Gun Control: Shiny Toy Guns

[Wysten]

They can? That seems a bit excessive.

But my point was that schools can do thinks with students that wouldn't be legal most of the time.

Don’t they have to justify it somehow? Like it has to be harmful towards creating a strong learning environment or something?

Reasonable Suspicion.

[Fartsniffage]

They can? That seems a bit excessive.

But my point was that schools can do thinks with students that wouldn't be legal most of the time.

Don’t they have to justify it somehow? Like it has to be harmful towards creating a strong learning environment or something?

I guess they would justify it be saying that being scared of being shot while in school damages the learning environment.

[Spirit of Hope]

You can do search and seizures if kids belongings off school property.

They can? That seems a bit excessive.

But my point was that schools can do thinks with students that wouldn't be legal most of the time.

I haven't seen any evidence that school administrators can do search and seizures outside of school grounds or activities. Everything points to it being restricted to those times/areas and requiring reasonable suspicion, if there is case law to the contrary I would love to see it.

[Fartsniffage]

They can? That seems a bit excessive.

But my point was that schools can do thinks with students that wouldn't be legal most of the time.

I haven't seen any evidence that school administrators can do search and seizures outside of school grounds or activities. Everything points to it being restricted to those times/areas and requiring reasonable suspicion, if there is case law to the contrary I would love to see it.

So ask Sovaal.

[Ors Might]

Don’t they have to justify it somehow? Like it has to be harmful towards creating a strong learning environment or something?

I guess they would justify it be saying that being scared of being shot while in school damages the learning environment.

Seems pretty weak, imo. Not saying you’d support that reasoning, just that I can’t see anyone expecting it to hold up in court.

[Fartsniffage]

I guess they would justify it be saying that being scared of being shot while in school damages the learning environment.

Seems pretty weak, imo. Not saying you’d support that reasoning, just that I can’t see anyone expecting it to hold up in court.

You lost your right to carry a bottle of water on a flight over far less. No idea what would stand up in court.

[The Two Jerseys]

Unless one signs a contract to limit those rights.

Unless the contract is coerced.

"Sign this contract limiting your rights or else you'll have to pay thousands of dollars out-of-pocket to send your kid to private school."

Sounds like coercion to me...

[Fartsniffage]

Unless the contract is coerced.

"Sign this contract limiting your rights or else you'll have to pay thousands of dollars out-of-pocket to send your kid to private school."

Sounds like coercion to me...

There is only one state school in an area in the US?

[Spirit of Hope]

I haven't seen any evidence that school administrators can do search and seizures outside of school grounds or activities. Everything points to it being restricted to those times/areas and requiring reasonable suspicion, if there is case law to the contrary I would love to see it.

So ask Sovaal.

I would love to see his source for that, hence my point. My argument is largely derived from New Jersey v. T.L.O. which held that:

They may find it necessary to carry with them a variety of legitimate, noncontraband items, and there is no reason to conclude that they have necessarily waived all rights to privacy in such items by bringing them onto school grounds.

Creating an obvious distinction between things brought onto school grounds. At best I imagine a school official attempting a search off school grounds would be held to the same standard as police officers, which for minors is the same as adults. At worst they would be slapped silly for attempting that which they have no power to do outside of school grounds.

The schools much better argument in this case would have less to do with search and seizure and more to do with free speech. Schools have been given the ability to punish students for remarks made on the internet off school campuses, if they have a reasonable belief that it would cause disruptions at the school. Thus students possessing guns off campus, they argue, can reasonable be argued to cause disruptions on campus. A rather week argument IMHO.

If they hadn't gone with the possessing firearms argument they may have been better served attempting to punish the kids for the post itself, which would hold much more water. After all the post could reasonably be seen to cause other students to not want to attend classes, etc. Still week, but has much better case law to support it.

Would be interesting to see where the case goes if I had a good way to follow it.

[The Two Jerseys]

"Sign this contract limiting your rights or else you'll have to pay thousands of dollars out-of-pocket to send your kid to private school."

