for inside of class.  Telling a US Rep to F off is a poor reflection on the school, to be sure.  Not sure it should be punished, but certainly there have been plenty of instances where poor behavior outside of schools resulted in punishment.  Here is a good one and relevant to this thread (seems to have been rescinded under lawsuit threat).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sand said:

Free speech in schools has never been absolute.  There has always been a gray line between what a student does outside of class and what they can be held responsible for inside of class.  Telling a US Rep to F off is a poor reflection on the school, to be sure.  Not sure it should be punished, but certainly there have been plenty of instances where poor behavior outside of schools resulted in punishment.  Here is a good one and relevant to this thread (seems to have been rescinded under lawsuit threat).

this was a phone call, so arguably a private conversation, between a citizen and an elected official.   his location when he placed the call should be irrelevant.  it wasn't related to school event or disruptive of a school event, and it didn't involve illegal activity (which were the factors in the bong hits for jesus case).   swearing as part of political speech is still protected ("#### the draft").   

a school suspending someone based on an elected official attempting to suppress protected speech?   good luck.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bucky86 said:

FYP.  I'm going to guess and say that you never listened to the entire video. This isn't about protesting, this is about communication. Every school in this country was aware that a walkout may happen. This principal chose not to communicate to the parents that kids may or may not be participating and how the school will handle it. He wanted to know who made the decision to allow the kids to leave the classroom. Not a tough question to answer. Does this now allow any student, at any time, the ability to get up and leave a classroom without punishment?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

:shrug: She could've explained it better, but what are schools supposed to do? Lock the kids inside? They knew what was going to happen, but couldn't "endorse" it obviously. 

Of course they can't lock them in the class but the parent wanted to know who allowed them to leave and the principal would not give him an answer.  You can't tell me the school routinely lets 12 year olds come and go from classrooms whenever they feel like it.   The school has plenty of notice this was going to happen and should have communicated to the parents how the school was going to handle it.

If the school permitted them to leave to protest then that's fine, own up to it.     If the kids just walked out of class and the school did not allow it then they should be facing some sort of disciplinary action. 

I don't care one way or another but her response made no sense at all.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

Yeah, I've seen recent articles where students are wanting their side of the issue represented. Some include those that were survivors of the school shooting. I hope the next step is for main stream media to give them an opportunity to speak in front of millions of people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2018 at 1:24 PM, KCitons said:

Yeah, I've seen recent articles where students are wanting their side of the issue represented. Some include those that were survivors of the school shooting. I hope the next step is for main stream media to give them an opportunity to speak in front of millions of people. 

I think it's easy enough for them to make their request publicly and see how the media reacts, just like the Parkland kids did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Commish said:

I think it's easy enough for them to make their request publicly and see how the media reacts, just like the Parkland kids did.

Easy? Not really. 

Maybe the Patriots will send their private jet. My fingers are crossed. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, The General said:

What are they protesting or trying to bring attention to?

That they lived through the same mass shooting, but don't have the same opinion on gun control as the rest of the students. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The General said:

What’s stopping them from doing this?

Nothing is stopping them from talking. But, the media makes the decision to cover it. 

Again, should they be expecting the Patriots plane to arrive soon? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KCitons said:

Nothing is stopping them from talking. But, the media makes the decision to cover it. 

Again, should they be expecting the Patriots plane to arrive soon? 

I’m sure there are rich folks with planes who agree with their message. As far as I know, there is nothing stopping them from sending their planes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Nothing is stopping them from talking. But, the media makes the decision to cover it. 

Again, should they be expecting the Patriots plane to arrive soon? 

So is it the media’s fault their movement or cause isnt a bigger thing? How many kids want to march or whatever for this?

Hundreds of thousands of kids around the planet organizing something probably deserves some media coverage.

Why do the Pats have to send a plane? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The General said:

So is it the media’s fault their movement or cause isnt a bigger thing? How many kids want to march or whatever for this?

Hundreds of thousands of kids around the planet organizing something probably deserves some media coverage.

Why do the Pats have to send a plane? 

http://i.imgur.com/cgxxxAJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KCitons said:

Easy? Not really. 

Maybe the Patriots will send their private jet. My fingers are crossed. 

 

It's really not any more complicated than a tweet or a well organized demonstration.  Again, they've been shown a path to the spotlight :shrug: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I have this right, the media has covered a story about some of the Parkland kids that disagree regarding gun control.   Nothing stops them from speaking out, holding a rally, etc.   The main student out front of this, Kyle Kashuv, has been interviewed on numerous shows and by several print news outlets and has met with legislators.  He has also claimed he is upset that he wasn't allowed to speak at the March for Our Lives, which was a pro-gun control event, due to his anti-gun control position.  We know this because his story is being covered in the national media.

What exactly is the problem here?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Kraft won't send them a plane, but maybe Ted Nugent will.  

Gun guys still trying to find some way that they are being persecuted by high school kids getting attention for gun control protests.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

If I have this right, the media has covered a story about some of the Parkland kids that disagree regarding gun control.   Nothing stops them from speaking out, holding a rally, etc.   The main student out front of this, Kyle Kashuv, has been interviewed on numerous shows and by several print news outlets and has met with legislators.  He has also claimed he is upset that he wasn't allowed to speak at the March for Our Lives, which was a pro-gun control event, due to his anti-gun control position.  We know this because his story is being covered in the national media.

What exactly is the problem here?

 

I think the problem may be the assignment of blame and/or an unwillingness to accept that things are changing.  I mean the only reason that these sorts of rallies won't get off the ground is lack of media coverage right?  Could it possibly be there is no appetite to support these sorts of rallies any longer?  Could it be possible that people are seeing change and are acknowledging something has to be done and perhaps not supporting the status quo is a good way to begin change?  Just spit ballin' here....the one thing I DO know is that if it's going to attract eyeballs, the media outlets WILL cover it.  Guaranteed.  So the question has to be, "will they be able to generate enough eyeballs to make coverage worth while?"  These kids and their supporters are squarely responsible for that :shrug: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...