Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones

Great quote. But why was that in response to me?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 776
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I never felt the need to come to this forum in past years.  I just stuck to the football forums.  Never really cared all that much for politics either but as soon as Trump became President I couldn't

I would be very happy if the pro-Gun people walked out of school - and took their guns with them...

lol

Just now, -OZ- said:

Great quote. But why was that in response to me?

You were talking about known consequences and I just thought of that quote. 

As we know, the unknown unknowns can be problematic in the face of what we think we know. 

It was really light-hearted, bud, I just love to pass that one along whenever I get the chance 

The Existential Poetry of Donald Rumsfeld book that came out back the aughts was quite revealing.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

You were talking about known consequences and I just thought of that quote. 

As we know, the unknown unknowns can be problematic in the face of what we think we know. 

It was really light-hearted, bud, I just love to pass that one along whenever I get the chance 

The Existential Poetry of Donald Rumsfeld book that came out back the aughts was quite revealing.  

:banned:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Sorry it doesn't make sense to me.

The same things that people say about gun regulations could be applied to alcohol. But they turn the argument towards cars and alcohol. Then people say there is no good use for guns, but when I say there is not good use for alcohol, that's ridiculous. 

I suspect it's because alcohol is revered by more people than guns. To want to regulate alcohol inconveniences people too much. 

You're aware that we tried prohibition and it didn't work and increased the criminal activity and violence associated with alcohol, so instead the country heavily regulates it.   With drinking and driving, increased regulations have had a drastic impact on reducing deaths and injuries.  Although you want to keep trying to pound this square peg into a round hole, nobody is suggesting that we ban cars, alcohol or guns--it's a false narrative used to support a specious argument (nobody is preventing pro-gun demonstrations either (I don't think they could really be called "protests" unless there was something to protest about)).

The bottom line is that regulation works.   Unfortunately, the bogeyman of the government coming to take your guns is continually used for the sake of dragging out these false arguments and to deflect from the discussion of appropriate regulation.   

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, -fish- said:

You're aware that we tried prohibition and it didn't work and increased the criminal activity and violence associated with alcohol, so instead the country heavily regulates it.   With drinking and driving, increased regulations have had a drastic impact on reducing deaths and injuries.  Although you want to keep trying to pound this square peg into a round hole, nobody is suggesting that we ban cars, alcohol or guns--it's a false narrative used to support a specious argument (nobody is preventing pro-gun demonstrations either (I don't think they could really be called "protests" unless there was something to protest about)).

The bottom line is that regulation works.   Unfortunately, the bogeyman of the government coming to take your guns is continually used for the sake of dragging out these false arguments and to deflect from the discussion of appropriate regulation.   

I already pointed out that Illinois is working on a bill to raise age limits for certain guns and ammo. If 17 and 18 year old kids can protest for more gun laws, can't kids protest to protect what is now at risk?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, students should be allowed to protest - it is protected speech.  If their protests conflicts with planned learning, then there could be consequences - i.e., a missed test or turned in homework assignment, etc.  I would hope that schools would use this as a means to teach them about exercising their rights in a reasonable manner that doesn't take away their speech rights but also acknowledges the intent of the school environment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KCitons said:

Sorry it doesn't make sense to me.

The same things that people say about gun regulations could be applied to alcohol. But they turn the argument towards cars and alcohol. Then people say there is no good use for guns, but when I say there is not good use for alcohol, that's ridiculous. 

I suspect it's because alcohol is revered by more people than guns. To want to regulate alcohol inconveniences people too much. 

Not with a straight face they couldn't :shrug: 

You are essentially saying (or so it seems through your cryptic responses) that guns should be bought/sold in government run stores and you have to be 21....oh and in some states you wouldn't be able to buy guns on Sunday.  That it or is there more I am missing to the regulation of alcohol sales?

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I already pointed out that Illinois is working on a bill to raise age limits for certain guns and ammo. If 17 and 18 year old kids can protest for more gun laws, can't kids protest to protect what is now at risk?

Again, this is a state issue and until you shifted to it we were talking about the federal level.  Which do you want to discuss?