Sounds like coercion to me...

There is only one state school in an area in the US?

Depends on the school district. If there's more than one school in the district, they determine who attends which school based on home addresses.

But regardless, if they attend public school they have to go to the one that's assigned to them.

[Telconi]

"Sign this contract limiting your rights or else you'll have to pay thousands of dollars out-of-pocket to send your kid to private school."

Sounds like coercion to me...

There is only one state school in an area in the US?

For each grade, yes. And any applicable disciplinebove and beyond normal is consentual, if the parents do not like a school's rules, they can be relocated to another school.

[Chernoslavia]

They can? That seems a bit excessive.

But my point was that schools can do thinks with students that wouldn't be legal most of the time.

Don’t they have to justify it somehow? Like it has to be harmful towards creating a strong learning environment or something?

They can't do that outside of school..

[Taihei Tengoku]

The whole argument is in bad faith anyways. The strict contractualist position is taken because it advances leftist ends (the suppression of rightists), not because Salandrigado is a strict contractualist. If an employer snuck an anti-unionization or a surveillance clause into an employment contract the response would not be "sucks to suck read the fine print."

[Sovaal]

You can do search and seizures if kids belongings off school property.

They can? That seems a bit excessive.

But my point was that schools can do thinks with students that wouldn't be legal most of the time.

Sorry, can’t. On my phone.

[Arengin Union]

In support of what Taihei Tengoku one of the main reasons, if perhaps THE main reason why there's no real agreement or as many call it common ground or the famous "Common sense" as many in the left call it on gun control is because there simply is no real attempt at finding such things. Let me explain.

When there's a conversation of how to solve the "Gun violence" in the USA, the proposals are usually by the left and if we're to be honest, are completely lacking in real compromise at all. This is why many "Gun nuts" dont agree on the many proposals by the left on gun control, because they lose in the end and gain nothing in return. The basic idea of compromise or middle ground agreements is that the two or more sides gives up one or more things in order to come to an agreement that would benefit everyone while not oiling the forbidden tunnel and not buttering the eggroll of either side. In summary its a way to make all sides happy. But the left is not interest in agreements in which they have something to lose. Even if in your eyes, decreasing gun violence by taking away high capacity magazines or "Assault Weapons" is a compromise in your book, it truly isn't and you are really lacking in hindsight. Because only one side is giving up one thing or many things without getting anything in return rather than a VERY false sense of security.

Gun owners are against gun control because its about that, control, not legitimate concern for public safety by the left at all. I say this in regards to the left as a idea and political extreme, because im sure many individuals that are left leaning or supporters of gun control are so for legitimately good intentions. But the left as a whole wants to gain victory in achieving one gun control measure, while in their eyes "defending" the second amendment, however they will not cease in their endevours. They will take and take more and more as they see that they're not giving up anything. If this was the case then the compromise on gun control would be immigration control, or abortion control. After all millions of babies are aborted every year in the US alone, and many murders are committed by illegal immigrants. Shouldn't this be also a concern in safety for americans as well as safety for the children by the many liberals and democrats that support gun control?? As I've said, compromise. If one side loses one privilege (btw guns are not a privilege, they're a right) for the benefit of the greater good then so should the other. But of course this cannot happen since the Left takes the "give me what I want" attitude without the "I'll also give my part" to it. I could go much more into detail on this, but overall this is why there's not real agreement on gun control.

In conclusion the reason why gun control is impossible is because: One side has good intentions, accompanied by evil methods and a lack of integrity or consistency, as well as a fetish for control. And the other side is distrustful (and rightly so) of the former side.

My two cents.

[Albrenia]

In support of what Taihei Tengoku one of the main reasons, if perhaps THE main reason why there's no real agreement or as many call it common ground or the famous "Common sense" as many in the left call it on gun control is because there simply is no real attempt at finding such things. Let me explain.

