• 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!

Ohio Student Suspended for Refusing to Leave Classroom During Gun Control Walkout

Slyfox696 said:
No, it's not. You can claim it's a terrible position, but you cannot claim it is an extremist position:

"Support for universal background checks is itself almost universal, 97 - 2 percent, including 97 - 3 percent among gun owners. Support for gun control on other questions is at its highest level since the Quinnipiac University Poll began focusing on this issue in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre:

67 - 29 percent for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons;"
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521

When 67% of Americans (based on the poll) say they are for the ban on the sale of assault weapons, it is not an extremist position. An extremist position is one which lies far outside common thought/convention. When 2/3rds of the country support a position, by the very definition of the word, it is not an extremist position.
Click to expand...

Yeah its an extremist position because 90% of those people don't know what an assault weapon is-its not a machine gun but most think it is
 
minnie616 said:
He was told if he wanted to /decided to stay inside the building to go the commons area for a study hall.

Pretty simple instructions. That he chose to ignore.
Click to expand...

..and he accepted responsibility for his actions. I never said one word about him not deserving the punishment he got and in fact support the decision. What I'm questioning is the fact that the students who participated in the walk out should be receiving the same punishment. If not, then the school administration is actively participating in partisan political activity and that should NEVER be allowed in our schools.
 
Lursa said:
That's exactly why the kid said he didnt want to go to the study hall...he was afraid that others would think it meant he was taking the 'other' side when he stated he wanted to remain neutral.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the point.
Lursa said:
Congratulations, you accused him without even finding out, just like a judgemental teenager.
Click to expand...
How is helping to point out the kid's thinking accusing him of anything?
 
TurtleDude said:
exactly. And that is what bothers me-it appears that some teachers and administrators encouraged this walk out and would not encourage or support a walk out by conservative students. Equal protection is at issue
Click to expand...

Exactly. It seems like the left has gone from fighting against inequality to fighting for it.
 
Taylor said:
Yes, that's the point.

How is helping to point out the kid's thinking accusing him of anything?
Click to expand...

It was the way you phrased it, that it came across that way.

You left it open rather than making the point.

If I misunderstood, I apologize.
 
Lursa said:
That's exactly why the kid said he didnt want to go to the study hall...he was afraid that others would think it meant he was taking the 'other' side when he stated he wanted to remain neutral.

Congratulations, you accused him without even finding out, just like a judgemental teenager.
Click to expand...

The sooner this young man in Ohio realizes that school rules aren't meant to be broken because you worry about what your peers will think, the better off he'll be for the rest of his life.
 
FYI, I think this was the prior 1994 "assault weapons' ban.


Semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines with at least two of:

- Folding/telescoping stock
- Pistol Grip
- Bayonet mount
- Flash suppressor
- Grenade launcher

Semi-automatic pistols with at least two of:

- magazine attaches outside pistol grip
- threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
- Barrel shroud that prevents burns to operator
- Weighs 1.4kg+ when unloaded
- A "semi-auotmatic version of a fully automatic firearm"


Semi-automatic shoguns with 2+ of:
- folding/telescoping stock
- pistol grip
- detachable magazine






This is why the idea of a new "assault weapons ban" is mocked in context of these mass shootings.

A semi-automatic rifle with a bayonet and folding stock --> Assault weapon --> banned.
A semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip --> not assault weapon --> not banned.

Yet they could be the exact same rifle other than these mods. Get that..you can attach a ****ing grenade launcher but nothing else, and it wouldn't count as an "assault weapon".

Etc. It just doesn't make much sense in terms of the goal. If you were aiming to try to prevent mass shootings via a ban, then ignoring the fact that people would just use pistols/etc, you'd have to (1) ban all semi-automatic rifles no matter what's on them, (2) not grandfather them, instead requiring sell-backs/forfeitures. The prior ban itself grandfathered in weapons, and as you see made little sense in terms of what caused something to become an illegal "assault weapon".

