Freedom of speech, except on campus
-
kmg365 wrote:
And you are incapable of gleaning an opinion from the link?
I like to read the opinion first. That way I can tell whether I want to wade through a treatise or a video. Your time may not be precious to you, mine is to me.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
So basically, it's an article by FIRE [whoever they may be] about a campaign FIRE are undertaking, quoting sources from FIRE. This strikes me as slightly one-sided. Next up is the context. Ignore the legality, do you think it is a good idea to encourage firm arms in schools? YES or NO?
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
I checked out the brochure itself. It was a bit blurry, so I skimmed and it seems like a factual treatment of the subject, so banning it a suppression of freedom of speech.
williamnw wrote:
do you think it is a good idea to encourage firm arms in schools? YES or NO?
If carrying a gun is legal in the country, and the school is inside the country (and it obviously is), then carrying a gun in the school should also be legal. The only purpose for a (non-hunting) gun is to shoot (and kill) other people, so the idea of carrying guns at all is something to take a serious look at. The only time a person is ever going to use a gun is when they shoot another person, or when they threaten to shoot another person. Criminals already have guns, and already break the law, so a law against guns is irrelevant to them. There's been a lot of shootings at schools, and it's reasonable scenario that if sane students also had guns, they could shoot back, reducing the total number of people of people killed (by the crazed shooter) or perhaps making the shooter think twice about trying in the first place. It's a parallel situation to many countries having nukes and mutually-assured-destruction preventing anyone from actually using them. I'm not sold on the idea of everyone carrying guns — it creates a social atmosphere of mistrust and violence, but if someone pulled a gun on me, I'd wish I had a gun too.
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
learned to shoot when I was 10.
I was 8-9 when I was taught how to use a rifle and hand gun. That does not mean that I think it is a good to have children with guns unsupervised.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Constituitional rights you'd like to ignore
I was asking you not to for go your rights, but to ignopre them for a moment and think about the implications. Funny, Britain has survived arround a 1,000 years without a written constitution. There are some good arguments for and against changing that. Personally I am rather happy with the set-up right now. Next, take a quick look at the conditions under which the American Constitution was written. The world (and there's a lot apart from the USA) was a very different place. Finally, we've got real beer while you get, to quote Monty Python, 'Canoe Sex'. You've got such a lovely long chain, it's great fun yanking it. ;P
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
-
I checked out the brochure itself. It was a bit blurry, so I skimmed and it seems like a factual treatment of the subject, so banning it a suppression of freedom of speech.
williamnw wrote:
do you think it is a good idea to encourage firm arms in schools? YES or NO?
If carrying a gun is legal in the country, and the school is inside the country (and it obviously is), then carrying a gun in the school should also be legal. The only purpose for a (non-hunting) gun is to shoot (and kill) other people, so the idea of carrying guns at all is something to take a serious look at. The only time a person is ever going to use a gun is when they shoot another person, or when they threaten to shoot another person. Criminals already have guns, and already break the law, so a law against guns is irrelevant to them. There's been a lot of shootings at schools, and it's reasonable scenario that if sane students also had guns, they could shoot back, reducing the total number of people of people killed (by the crazed shooter) or perhaps making the shooter think twice about trying in the first place. It's a parallel situation to many countries having nukes and mutually-assured-destruction preventing anyone from actually using them. I'm not sold on the idea of everyone carrying guns — it creates a social atmosphere of mistrust and violence, but if someone pulled a gun on me, I'd wish I had a gun too.
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
If carrying a gun is legal in the country, and the school is inside the country (and it obviously is), then carrying a gun in the school should also be legal.
You can't carry a gun into a court room in most states. Or into most federal buildings these days. Certainly not onto an airplane.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
If carrying a gun is legal in the country, and the school is inside the country (and it obviously is), then carrying a gun in the school should also be legal.
You can't carry a gun into a court room in most states. Or into most federal buildings these days. Certainly not onto an airplane.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!Tim Craig wrote:
You can't carry a gun into a court room in most states. Or into most federal buildings these days. Certainly not onto an airplane.
You're right, you can't bring a gun to some special places like a courtroom or an airport. Both those places have security checkpoints to make sure nobody brings a gun in. Colleges and universities are too spread out to be able to enforce that kind of security though.
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
-
williamnw wrote:
Why the hell would I do that? You've now loosing it, I am not the type to be sub-servient. I have people to do that for me; dontchaknow.
You live in the UK. You are a nation of 'yes men'. You have camera's on every corner with authorities watching. Remember that news article about the school girl who asked her teacher if she could work with another partner because hers didn't speak english? The authorities took her in for questioning and took her DNA sample.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You live in the UK. You are a nation of 'yes men'.