When there's a conversation of how to solve the "Gun violence" in the USA, the proposals are usually by the left and if we're to be honest, are completely lacking in real compromise at all. This is why many "Gun nuts" dont agree on the many proposals by the left on gun control, because they lose in the end and gain nothing in return. The basic idea of compromise or middle ground agreements is that the two or more sides gives up one or more things in order to come to an agreement that would benefit everyone while not oiling the forbidden tunnel and not buttering the eggroll of either side. In summary its a way to make all sides happy. But the left is not interest in agreements in which they have something to lose. Even if in your eyes, decreasing gun violence by taking away high capacity magazines or "Assault Weapons" is a compromise in your book, it truly isn't and you are really lacking in hindsight. Because only one side is giving up one thing or many things without getting anything in return rather than a VERY false sense of security.

Gun owners are against gun control because its about that, control, not legitimate concern for public safety by the left at all. I say this in regards to the left as a idea and political extreme, because im sure many individuals that are left leaning or supporters of gun control are so for legitimately good intentions. But the left as a whole wants to gain victory in achieving one gun control measure, while in their eyes "defending" the second amendment, however they will not cease in their endevours. They will take and take more and more as they see that they're not giving up anything. If this was the case then the compromise on gun control would be immigration control, or abortion control. After all millions of babies are aborted every year in the US alone, and many murders are committed by illegal immigrants. Shouldn't this be also a concern in safety for americans as well as safety for the children by the many liberals and democrats that support gun control?? As I've said, compromise. If one side loses one privilege (btw guns are not a privilege, they're a right) for the benefit of the greater good then so should the other. But of course this cannot happen since the Left takes the "give me what I want" attitude without the "I'll also give my part" to it. I could go much more into detail on this, but overall this is why there's not real agreement on gun control.

In conclusion the reason why gun control is impossible is because: One side has good intentions, accompanied by evil methods and a lack of integrity or consistency, as well as a fetish for control. And the other side is distrustful (and rightly so) of the former side.

My two cents.

Seems like a slightly one-sided look at things, but still insightful in its own way. As for compromise, I'm rather dubious about either side's willingness to concede completely on any major issue. I'd put both sides in the 'good intentions, evil methods' camp, same with their integrity.

Would the right accept the total de-regulation of guns in exchange for all abortions being made legal or totally open borders? I doubt it.
Would the left accept total banning of all guns in exchange for jail time for any abortion or immigration shutdown? I doubt that also.

Let's hope the problem of mass shootings can be lessened with non gun-control methods, and that politicians stop getting in the way of those methods. I also hope that I'm wrong about arming teachers not helping, time will tell.

[Arengin Union]

In support of what Taihei Tengoku one of the main reasons, if perhaps THE main reason why there's no real agreement or as many call it common ground or the famous "Common sense" as many in the left call it on gun control is because there simply is no real attempt at finding such things. Let me explain.

When there's a conversation of how to solve the "Gun violence" in the USA, the proposals are usually by the left and if we're to be honest, are completely lacking in real compromise at all. This is why many "Gun nuts" dont agree on the many proposals by the left on gun control, because they lose in the end and gain nothing in return. The basic idea of compromise or middle ground agreements is that the two or more sides gives up one or more things in order to come to an agreement that would benefit everyone while not oiling the forbidden tunnel and not buttering the eggroll of either side. In summary its a way to make all sides happy. But the left is not interest in agreements in which they have something to lose. Even if in your eyes, decreasing gun violence by taking away high capacity magazines or "Assault Weapons" is a compromise in your book, it truly isn't and you are really lacking in hindsight. Because only one side is giving up one thing or many things without getting anything in return rather than a VERY false sense of security.

