I've thought about a couple of things. Start making school merit based again. Put the pressures back on the kid to succeed. You don't know how many issues we deal with like this. Kids are dumb kids. They say stupid ****. If you suspended every kid who made a dumb threatening comment you would lose 25-30% of your kids. Not the whole year mind you but for awhile. I think the administration gets all caught up in metrics. If I suspend this kid i will never hit this 95% metric. All that BS. When I started teaching you had to pass 1 science class. 1! Now they have to pass 3 and I'm judged and the school is judged on how all of them do. The focus changes is what I am saying. It's all about getting every kid that you can over a not so high hurdle but it is a hurdle. If that class was merit based. You get into it if you reach a criteria the whole calculus changes. We don't even care if we suspend a kid. He didn't hold his end of the bargain. I don't have to get him to pass a test. HE NEEDS TO PASS MY EXAM not the states. We could weed out alot of problems this way.

I could talk for days about this but the fact of the matter is we have too many kids taking too many courses they are not equipped to handle and everybody gets in. Kids make threats daily and administrators don't want to do anything because it effects the district's report card.

(02-15-2018 09:29 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 09:23 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Repealing 2nd amendment won't help. Those who want to harm will find a way to get guns or other tools as put earlier in the thread.

Repealing the Second Amendment almost certainly would have stopped this shooting. This kid had no access to anything dangerous except firearms. He wasn't going to build a bomb, or go on a stabbing spree because he's a coward. It was guns or nothing.

I truly, honestly believe it is time for the the politicians to float repealing the Second Amendment. Why are control advocates so afraid of this conversation? Let's see how the country divides up. Roll them bones, as they say.

Repealing won't solve the issue unless you do a full confiscation of firearms. Even then you may not get them all. I do think the second amendment is outdated. At the time it was written it was during a time when citizens could revolt or were needed to form militias. We're passed those days.

I think we need to amend it. Do we raise the legal age of purchasing fire arms? Do we require that no one under the age of 21 even handle a fire arm? To me that makes more sense than totally repealing but I'm not sure that'll be effective.

If anything we need to start the talk of banning ARs and parts to make these guns. If I had to pick a path, that's the path I take.

I'm just floating ideas.

(02-15-2018 08:27 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfun...n-culture/

What a stupid, vapid, “hot take”.

Yes, dick (article author, not you Mach) it’s fear that generates most gun ownership, not sport, collecting, violent intent, or simply exercising ones right to own.

I read that garbage, and am “fearful” I’ll never recover my precious 7 minutes of my life...

I think the problem what this country has is accountability. We need to go back to the old ways of spanking your kids when they did something wrong and start making them to respect the rule of law. We need parents to start acting like parents and talk to their children about whats wrong and whats right. Its not a perfect scenario, but nothing is perfect.

(02-15-2018 09:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I've thought about a couple of things. Start making school merit based again. Put the pressures back on the kid to succeed. You don't know how many issues we deal with like this. Kids are dumb kids. They say stupid ****. If you suspended every kid who made a dumb threatening comment you would lose 25-30% of your kids. Not the whole year mind you but for awhile. I think the administration gets all caught up in metrics. If I suspend this kid i will never hit this 95% metric. All that BS. When I started teaching you had to pass 1 science class. 1! Now they have to pass 3 and I'm judged and the school is judged on how all of them do. The focus changes is what I am saying. It's all about getting every kid that you can over a not so high hurdle but it is a hurdle. If that class was merit based. You get into it if you reach a criteria the whole calculus changes. We don't even care if we suspend a kid. He didn't hold his end of the bargain. I don't have to get him to pass a test. HE NEEDS TO PASS MY EXAM not the states. We could weed out alot of problems this way.

I could talk for days about this but the fact of the matter is we have too many kids taking too many courses they are not equipped to handle and everybody gets in. Kids make threats daily and administrators don't want to do anything because it effects the district's report card.