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I already pointed out that Illinois is working on a bill to raise age limits for certain guns and ammo. If 17 and 18 year old kids can protest for more gun laws, can't kids protest to protect what is now at risk?

Sure, and it has been agreed over and over.   Whether you want to call it a protest or a demonstration, they can peacefully exercise their rights.  This entire argument is pretty pointless, since nobody is banning guns and nobody is arguing against free speech.  These are just fictitious narratives for the sake of deflecting the issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, KCitons said:

I don't have to have insurance to drink. Look at a homeless person. 

I don't have to register my alcohol. 

I don't have a limit on the amount of alcohol I can buy. There is a limit on what I can make. But who really enforces that as long as I'm not selling. So, it has more to do with tax laws than it does consumption. 

I can still buy Everclear over the counter. The bump stock of the drinking world.

Since alcohol is a food, it is regulated by the FDA. So, I will give you that one. 

I'm not required to take any classes or training to drink. 

And I don't need a license. A simple state ID that requires nothing but a birth certificate will allow me to prove my age. 

There seem to be more restrictions on how alcohol can be made, distributed and sold though.  Businesses also have a lot more responsibility for who they sell to and bars are responsible for over serving people.  People also need a valid ID to purchase alcohol.  I know this doesn't stop everything but it certainly prevents a lot.

We may not be required to take any classes on drinking but I'm pretty confident that everyone has had a class where they did talk about the dangers of drinking.  Growing up we had DARE classes every year.  We also discussed it in health class in high school.  I don't recall too many classes about guns, specifically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, KCitons said:

Sorry it doesn't make sense to me.

The same things that people say about gun regulations could be applied to alcohol. But they turn the argument towards cars and alcohol. Then people say there is no good use for guns, but when I say there is not good use for alcohol, that's ridiculous. 

I suspect it's because alcohol is revered by more people than guns. To want to regulate alcohol inconveniences people too much. 

Alcohol is already regulated.  Stop talking about getting rid of alcohol and guns.  No one here is arguing that point with you yet you continue bringing it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Reg Lllama of Brixton said:

Was he supposed to remain in the class?

He had the option to go with the students who were protesting or go to another area where there were students who didn't want to protest.  Sounds like it was done right to me.  Students can not be left alone in a classroom and there most likely is not enough staff to have a teacher in every room while watching both large groups of students.  Sounds like a bunch of stupid outrage from people on both sides again.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Matthias said:

The, "purpose" of this thread: Should students be allowed to protest minority opinions?
Everybody's responses on the first page: Yes.
KCitons take on it later: Yeah. Duh. Everybody should be allowed to protest whatever they want.
Everybody's response: :confused: So why did you start this thread?
KCitons take: Lots of people die in drunk driving accidents. We should be more concerned about alcohol & drunk driving than guns, you hypocrites.
Everybody's response: We regulate alcohol & drunk driving quite a bit. And if you're really concerned about how we address public health issues, why not talk about public health issues? Like, say people not being able to get health coverage and care due to pre-existing conditions?
KCitons take: BIAS AND CONSERVATIVE HATE!!?!!!
Everybody's take: You've been mocking and sniping all thread.
KCitons take: Lots of people die in drunk driving accidents. We should be more concerned about alcohol & drunk driving than guns, you hypocrites.

Repeat, don't rinse. Time to nuke this thread from space.

He said it several pages ago that he was expecting to have a certain argument.  If someone is going to start out so entrenched and not ready or willingly to listen there isn't much point in engaging.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, KCitons said:

I already pointed out that Illinois is working on a bill to raise age limits for certain guns and ammo. If 17 and 18 year old kids can protest for more gun laws, can't kids protest to protect what is now at risk?

Yes

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, -fish- said:

Sure, and it has been agreed over and over.   Whether you want to call it a protest or a demonstration, they can peacefully exercise their rights.  This entire argument is pretty pointless, since nobody is banning guns and nobody is arguing against free speech.  These are just fictitious narratives for the sake of deflecting the issues.