Gun owners are against gun control because its about that, control, not legitimate concern for public safety by the left at all. I say this in regards to the left as a idea and political extreme, because im sure many individuals that are left leaning or supporters of gun control are so for legitimately good intentions. But the left as a whole wants to gain victory in achieving one gun control measure, while in their eyes "defending" the second amendment, however they will not cease in their endevours. They will take and take more and more as they see that they're not giving up anything. If this was the case then the compromise on gun control would be immigration control, or abortion control. After all millions of babies are aborted every year in the US alone, and many murders are committed by illegal immigrants. Shouldn't this be also a concern in safety for americans as well as safety for the children by the many liberals and democrats that support gun control?? As I've said, compromise. If one side loses one privilege (btw guns are not a privilege, they're a right) for the benefit of the greater good then so should the other. But of course this cannot happen since the Left takes the "give me what I want" attitude without the "I'll also give my part" to it. I could go much more into detail on this, but overall this is why there's not real agreement on gun control.

In conclusion the reason why gun control is impossible is because: One side has good intentions, accompanied by evil methods and a lack of integrity or consistency, as well as a fetish for control. And the other side is distrustful (and rightly so) of the former side.

My two cents.

Seems like a slightly one-sided look at things, but still insightful in its own way. As for compromise, I'm rather dubious about either side's willingness to concede completely on any major issue. I'd put both sides in the 'good intentions, evil methods' camp, same with their integrity.

Would the right accept the total de-regulation of guns in exchange for all abortions being made legal or totally open borders? I doubt it.
Would the left accept total banning of all guns in exchange for jail time for any abortion or immigration shutdown? I doubt that also.

Let's hope the problem of mass shootings can be lessened with non gun-control methods, and that politicians stop getting in the way of those methods. I also hope that I'm wrong about arming teachers not helping, time will tell.

Ohhh of course it's one sided. I can accept that I am biased because of my experiences with the Left in regards to gun control. Not to say the Right is perfect, it isn't. But I think the many methods and approaches by the Left to in their view fix gin violence is simply too restrictive at best, and outright authoritarian at worse. An example is the little things, I live in California and before 2016 buying an AR rifle was easy, as well as owning one. Yes there were rules but I always followed them. It came to the point of banning pistol grips, magazines of more than 10 rounds, and even "Bullet buttons" that my view on the Left and gun control simply changed from middle ground to distrust and at times hatred.

But still, I agree with your argument as well. And I can agree in my implicit biases, the problem is the Left (at least the many left leaning people i've meet) cannot. And that is a problem I hope you and I can agree on. Also arming teachers is a double edge sword to me that I hope works in the end.

[Albrenia]

Seems like a slightly one-sided look at things, but still insightful in its own way. As for compromise, I'm rather dubious about either side's willingness to concede completely on any major issue. I'd put both sides in the 'good intentions, evil methods' camp, same with their integrity.

Would the right accept the total de-regulation of guns in exchange for all abortions being made legal or totally open borders? I doubt it.
Would the left accept total banning of all guns in exchange for jail time for any abortion or immigration shutdown? I doubt that also.

Let's hope the problem of mass shootings can be lessened with non gun-control methods, and that politicians stop getting in the way of those methods. I also hope that I'm wrong about arming teachers not helping, time will tell.

Ohhh of course it's one sided. I can accept that I am biased because of my experiences with the Left in regards to gun control. Not to say the Right is perfect, it isn't. But I think the many methods and approaches by the Left to in their view fix gin violence is simply too restrictive at best, and outright authoritarian at worse. An example is the little things, I live in California and before 2016 buying an AR rifle was easy, as well as owning one. Yes there were rules but I always followed them. It came to the point of banning pistol grips, magazines of more than 10 rounds, and even "Bullet buttons" that my view on the Left and gun control simply changed from middle ground to distrust and at times hatred.

But still, I agree with your argument as well. And I can agree in my implicit biases, the problem is the Left (at least the many left leaning people i've meet) cannot. And that is a problem I hope you and I can agree on. Also arming teachers is a double edge sword to me that I hope works in the end.

Agreed. I have my own biases on the issue of course, just in the other direction.