We agree on this. My wife was a teacher prior to becoming a nurse. She has many of the same gripes. I fully agree.

But in the end how does this translate into what we saw yesterday? I'm not looking for an argument, but actual dialogue. This is your expert area Mach.

I'll start this by saying that I am a staunch proponent of the 2nd amendment - even though I do not own a gun currently by choice.

With that said, the very first place to start if people are serious about controlling guns is to eliminate those that are obtained illegally. In other words, eliminate all illegally held guns. Until it is proven that eliminating the illegal guns is possible, removing them from law abiding citizens does nothing but make all the law abiding people sitting ducks.

I'm guessing the above will prove no more successful than keeping illegal drugs out of people's hands, but any talk of gun control without eliminating those held illegally is little more than tyranny against the law abiding.

Far too many people, politicians included, wring their hands every time some tragedy like this happens, but almost never does any of those folks give a workable solution to eradicating guns held illegally. No, it is always ends up using the hand of government against those that are already obeying the current laws and aren't breaking the laws already on the books.

(02-15-2018 09:36 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Repealing won't solve the issue unless you do a full confiscation of firearms.

Yes you are right, of course. That is why I want to hear from the left and gun control advocates their plan for repealing the Second Amendment and the full confiscation of now illegal firearms from now criminal Americans.

(02-15-2018 09:36 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I do think the second amendment is outdated. At the time it was written it was during a time when citizens could revolt or were needed to form militias. We're passed those days.

Let me say this: Which of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights reserve power to the State instead of to the individual? Which of the other Rights are limited to eighteenth century technology? Does the 1st only apply to State approved religions, gatherings and news organizations? Does the 4th only apply to papers written with turkey feathers and inside log cabins?

(02-15-2018 09:36 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I think we need to amend it. Do we raise the legal age of purchasing fire arms? Do we require that no one under the age of 21 even handle a fire arm? To me that makes more sense than totally repealing but I'm not sure that'll be effective.

The largest population of firearm death are middle aged white males via suicide. Raising the age accomplishes very little, metrics wise.

(02-15-2018 09:36 AM)gdunn Wrote:  If anything we need to start the talk of banning ARs and parts to make these guns. If I had to pick a path, that's the path I take.

What happens when someone shoots up a school with a .22? Or a revolver? Or a shotgun?

(02-15-2018 09:36 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I'm just floating ideas.

My challenge to you is that there are no more ideas. It's ban firearms, or reconcile the reality of firearm rights with firearm deaths.

I am not being an ace here, honestly.

Bush's Patriot Act is evil. We don't want the government spying on our private stuff its tyranny....we want the government to manage all of our medical records for us.

We are scared of the police...only the police should have guns.

We want the government to stop controlling our bodies....we want the government to limit our salt, nicotine, caffeine, and sugar intake.

The terrorist watch list and no-fly list are terrible, expanding in size until no longer useful, innocent foreign people are getting caught up in it, poorly managed.....we need a government database of all gun owners.

States rights are racist and horrible and a relic...we might want to secede, we don't want our state enforcing immigration law, our state chooses pot.

It is difficult to pick out a consistent political philosophy out of it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(02-15-2018 09:36 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 09:29 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 09:23 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Repealing 2nd amendment won't help. Those who want to harm will find a way to get guns or other tools as put earlier in the thread.

Repealing the Second Amendment almost certainly would have stopped this shooting. This kid had no access to anything dangerous except firearms. He wasn't going to build a bomb, or go on a stabbing spree because he's a coward. It was guns or nothing.

I truly, honestly believe it is time for the the politicians to float repealing the Second Amendment. Why are control advocates so afraid of this conversation? Let's see how the country divides up. Roll them bones, as they say.

Repealing won't solve the issue unless you do a full confiscation of firearms. Even then you may not get them all. I do think the second amendment is outdated. At the time it was written it was during a time when citizens could revolt or were needed to form militias. We're passed those days.