Classic straw man shtick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawkeye21 said:

He had the option to go with the students who were protesting or go to another area where there were students who didn't want to protest.  Sounds like it was done right to me.  Students can not be left alone in a classroom and there most likely is not enough staff to have a teacher in every room while watching both large groups of students.  Sounds like a bunch of stupid outrage from people on both sides again.

Yeah, I wanted to know if the good Dr. knew.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Matthias said:

The, "purpose" of this thread: Should students be allowed to protest minority opinions?
Everybody's responses on the first page: Yes.
KCitons take on it later: Yeah. Duh. Everybody should be allowed to protest whatever they want.
Everybody's response: :confused: So why did you start this thread?
KCitons take: Lots of people die in drunk driving accidents. We should be more concerned about alcohol & drunk driving than guns, you hypocrites.
Everybody's response: We regulate alcohol & drunk driving quite a bit. And if you're really concerned about how we address public health issues, why not talk about public health issues? Like, say people not being able to get health coverage and care due to pre-existing conditions?
KCitons take: BIAS AND CONSERVATIVE HATE!!?!!!
Everybody's take: You've been mocking and sniping all thread.
KCitons take: Lots of people die in drunk driving accidents. We should be more concerned about alcohol & drunk driving than guns, you hypocrites.

Repeat, don't rinse. Time to nuke this thread from space.

Maybe you should reread your posts on the first page and edit the bolded?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Matthias said:

The, "purpose" of this thread: Should students be allowed to protest minority opinions?
Everybody's responses on the first page: Yes.
KCitons take on it later: Yeah. Duh. Everybody should be allowed to protest whatever they want.
Everybody's response: :confused: So why did you start this thread?
KCitons take: Lots of people die in drunk driving accidents. We should be more concerned about alcohol & drunk driving than guns, you hypocrites.

This is where it went off the rails.  The real question is - would schools (or other public sources) provide the same amount of support for a 2nd amendment or pro-life march?

The answer to that is, in a huge number of places, no.  Not just no, but so far out of the realm of possibility in these places it wouldn't even be considered.  This is where the constitutional issues come in.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sand said:

This is where it went off the rails.  The real question is - would schools (or other public sources) provide the same amount of support for a 2nd amendment or pro-life march?

The answer to that is, in a huge number of places, no.  Not just no, but so far out of the realm of possibility in these places it wouldn't even be considered.  This is where the constitutional issues come in.  

In 10 pages there hasn't been any evidence to back up this claim.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, -fish- said:

In 10 pages there hasn't been any evidence to back up this claim.   

Public money was spent in support of a specific political viewpoint that will influence voters.  Simply the large scale monetary, structural and ideological support of this has caused those students on the fence or against to feel pressure and conform to the political viewpoint endorsed by the state.   There is no need to back the claim up.  It's been done.  It was wrong, unconstitutional, and likely against many state laws, as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sand said:

Public money was spent in support of a specific political viewpoint that will influence voters.  Simply the large scale monetary, structural and ideological support of this has caused those students on the fence or against to feel pressure and conform to the political viewpoint endorsed by the state.   There is no need to back the claim up.  It's been done.  It was wrong, unconstitutional, and likely against many state laws, as well.

Yeah, lets not recognize the kids first amendment rights and their voices of their own initiatives, but money spent here is ok

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JIslander said:

Yeah, lets not recognize the kids first amendment rights and their voices of their own initiatives, but money spent here is ok

The NRA is a private organization, not the state.  The kids had every right to walk out of class on their own recognizance to have a march.  That's fine - that's what this country is about.  There was plenty of support from private left wing orgs to carry this out.   For public money to be spent to bus, organize, etc. to promote this viewpoint is beyond the pale.   

BTW, the city of Baltimore put up 100k to promote this political viewpoint.  There you go fish - your evidence.  Would Baltimore spend 100k on the opposite viewpoint?  (Rhetorical question - that's an obvious answer).