And good luck trying to actually collect them all when the national will isn't there.
 
Lursa said:
It was the way you phrased it, that it came across that way.

You left it open rather than making the point.

If I misunderstood, I apologize.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. I think I do that more than I'd like.
 
TurtleDude said:
Yeah its an extremist position because 90% of those people don't know what an assault weapon is-its not a machine gun but most think it is
Click to expand...
You cannot arbitrarily redefine the meanings of words because they prove you wrong.

It is not an extremist position. Like so many other things in this thread, you were wrong. Facts proved you wrong. I suggest you beat a hasty retreat from this thread because it has not been a good showing for you at all.
 
Hatuey said:
So he wanted to stay in a classroom unsupervised instead of going to a study hall where he would be supervised.... and you think this is part of an agenda?
Click to expand...

cabse5 said:
Yes, because the study hall is a planned protest sanctioned by the school.
Click to expand...



I've already taken pain to describe how idiotic that sentiment is. Students could go on the protest OR go to the study hall. Students could not simply go sit wherever they wanted in school without supervision. It would be moronic to require teachers to sit with students who felt like sitting somewhere else than the study hall.




If the context were anything else you'd be calling the kid who stayed in the classroom a "snowflake". You'd probably blame "liberal education" for his sense of entitlement.
 
faithful_servant said:
Exactly. It seems like the left has gone from fighting against inequality to fighting for it.
Click to expand...

as my late father (born in 26 so he experienced the depression) noted-the Democrats went from comforting the afflicted to trying to afflict the conservative
 
Mr Person said:
FYI, I think this was the prior 1994 "assault weapons' ban.


Semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines with at least two of:

- Folding/telescoping stock
- Pistol Grip
- Bayonet mount
- Flash suppressor
- Grenade launcher

Semi-automatic pistols with at least two of:

- magazine attaches outside pistol grip
- threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
- Barrel shroud that prevents burns to operator
- Weighs 1.4kg+ when unloaded
- A "semi-auotmatic version of a fully automatic firearm"


Semi-automatic shoguns with 2+ of:
- folding/telescoping stock
- pistol grip
- detachable magazine






This is why the idea of a new "assault weapons ban" is mocked in context of these mass shootings.

A semi-automatic rifle with a bayonet and folding stock --> Assault weapon --> banned.
A semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip --> not assault weapon --> not banned.

Yet they could be the exact same rifle other than these mods. Get that..you can attach a ****ing grenade launcher but nothing else, and it wouldn't count as an "assault weapon".

Etc. It just doesn't make much sense in terms of the goal. If you were aiming to try to prevent mass shootings via a ban, then ignoring the fact that people would just use pistols/etc, you'd have to (1) ban all semi-automatic rifles no matter what's on them, (2) not grandfather them, instead requiring sell-backs/forfeitures. The prior ban itself grandfathered in weapons, and as you see made little sense in terms of what caused something to become an illegal "assault weapon".

And good luck trying to actually collect them all when the national will isn't there.
Click to expand...

semi auto rifles that use magazines have been around for more than 100 years. The 22 caliber versions such as the Marlins and Rugers have been sold in numbers that exceed 20 million. Centerfire versions -such as the MI carbine (sold to citizens in numbers over 100,000 by the federal government's Dept of Civilian Marksmanship) are owned by private citizens in numbers exceeding 20 million as well. so these rifles-in general, meet the two tests of HELLER.

so the banners try to ban versions that have parts that are mainly military contract furniture. The bayonet lug on an AR 15 is used mainly to secure the hand guards and is cheaper than one made without it. Same with the standard pistol grips and stocks and flash hiders. Those features on Civilian semi auto rifles are common since the huge number of parts interchangeable with military rifles. banning guns because of these features violates common sense and a rational basis test. Try as they might-a bayonet lug or a pistol grip doesn't make a semi auto rifle more deadly, more suitable for mass killers or criminals. The bannerrhoid turds like DiFI picked those features hoping that low wattage voters would not understand this reality and because if they tried to ban all semi auto rifles, it couldn't have passed even a Democrat majority senate and congress
 
Slyfox696 said:
You cannot arbitrarily redefine the meanings of words because they prove you wrong.

