Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And you for some odd reason want to deny these kids, who are participating in a civic exercise, their legal rights.
"...In 1969, the court ruled that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” as Justice Abe Fortas put it in the majority opinion for [i]Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District..."
Snort!... That's a good one considering all the banned clothing items at public schools. ...Guffaw!
It obviously has not occurred to you that these children are the same maladjusted nitwits who voluntarily munch on Tide detergent pods and place body parts on red-hot burner elements to see how long they can stand the self-inflicted pain. But I'm more prone to discount public policy prescriptions coming from people who choose to tattoo themselves with electric burner elements while slobbing down on Tide pods.
Millions more teenagers play high school sports (7.6 million) and start college (20.6 million) each year than eat Tide pods and burn themselves on purpose.
Not allowing dangerous weapons to easily and readily fall into the hands of mentally unstable people should be first thing we tackle. Hence comprehensive gun control. The other stuff needs to be dealt with, but gun control is logically the first thing we need to deal with.
You can't make kids be nicer to each other, but you can limit what kids have access to. We need to act on things we can actual have an effect on.
Better lock up the chemistry book then.
Someone with a little knowledge of hypergolic chemistry could probably make a nasty weapon.
If it is not guns, then it will be some kind of other weapon.
What do you do about people like the Las Vegas shooter who showed no obvious signs of mental illness?
This will be a tough one. In my opinion, if one is diagnosed with certain proven dangerous illnesses, and is required to be medicated to function normally in society they should be drug tested monthly. Without the meds they would be a danger to society so this is to ensure they stay medicated. Also they lose their 2A rights.
The problem is. An illness that could be considered for one person, might not be for another. Same with meds, one might have great results , while another might have bad side effects. And then there is the whole due process thing. We can't take some ones rights away without it.
It is an extremely complex problem. My question is , why didn't we have this problem 30, 40, 50 years ago ? Or did we ? If not , what changed ?
If you were in high school right now, you'd be out there with them, even if it was just to skip 17 minutes of class.
There's nothing wrong with teaching kids to be civic-minded. They do still teach civics in some high schools.
They definitely teach history. This is potentially a teachable moment for a good many kids. They're protesting because they do not like feeling unsafe at school.
Why are you so against it? It's not any longer than a typical fire drill.
I don't really agree with what they are saying and believe many have don't a good grasp on the issues but I feel a 17 minute walkout about something they believe is good for them and society as a whole.
Not melodramatic at all. People are tired of their politicians not listening to them. Don't forget, these kids have parents, friends and other family members AND many will be of voting age by the mid-terms.
Guess you think MLK was a bit melodramatic as well? As was Susan B. Anthony? If that's what it takes.
Don't forget many of these kids have family members (even parents) who may own guns and even be members of the NRA.
MLK wasn't advocating for taking rights away from people, but for respecting the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Not allowing dangerous weapons to easily and readily fall into the hands of mentally unstable people should be first thing we tackle. Hence comprehensive gun control. The other stuff needs to be dealt with, but gun control is logically the first thing we need to deal with.
You can't make kids be nicer to each other, but you can limit what kids have access to. We need to act on things we can actual have an effect on.
Sounds impressive, and like it would do something.
Can you please explain exactly what it is and how it would keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