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sand said:

Public money was spent in support of a specific political viewpoint that will influence voters.  Simply the large scale monetary, structural and ideological support of this has caused those students on the fence or against to feel pressure and conform to the political viewpoint endorsed by the state.   There is no need to back the claim up.  It's been done.  It was wrong, unconstitutional, and likely against many state laws, as well.

If there were large scale protests against racism, you would argue that they're unconstitutional because they make racists uncomfortable?   They still have a right to protest.  Being on the wrong side of history doesn't mean your rights are violated.    

There is nothing unconstitutional about student protests, and I haven't seen anyone point to a state law that was violated.  There hasn't been an incident where a pro-gun advocate was denied a right to exercise first amendment rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sand said:

The NRA is a private organization, not the state.  The kids had every right to walk out of class on their own recognizance to have a march.  That's fine - that's what this country is about.  There was plenty of support from private left wing orgs to carry this out.   For public money to be spent to bus, organize, etc. to promote this viewpoint is beyond the pale.   

BTW, the city of Baltimore put up 100k to promote this political viewpoint.  There you go fish - your evidence.  Would Baltimore spend 100k on the opposite viewpoint?  (Rhetorical question - that's an obvious answer).

What law was violated?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sand said:

The NRA is a private organization, not the state.  The kids had every right to walk out of class on their own recognizance to have a march.  That's fine - that's what this country is about.  There was plenty of support from private left wing orgs to carry this out.   For public money to be spent to bus, organize, etc. to promote this viewpoint is beyond the pale.   

BTW, the city of Baltimore put up 100k to promote this political viewpoint.  There you go fish - your evidence.  Would Baltimore spend 100k on the opposite viewpoint?  (Rhetorical question - that's an obvious answer).

From your article link:

If $100,000 buys a little bit of progress on gun policy, then it’s money well spent. If it buys empowerment and allows a generation of gun victims to participate in this democracy and speak their peace, then yes, it’s a worthwhile investment. And if it gets Baltimore teens to be energized and mutually supportive, to believe in a brighter future and an end to the wave of gun violence that has plagued their lives and their city, then it’s worth its cost, and probably much more.

I was born and raised in Baltimore.  Good for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, -fish- said:

What law was violated?

Not a law, the 1st amendment.  There is a long history here of the state promoting political viewpoints.  Like a state sponsored religion, to make an obvious example.

 

3 minutes ago, -fish- said:

If there were large scale protests against racism, you would argue that they're unconstitutional because they make racists uncomfortable?   They still have a right to protest.  Being on the wrong side of history doesn't mean your rights are violated.    

There is nothing unconstitutional about student protests, and I haven't seen anyone point to a state law that was violated.  There hasn't been an incident where a pro-gun advocate was denied a right to exercise first amendment rights.

You're deliberately missing the point.  The point is about the state, not about the citizens.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Matthias said:

Why don't you and show me where I say otherwise.

 

On 3/15/2018 at 9:11 AM, Matthias said:

God.

Do conservatives have anything left other than a victim mentality and the creativity of a kumquat? If there's anything that happens, "whatabout..." Sure. Students are allowed to protest whatever they like. But the truth of the matter is they don't want to protest for the right to make their lives more dangerous. With the White House, Senate, House, and SCOTUS, Republicans still act like they're some oppressed victims. Get over yourselves.

 

On 3/15/2018 at 9:12 AM, Matthias said:

Why are all the Tough Guys who Love Guns such big babies?

 

On 3/15/2018 at 9:23 AM, Matthias said:

To protest you need an issue which you really believe in. The only thing which animates them is being against whatever the left is for and snarky comments. Oh, and Klan rallies. They do that. Which isn't just snark. Can you remember a right-wing protest since the white supremacist rally?

 

On 3/15/2018 at 9:42 AM, Matthias said:

I don't think he's actually interested in that question, though. He's just interested in muddying the waters on something which someone else organized and got wide support. It's just the, "All Lives Matter" shtick. Pretend that there's equivocation on positions. The larger question he doesn't actually care about.

 

On 3/15/2018 at 10:19 AM, Matthias said:

#AllPorkMatters

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Sand said:

This is where it went off the rails.  The real question is - would schools (or other public sources) provide the same amount of support for a 2nd amendment or pro-life march?