I think we need to amend it. Do we raise the legal age of purchasing fire arms? Do we require that no one under the age of 21 even handle a fire arm? To me that makes more sense than totally repealing but I'm not sure that'll be effective.

If anything we need to start the talk of banning ARs and parts to make these guns. If I had to pick a path, that's the path I take.

I'm just floating ideas.

First bold part:
Do what you are saying and you'll prove the second part of your statement wrong.


Second bold part:
Ban ARs and yesterday Cruz instead uses the shotgun he's holding in an Instagram picture. So instead of thirty .223 caliber projectiles he's now sending one hundred and sixty eight .30 caliber projectiles down a crowded hallway. What exactly have you accomplished here?

(02-15-2018 09:29 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 09:23 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Repealing 2nd amendment won't help. Those who want to harm will find a way to get guns or other tools as put earlier in the thread.

Repealing the Second Amendment almost certainly would have stopped this shooting. This kid had no access to anything dangerous except firearms. He wasn't going to build a bomb, or go on a stabbing spree because he's a coward. It was guns or nothing.

I truly, honestly believe it is time for the the politicians to float repealing the Second Amendment. Why are control advocates so afraid of this conversation? Let's see how the country divides up. Roll them bones, as they say.

You can float it all you want. What you can't do is get the necessary votes in the House, Senate, and State legislatures. The scenario where you could get those votes is hard to imagine.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(02-15-2018 09:51 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  You can float it all you want. What you can't do is get the necessary votes in the House, Senate, and State legislatures. The scenario where you could get those votes is hard to imagine.

Just so everyone is clear, I am an ardent Second Amendment supporter. I want the conversation on gun confiscation to happen so I can see where people really stand.

There are no longer and laws that will prevent shootings. So let's start the conversations, politically, on repealing the Second Amendment and see where that leads us electorally.

(02-15-2018 09:36 AM)gdunn Wrote:  If anything we need to start the talk of banning ARs and parts to make these guns. If I had to pick a path, that's the path I take.

17 — The number of people who died at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.

1,858 — Days since New York enacted the SAFE Act, which banned AR-15 style rifles like the one used in Florida and required mental health professionals to report patients “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others” in a database that restricts their ability to buy guns.

43-18 — The final vote in the GOP-controlled New York state Senate when it passed the bill.

3 — The number of senators who lost their seats in part because of the SAFE Act vote: Ted O’Brien (D-Rochester), Terry Gipson (D-Dutchess County) and Mark Grisanti (R-Buffalo)

0 — The number of people that have died in school shootings in New York since the SAFE Act was passed, according to a compilation of nearly 300 incidents by Everytown, a gun control advocacy group.

(02-15-2018 09:46 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Second bold part:
Ban ARs and yesterday Cruz instead uses the shotgun he's holding in an Instagram picture. So instead of thirty .223 caliber projectiles he's now sending one hundred and sixty eight .30 caliber projectiles down a crowded hallway. What exactly have you accomplished here?

Just my opinion here -

He probably doesn't kill 17 people with a few shots from a shotgun. He probably injures as many , but does not kill them.

And if that were his only weapon there would be a greater chance of somebody (or multiple people) being able to take him down after his first shots.

It's sad that we have come to this. Our church is now implementing plans to attempt to thwart shootings such as these. Among other things, we now post several people at unlocked entrances during services. Who would have ever thought something like that would be necessary?

(02-15-2018 09:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I've thought about a couple of things. Start making school merit based again. Put the pressures back on the kid to succeed. You don't know how many issues we deal with like this. Kids are dumb kids. They say stupid ****. If you suspended every kid who made a dumb threatening comment you would lose 25-30% of your kids. Not the whole year mind you but for awhile. I think the administration gets all caught up in metrics. If I suspend this kid i will never hit this 95% metric. All that BS. When I started teaching you had to pass 1 science class. 1! Now they have to pass 3 and I'm judged and the school is judged on how all of them do. The focus changes is what I am saying. It's all about getting every kid that you can over a not so high hurdle but it is a hurdle. If that class was merit based. You get into it if you reach a criteria the whole calculus changes. We don't even care if we suspend a kid. He didn't hold his end of the bargain. I don't have to get him to pass a test. HE NEEDS TO PASS MY EXAM not the states. We could weed out alot of problems this way.

I could talk for days about this but the fact of the matter is we have too many kids taking too many courses they are not equipped to handle and everybody gets in. Kids make threats daily and administrators don't want to do anything because it effects the district's report card.

Agree on this. My fiance, who is a middle school teacher, constantly complains about the lack of accountability with some kids. She says that the administration does not want to punish kids if they do something wrong in the class, because they fear that the school will get punish for having too many kids getting in trouble. Now you have a bunch of kids running around the school rampant, knowing well that they wont get in trouble.

(02-15-2018 09:46 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 09:36 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 09:29 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 09:23 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Repealing 2nd amendment won't help. Those who want to harm will find a way to get guns or other tools as put earlier in the thread.

Repealing the Second Amendment almost certainly would have stopped this shooting. This kid had no access to anything dangerous except firearms. He wasn't going to build a bomb, or go on a stabbing spree because he's a coward. It was guns or nothing.

I truly, honestly believe it is time for the the politicians to float repealing the Second Amendment. Why are control advocates so afraid of this conversation? Let's see how the country divides up. Roll them bones, as they say.

Repealing won't solve the issue unless you do a full confiscation of firearms. Even then you may not get them all. I do think the second amendment is outdated. At the time it was written it was during a time when citizens could revolt or were needed to form militias. We're passed those days.

I think we need to amend it. Do we raise the legal age of purchasing fire arms? Do we require that no one under the age of 21 even handle a fire arm? To me that makes more sense than totally repealing but I'm not sure that'll be effective.

If anything we need to start the talk of banning ARs and parts to make these guns. If I had to pick a path, that's the path I take.

I'm just floating ideas.

First bold part:
Do what you are saying and you'll prove the second part of your statement wrong.


Second bold part:
Ban ARs and yesterday Cruz instead uses the shotgun he's holding in an Instagram picture. So instead of thirty .223 caliber projectiles he's now sending one hundred and sixty eight .30 caliber projectiles down a crowded hallway. What exactly have you accomplished here?

If you ban an AR then he aquires a similar caliber semi-auto deer rifle that does the exact same thing an AR does.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(02-15-2018 09:44 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 09:36 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Repealing won't solve the issue unless you do a full confiscation of firearms.

Yes you are right, of course. That is why I want to hear from the left and gun control advocates their plan for repealing the Second Amendment and the full confiscation of now illegal firearms from now criminal Americans.

(02-15-2018 09:36 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I do think the second amendment is outdated. At the time it was written it was during a time when citizens could revolt or were needed to form militias. We're passed those days.

Let me say this: Which of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights reserve power to the State instead of to the individual? Which of the other Rights are limited to eighteenth century technology? Does the 1st only apply to State approved religions, gatherings and news organizations? Does the 4th only apply to papers written with turkey feathers and inside log cabins?

(02-15-2018 09:36 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I think we need to amend it. Do we raise the legal age of purchasing fire arms? Do we require that no one under the age of 21 even handle a fire arm? To me that makes more sense than totally repealing but I'm not sure that'll be effective.

The largest population of firearm death are middle aged white males via suicide. Raising the age accomplishes very little, metrics wise.

(02-15-2018 09:36 AM)gdunn Wrote:  If anything we need to start the talk of banning ARs and parts to make these guns. If I had to pick a path, that's the path I take.

What happens when someone shoots up a school with a .22? Or a revolver? Or a shotgun?

(02-15-2018 09:36 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I'm just floating ideas.

My challenge to you is that there are no more ideas. It's ban firearms, or reconcile the reality of firearm rights with firearm deaths.

I am not being an ace here, honestly.

I know you're not. What you're doing is what we all should be doing... Debating and dialogue instead of trolling and insulting.

So you're all for a full repeal and confiscation. So how would you expect that to be done? What about the sportsmen who use a shot gun for turkey hunting or duck hunting? What about the sports man that uses a 30-06 for deer hunting or elk hunting? The hunter that uses a 45-70 for bear? Do we infringe upon that? Do we make hunting an illegal activity unless it's with a slingshot, bow and arrow, or spear?

While the above is not guaranteed rights nor something everyone does, that's going to be a group that comes out against a full repeal.

(02-15-2018 09:45 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Bush's Patriot Act is evil. We don't want the government spying on our private stuff its tyranny....we want the government to manage all of our medical records for us.

We are scared of the police...only the police should have guns.

We want the government to stop controlling our bodies....we want the government to limit our salt, nicotine, caffeine, and sugar intake.

The terrorist watch list and no-fly list are terrible, expanding in size until no longer useful, innocent foreign people are getting caught up in it, poorly managed.....we need a government database of all gun owners.

States rights are racist and horrible and a relic...we might want to secede, we don't want our state enforcing immigration law, our state chooses pot.

It is difficult to pick out a consistent political philosophy out of it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

There is no consistency in politics anymore, just whatever is popular at the time.

(02-15-2018 09:54 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 09:51 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  You can float it all you want. What you can't do is get the necessary votes in the House, Senate, and State legislatures. The scenario where you could get those votes is hard to imagine.

Just so everyone is clear, I am an ardent Second Amendment supporter. I want the conversation on gun confiscation to happen so I can see where people really stand.

There are no longer and laws that will prevent shootings. So let's start the conversations, politically, on repealing the Second Amendment and see where that leads us electorally.

Run candidates for State legislatures on a gun confiscation platform. Achieve a majority in 3/4ths of the States.

Run US Senate and House candidates on a gun confiscation platform. Win 2/3rds of all House and Senate seats with them.

Voila.

Better start now because that is going to take a while.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(02-15-2018 09:54 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 09:36 AM)gdunn Wrote:  If anything we need to start the talk of banning ARs and parts to make these guns. If I had to pick a path, that's the path I take.

17 — The number of people who died at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.

1,858 — Days since New York enacted the SAFE Act, which banned AR-15 style rifles like the one used in Florida and required mental health professionals to report patients “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others” in a database that restricts their ability to buy guns.

43-18 — The final vote in the GOP-controlled New York state Senate when it passed the bill.

3 — The number of senators who lost their seats in part because of the SAFE Act vote: Ted O’Brien (D-Rochester), Terry Gipson (D-Dutchess County) and Mark Grisanti (R-Buffalo)

0 — The number of people that have died in school shootings in New York since the SAFE Act was passed, according to a compilation of nearly 300 incidents by Everytown, a gun control advocacy group.

Not to be a prick, but where did you find that information and would you be willing to share the link with info?

(02-15-2018 09:54 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 09:46 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Second bold part:
Ban ARs and yesterday Cruz instead uses the shotgun he's holding in an Instagram picture. So instead of thirty .223 caliber projectiles he's now sending one hundred and sixty eight .30 caliber projectiles down a crowded hallway. What exactly have you accomplished here?

Just my opinion here -

He probably doesn't kill 17 people with a few shots from a shotgun. He probably injures as many , but does not kill them.

And if that were his only weapon there would be a greater chance of somebody (or multiple people) being able to take him down after his first shots.

It's sad that we have come to this. Our church is now implementing plans to attempt to thwart shootings such as these. Among other things, we now post several people at unlocked entrances during services. Who would have ever thought something like that would be necessary?

I dont know if I would be so sure of that, while the AR15 is shooting in one single direction, the shotgun will have a blast radius of at least 20x that of an AR.