Also people making laws regulating guns would probably be wise to learn more about actual guns, instead of 'the shoulder thing that goes up' and the like. I'm no gun expert, but I at least know that 'silencers' are not actually real things, unlike some politicians.

[Hallistrom]

I don't understand how a school can claim authority over a student, when said student isn't on school grounds, let alone dictate what said student can or cannot do on THEIR time.
NJ Gun Clubs Threaten Lawsuit Over Lacy Township Students’ Gun Range Photos

This is clearly unconstitutional, and an egregious power grab by school admins.

Jesus Christ this is some corrupt bullshit.

The Grinning Dragon is far right so take what he says with a grain of salt.

[Hallistrom]

I don't understand how a school can claim authority over a student, when said student isn't on school grounds, let alone dictate what said student can or cannot do on THEIR time.
NJ Gun Clubs Threaten Lawsuit Over Lacy Township Students’ Gun Range Photos

Two students at Lacey Township High-school, NJ were suspended for posting a picture of themselves shooting guns at a private gun range with the caption “fun day at the range“. The school's zero tolerance policy says that students cannot be in possession of weapons at any time, whether on or off campus

This is clearly unconstitutional, and an egregious power grab by school admins.

The source is literally a site called 'Ammoland' are you fucking kidding me?

[Hallistrom]

EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL IS EVIL!!!!!!!!

Fixed that for you. Seriously though what compromise do you want? I cant think of any that would satisfy the 'cold dead hands' crowd. And as you lot throw a fit over even a proposal to have a discussion on an assault weapons ban, I don't see anything productive in inviting you to the table.

[Kernen]

EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL IS EVIL!!!!!!!!

Fixed that for you. Seriously though what compromise do you want? I cant think of any that would satisfy the 'cold dead hands' crowd. And as you lot throw a fit over even a proposal to have a discussion on an assault weapons ban, I don't see anything productive in inviting you to the table.

Since your side can't win in court and can't establish a clear legislative majority, your hypothetical table is just a pointless circlejerk. Since the pro gun side has the upper hand, it seems like it's us who doesn't need to invite you to the table.

I don't understand how a school can claim authority over a student, when said student isn't on school grounds, let alone dictate what said student can or cannot do on THEIR time.
NJ Gun Clubs Threaten Lawsuit Over Lacy Township Students’ Gun Range Photos

This is clearly unconstitutional, and an egregious power grab by school admins.

The source is literally a site called 'Ammoland' are you fucking kidding me?

Genetic fallacy. Ammoland is not necessarily biased merely because it's name seems biased. Evidence of your implied claim, please.

Jesus Christ this is some corrupt bullshit.

The Grinning Dragon is far right so take what he says with a grain of salt.

Ad homenim fallacy.

[Big Jim P]

EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL IS EVIL!!!!!!!!

Fixed that for you. Seriously though what compromise do you want? I cant think of any that would satisfy the 'cold dead hands' crowd. And as you lot throw a fit over even a proposal to have a discussion on an assault weapons ban, I don't see anything productive in inviting you to the table.

We won't "compromise" because 1.compromise is a two way transaction and gun-grabbers aren't giving up anything. 2. Every time we given up a portion of our rights gun-grabbers then demand more. 3. Todays "compromise" becomes tomorrows loophole and 4. Gun-grabbers for the most part have absolutely no clue (not even the minimum basics) of guns. I could go on, but the first point in and of itself is sufficient reason to not trust or accept gun-grabbers proposals.

[Ors Might]

Jesus Christ this is some corrupt bullshit.

The Grinning Dragon is far right so take what he says with a grain of salt.

Haven’t seen anything to suggest that he’s far right. Honestly, that just seems your go to insult for those that disagree with you.

[Big Jim P]

The Grinning Dragon is far right so take what he says with a grain of salt.

Haven’t seen anything to suggest that he’s far right. Honestly, that just seems your go to insult for those that disagree with you.

Typical leftist/gun-grabber tactic. When you can't win a debate on facts, hurl a personal insult.