The answer to that is, in a huge number of places, no.  Not just no, but so far out of the realm of possibility in these places it wouldn't even be considered.  This is where the constitutional issues come in.  

I am not sure that is really true. I don't teach in a super liberal area and I know for a fact our superintendent would want teachers armed if it was legal. However, she was out there standing with the kids. The reasons schools tolerated was because the kids thought it was really important and it was a big National event. The message itself wasn't the motivating factor for every school. I think a lot of this is people making assumptions or seeing 1 or 2 outliers and making broad conculsions from them. We are all guilty of it so I don't mean this as a shot at you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JerseyToughGuys said:

Yes, actual protests are worth a whole lot more than hypothetical protests.

By choosing not to protest or join the other side of the protest in the study hall he became a protestor that was suspended because the school just couldn't have the teacher that was supposed to be teaching the class actually stay in the class.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dr Oadi said:

By choosing not to protest or join the other side of the protest in the study hall he became a protestor that was suspended because the school just couldn't have the teacher that was supposed to be teaching the class actually stay in the class.  

I disagree. Kids that did not want to participate were asked to go to a safe place where they could be supervised. There is nothing unreasonable about that and it does not make a kid anything other than someone that does not want to participate. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr Oadi said:

By choosing not to protest or join the other side of the protest in the study hall he became a protestor that was suspended because the school just couldn't have the teacher that was supposed to be teaching the class actually stay in the class.  

The kid was suspended for defiance.  Period.  

We had a fire drill yesterday.  If one kid said "I'm not going" should I have stayed in my room while 29 other kids walked outside unsupervised?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sand said:

Not a law, the 1st amendment.  There is a long history here of the state promoting political viewpoints.  Like a state sponsored religion, to make an obvious example.

 

You're deliberately missing the point.  The point is about the state, not about the citizens.  

There is no support that a first amendment right was violated, because it wasn't.   Where do you get the idea that a state can't promote a political viewpoint?  Of course they do, and they're specifically authorized in the tenth amendment.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Matthias said:

And you're missing some fundamental constitutional knowledge.

It would be unconstitutional for a state actor to endorse a policy because of its viewpoint. It is not if it is doing it viewpoint-blind. E.g., if it decided to follow certain procedures if there was a certain amount of support or demand for it.

I will be shocked to the core if the city of Baltimore spends more than $0 to send students to next year's March for Life (again, another obvious example).

 

7 minutes ago, JIslander said:

From your article link:

If $100,000 buys a little bit of progress on gun policy, then it’s money well spent. If it buys empowerment and allows a generation of gun victims to participate in this democracy and speak their peace, then yes, it’s a worthwhile investment. And if it gets Baltimore teens to be energized and mutually supportive, to believe in a brighter future and an end to the wave of gun violence that has plagued their lives and their city, then it’s worth its cost, and probably much more.

I was born and raised in Baltimore.  Good for them.

And you just made my point.  Public money spent on a political viewpoint.  Public money spent on voter "energizing".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JerseyToughGuys said:

Yes, actual protests are worth a whole lot more than hypothetical protests.

A bird in the hand is different than grabbing them by the...  Wait, that's not it.  What is that old saying"  A bush in the hand means its time for some shaving.  No that's not it.  someone help me out here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sand said:

I will be shocked to the core if the city of Baltimore spends more than $0 to send students to next year's March for Life (again, another obvious example).

 

And you just made my point.  Public money spent on a political viewpoint.  Public money spent on voter "energizing".  

Point to a constitutional right or law that was violated.   Not one you're making up.  An actual law.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dr Oadi said:

By choosing not to protest or join the other side of the protest in the study hall he became a protestor that was suspended because the school just couldn't have the teacher that was supposed to be teaching the class actually stay in the class.  

He did more than that. He chose not to follow the rules that were established. I would expect others, who chose to protest outside the set parameters, to be punished too. Several dozen were at my daughters high school.

Link to post
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...