It is not an extremist position. Like so many other things in this thread, you were wrong. Facts proved you wrong. I suggest you beat a hasty retreat from this thread because it has not been a good showing for you at all.
Click to expand...

Under our constitution, banning firearms is an extreme position. Your argument is specious and your arrogance is hilarious. When explained to them what this ban does, the support for it falls.
 
cabse5 said:
Yes, because the study hall is a planned protest sanctioned by the school.
Click to expand...
Lmao, that is pretty moronic. Are you saying that the kids who could not be outside because of disabilities were also counter protesting?

Sent from a memo written by Nunes and edited by Trump.
 
TurtleDude said:
Under our constitution, banning firearms is an extreme position.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. Wanting to ban "assault weapons", which is what YOU said originally, is not an extremist position.

Again, you cannot redefine words. You were wrong about the school doing something unconstitutional/illegal (hilariously so, in fact) and now you're wrong about how wanting an "assault weapon ban" is an extremist position. The fact of the matter is you're wrong, just as I would be if I said wanting to ban abortions was an extremist position because the Supreme Court ruled they are legal.

Stop saying things which are clearly ridiculous and false. The fact you've turned this into a gun control thread because you said something stupid earlier about the school and tried to deflect with red herrings is sad enough.
 
TurtleDude said:
schools that are publicly funded are considered to be acting under the color of state law. (42 USC 1983). If one group of students is allowed to protest guns but other students cannot protest RW political issues, equal protection is denied and under 42 USC 1983, the state actors have committed a constitutional tort against those who are not allowed to protest free of consequences
Click to expand...

It is revealing that you, and so many other rigtwingers, think memorializing dead students is a left wing position.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
what is sensible? banning commonly owned guns-unconstitutional and stupid

Universal background checks-the killer went through a background check

waiting period-the killer didn't buy the gun a few days before the killings

so they want what that is "SENSIBLE"

most of them haven't a clue about the laws in place
Click to expand...

what is an is not constitutional will be up to congress/senate or to the supreme court/states.

Universal background check is a joke when the agency who could do this is banned from using computers thanks to the NRA stooges.

And sensible is what huge parts of the US population think is sensible.
 
TurtleDude said:
exactly. And that is what bothers me-it appears that some teachers and administrators encouraged this walk out and would not encourage or support a walk out by conservative students. Equal protection is at issue
Click to expand...

There is no constitutional right to encouragement
 
tres borrachos said:
What's political about wanting to discuss children dying in school, and wanting adults to try to work together by addressing it, identifying solutions that wouldn't take away anyone's Constitutional rights while protecting the rights of the students to "life (liberty and the pursuit of happiness)"?

Or are the kids supposed to wait until they're adults, and they have children, and try to sort through it then - or just simply ignore the issue because it's not a big deal when 20 7 years olds die in school, or 14 teenagers die in their hallways?

Just curious.
Click to expand...

There is nothing political about memorializing students who were killed. Unfortunately, many on the right want to exploit these kids for partisan political gain
 
X Factor said:
Sounds like a high school kid you've decided you intensely disliked simply because he chose a different option than the one you think he should have.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you want to politically exploit this kid who broke the rules because you agree with his politics
 
sangha said:
There is nothing political about memorializing students who were killed. Unfortunately, many on the right want to exploit these kids for partisan political gain
Click to expand...

its the anti NRA left who are the ones exploiting these kids for political gain
 
sangha said:
No, it is you who is exploiting children

Or at least trying, and failing
Click to expand...

you are telling lies. The gun ban/NRA haters are the ones exploiting the children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom