• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Liberal Gun Control Activist Caught Packing Gun[W:188]

Do you know what happens to a teacher who discusses a student's school record openly with people they're not supposed to?



Alright, I'm going to say this: That scenario wouldn't work well under any circumstance for the school. It's a lawsuit waiting to happen so there is no interest in using the fact that the kid's parents own guns if the situation doesn't call for it. Not only would the parents have grounds to claim that their children was discriminated against, it would be a **** storm for the school disctrict.

and you don't think some anti gun NEA nutcase might down grade a kid whose parents have guns?

its something the school doesn't need to know
 
....its something the school doesn't need to know
That's what it comes down to in the end, for me.

The schools have no reason or right to have that information.
 
and you don't think some anti gun NEA nutcase might down grade a kid whose parents have guns?

its something the school doesn't need to know

Btw - this is the anti-gun politician you're discussing:

SB613 - Modifies provisions relating to firearms

This act allows a school district to designate one or more school teachers or administrators as a school protection officer. School protection officers are authorized to carry a concealed firearm or self-defense spray device.

The officer must keep the firearm or device under his or her personal control at all times while on school property.

SB556 - Creates reporting requirements for lost or stolen firearms, expands the list of crimes that are eligible for expungement, and creates a gun buyback pilot program

This act provides that the open carrying of a firearm may not be prohibited by a political subdivision for any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit in his or her possession who presents such endorsement or permit upon the demand of a law enforcement officer. In addition, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed handgun may be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest or if there is no reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity.

SB613 - Modifies provisions relating to firearms

Under this act, no public officer or state employee has the authority to enforce firearms laws declared invalid by the act.

This act declares as invalid all federal laws that infringe on the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution.

SB565 - Requires firearm owners to report the loss or theft of a firearm to a local law enforcement agency

Failure to report the loss or theft of a firearm is punishable by a fine of $1,000. Any subsequent offense of failing to report as required is a Class A misdemeanor.

Sounds like an anti-gun nut alright.
 
tl dr

schools have no legitimate need to know
 
and you don't think some anti gun NEA nutcase might down grade a kid whose parents have guns?

Hm... so... let me get this straight, if I'm following this new argument now - are we supposed to conceal information from schools because someone who opposes X may downgrade our kids? Great argument for segregation. If there is a white/black teacher who doesn't like black/white kids, then the only logical solution is to keep kids segregated. No Turtle, that's not a convincing argument either.

its something the school doesn't need to know

Well start with that! Instead of saying this is anti-gun legislation. It isn't. Hey, if you oppose it because you don't feel that information shouldn't be given to the school, that's fine - but don't come on the forum saying it's "anti-gun" when the bills are filled with pro-gun language.
 
tl dr

schools have no legitimate need to know

Well, at least you've given up on the anti-gun argument. Good stuff, Turtle. Never let them see you wave the white flag. ;)
 
Hm... so... let me get this straight, if I'm following this new argument now - are we supposed to conceal information from schools because someone who opposes X may downgrade our kids? Great argument for segregation. If there is a white/black teacher who doesn't like black/white kids, then the only logical solution is to keep kids segregated. No Turtle, that's not a convincing argument either.



Well start with that! Instead of saying this is anti-gun legislation. It isn't. Hey, if you oppose it because you don't feel that information shouldn't be given to the school, that's fine - but don't come on the forum saying it's "anti-gun" when the bills are filled with pro-gun language.

we shouldn't have to conceal anything because the school has no business knowing it
 
Well, at least you've given up on the anti-gun argument. Good stuff, Turtle. Never let them see you wave the white flag. ;)

no one has made a sensible argument for this law. And since I doubt anyone on this board understands gun crime investigations better than i do, I know the arguments are specious that have been proffered in favor of this stupid law.
 
Hm... so... let me get this straight, if I'm following this new argument now - are we supposed to conceal information from schools because someone who opposes X may downgrade our kids? Great argument for segregation. If there is a white/black teacher who doesn't like black/white kids, then the only logical solution is to keep kids segregated. No Turtle, that's not a convincing argument either.



Well start with that! Instead of saying this is anti-gun legislation. It isn't. Hey, if you oppose it because you don't feel that information shouldn't be given to the school, that's fine - but don't come on the forum saying it's "anti-gun" when the bills are filled with pro-gun language.
Personally, I am of the opinion that preferably no one (other than friends/family) and at worst only law enforcement should be aware of any firearms or weapons I own.
 
I have:

- allows parents to be aware that not locking their guns could carry prison time/fines etc.
- in the case of school shootings, it could help police narrow down suspects.
- parents who have children showing aggressive behavior can be warned that their children should stay away from guns.
- makes the school aware of who could bring guns to school.

Now: Tell us how having to report that you own a gun stigmatizes you? How would you be seen negatively by reporting that you own a gun to your kid's school?

Just because you need close supervision in these areas doesn't mean that the rest of us do.

1- parents can read the law themselves just like everyone else we don't need help.

2-there are no suspects until there is probable cause. Once there is probable cause then a warrant will be issued. Just being on a list does not make one a suspect. Move on.

3-parents are capable of reading and understanding just like everyone else. The doctors can cover that in their discussions with parents.

4-no it doesn't. It means nothing. Nice try, but it doesn't work.

Looks like that is 0 for 4.
 
Just because you need close supervision in these areas doesn't mean that the rest of us do.

Still with the ad-homs? Hm.

1- parents can read the law themselves just like everyone else we don't need help.

Good, now they can read about having to report a gun to school officials. Still can't tell us how it infringes your right to own guns? Good stuff. :shrug:

2-there are no suspects until there is probable cause.

Who said otherwise? You're swinging and missing.

Once there is probable cause then a warrant will be issued. Just being on a list does not make one a suspect. Move on.

Never said that either. That's what? The second time you make up arguments out of thin air. I said the list could help narrow down suspects in an investigation.

3-parents are capable of reading and understanding just like everyone else. The doctors can cover that in their discussions with parents.

Lol... Please tell us all how school policies work on children with aggressive behavior. What doctor are they sent to? ;) I'll give you a tip, the first people to deal with aggressive behavior in a school aren't doctors.

4-no it doesn't. It means nothing. Nice try, but it doesn't work.

Ummm - yes it does. Lol, kid A's parent owns guns? Kid A could bring a gun to school. See how simple that was?

Looks like that is 0 for 4.

It's funny to watch you come in and out of the thread only to have your arguments refuted to the point of "it's not the school's business!"
 
Just because you need close supervision in these areas doesn't mean that the rest of us do.

1- parents can read the law themselves just like everyone else we don't need help.

2-there are no suspects until there is probable cause. Once there is probable cause then a warrant will be issued. Just being on a list does not make one a suspect. Move on.

3-parents are capable of reading and understanding just like everyone else. The doctors can cover that in their discussions with parents.

4-no it doesn't. It means nothing. Nice try, but it doesn't work.

Looks like that is 0 for 4.


the pathetic arguments in support of this law demonstrates what a silly law it was
 
diversion-common tactic when the argument you try to make has no rational support

No, I showed how that post is indicative of how little basis you have in this debate. None. Let's count how many things you've said that you haven't backed up:

- Nasheed is anti-gun
- This measure is anti-gun

the problem is-we aren't dealing with that, we are dealing with a Democrat gun restrictionist who most likely wouldn't want white conservatives carrying the same weapon she did

anyone who is honest about the gun control scourge in this country understands that politicians are not willing (for the most part) to come out and admit they are gun banners YET.

Status:False. The bills supported by Naheed even allow schools to designate armed guards at the school and oppose federal laws infringing on gun ownership. Now, does that sound like an anti-gun nut to you? It doesn't but you've avoided all types honesty in this debate. You won't even address the laws in question because of how little a case for 'anti-gun nut' you have.
 
No, I showed how that post is indicative of how little basis you have in this debate. None. Let's count how many things you've said that you haven't backed up:

- Nasheed is anti-gun
- This measure is anti-gun





Status:False. The bills supported by Naheed even allow schools to designate armed guards at the school and oppose federal laws infringing on gun ownership. Now, does that sound like an anti-gun nut to you? It doesn't but you've avoided all types honesty in this debate. You won't even address the laws in question because of how little a case for 'anti-gun nut' you have.

the law is designed to stigmatize gun owners and has no rational purpose.

I have addressed the law and it has no legitimate purpose or value
 
the law is designed to stigmatize gun owners and has no rational purpose.

And you've yet to demonstrate how. School records aren't available to other parents or their children. Hell, teachers who don't deal with that student have no access to the student's record. "Down grading" as possibility is absurd. If it was a valid argument, there'd be no reason for co-ed schools or even desegregated schools.

I have addressed the law and it has no legitimate purpose or value

Not really. You've spent 12+ posts saying you don't like it and it's gun nut legislation, when proven wrong, you won't even work up the effort to debate the legislation. What does that tell us? You had no case for calling Nasheed anti-gun. If you did, you'd be parading her anti-gun language all over the forum but you're not. Reminds me of when we had that argument where you told me you knew people who'd never heard of Obama in school. I laughed at that too.
 
And you've yet to demonstrate how. School records aren't available to other parents or their children. Hell, teachers who don't deal with that student have no access to the student's record. "Down grading" as possibility is absurd. If it was a valid argument, there'd be no reason for co-ed schools or even desegregated schools.



Not really. You've spent 12+ posts saying you don't like it and it's gun nut legislation, when proven wrong, you won't even work up the effort to debate the legislation. What does that tell us? You had no case for calling Nasheed anti-gun. If you did, you'd be parading her anti-gun language all over the forum but you're not. Reminds me of when we had that argument where you told me you knew people who'd never heard of Obama in school. I laughed at that too.

you haven't proven me or anyone else wrong because your arguments in favor of this law are completely detached from reality when it comes to police investigations. You have an OPINION the the law is beneficial and I have an OPINION it does nothing legitimate. People will have to decide if I know more about criminal investigations than you do in order to decide which OPINION as more validity.

what was Nasheed rated by the NRA in her last election effort?
 
you haven't proven me or anyone else wrong

Nasheed is not a gun nut. She supported a bill which allow teachers to carry weapons in school and made federal laws attacking the 2nd amendment void. That's the third time you're proven wrong.

because your arguments in favor of this law are completely detached from reality when it comes to police investigations. You have an OPINION the the law is beneficial and I have an OPINION it does nothing legitimate. People will have to decide if I know more about criminal investigations than you do in order to decide which OPINION as more validity.

what was Nasheed rated by the NRA in her last election effort?

The NRA is not a deciding factor of anything. I'm using the very legislation they're citing as anti-gun to prove that they're wrong on this issue. So I ask:

Is a person who votes in favor of armed school teachers anti gun?
Is a person who votes in favor of voiding federal laws restricting the 2nd amendment anti-gun?

Guess who did that? ;)
 
Yes, I believe we should take simple measures to prevent a violent felon from purchasing a gun. Clearly this means I want to take every gun on the planet away from people and also take away anything that makes loud, gun-like noises.

Well the criminal justice system is so jacked-up now that felons can do pretty much as they please with little fear of doing hard time---especially in the more hostile areas of the US.

I can at least barely tolerate instant background checks---just barely---because they wouldn't be needed, and shouldn't be needed if people were properly punished for the violent crimes they commit, with or without guns.
 
You are correct, this area is a safe haven for political porn posters. That said, you simply used an opinion piece to support your opinion, and that opinion piece was very poorly supported.... so, you in essence, posted a house of cards argument, and me as the building inspector, have condemned your structure, as it is woefully unsafe.

I'll try to be more careful next time....
 
Back
Top Bottom