And you lived in the UK for how long? Never? Thought so.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You have camera's on every corner with authorities watching.
Are you really so much in awe of "the authorities"? The Authorities behind the city/town centre CCTV cameras are the Local Councils - not the Police, not MI5. Local Councils are democratically elected. Councillors are approachable human beings, and they run the council, not the jack-in-office desk jockeys. We permit CCTVs because we perceive their benefits. Outside of city/town centres, there are virtually no CCTVs, other than those which are privately owned: shops, factories, homes, etc.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
about the school girl who asked her teacher if she could work with another partner because hers didn't speak english
Possibly you don't appreciate that the news media do not report ordinary, boring, daily life. Thus any accounts you read will be sensational stories of officiousness, such as the Codie Stott case.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The authorities took her in for questioning and took her DNA sample.
Whatever Miss Scott said (and we have only her word as to the conversation between herself and the teacher), the teacher should have been able to deal with the matter within the classroom. The incident having been reported to the community police officer attached to the school, the police have to follow procedure, which involves fingerprinting and a DNA swab. Currently, Miss Scott's DNA data will be retained for 6 years. However, further Human Rights action will probably result in all DNA data for those arrested but not successfully prosecuted being removed from the database.
Bob Emmett
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
If carrying a gun is legal in the country, and the school is inside the country (and it obviously is), then carrying a gun in the school should also be legal.
You can't carry a gun into a court room in most states. Or into most federal buildings these days. Certainly not onto an airplane.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!Tim Craig wrote:
You can't carry a gun into a court room in most states.
Or into a jail cell. That hardly stands precedent for a college campus.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Tim Craig wrote:
You can't carry a gun into a court room in most states. Or into most federal buildings these days. Certainly not onto an airplane.
You're right, you can't bring a gun to some special places like a courtroom or an airport. Both those places have security checkpoints to make sure nobody brings a gun in. Colleges and universities are too spread out to be able to enforce that kind of security though.
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
You're right, you can't bring a gun to some special places like a courtroom or an airport. Both those places have security checkpoints to make sure nobody brings a gun in. Colleges and universities are too spread out to be able to enforce that kind of security though.
So if you can do it, then you should?
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You live in the UK. You are a nation of 'yes men'.
And you lived in the UK for how long? Never? Thought so.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You have camera's on every corner with authorities watching.
Are you really so much in awe of "the authorities"? The Authorities behind the city/town centre CCTV cameras are the Local Councils - not the Police, not MI5. Local Councils are democratically elected. Councillors are approachable human beings, and they run the council, not the jack-in-office desk jockeys. We permit CCTVs because we perceive their benefits. Outside of city/town centres, there are virtually no CCTVs, other than those which are privately owned: shops, factories, homes, etc.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
about the school girl who asked her teacher if she could work with another partner because hers didn't speak english
Possibly you don't appreciate that the news media do not report ordinary, boring, daily life. Thus any accounts you read will be sensational stories of officiousness, such as the Codie Stott case.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The authorities took her in for questioning and took her DNA sample.
Whatever Miss Scott said (and we have only her word as to the conversation between herself and the teacher), the teacher should have been able to deal with the matter within the classroom. The incident having been reported to the community police officer attached to the school, the police have to follow procedure, which involves fingerprinting and a DNA swab. Currently, Miss Scott's DNA data will be retained for 6 years. However, further Human Rights action will probably result in all DNA data for those arrested but not successfully prosecuted being removed from the database.
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
Are you really so much in awe of "the authorities"? The Authorities behind the city/town centre CCTV cameras are the Local Councils - not the Police, not MI5. Local Councils are democratically elected. Councillors are approachable human beings, and they run the council, not the jack-in-office desk jockeys. We permit CCTVs because we perceive their benefits. Outside of city/town centres, there are virtually no CCTVs, other than those which are privately owned: shops, factories, homes, etc.
It doesn't matter if it is local or federal. You know federal officials can look at the video by asking your councilor right? You permit it? :laugh: That is the fucking funniest thing I've heard this morning. A nation of 'yes men' indeed.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Are you really so much in awe of "the authorities"? The Authorities behind the city/town centre CCTV cameras are the Local Councils - not the Police, not MI5. Local Councils are democratically elected. Councillors are approachable human beings, and they run the council, not the jack-in-office desk jockeys. We permit CCTVs because we perceive their benefits. Outside of city/town centres, there are virtually no CCTVs, other than those which are privately owned: shops, factories, homes, etc.
It doesn't matter if it is local or federal. You know federal officials can look at the video by asking your councilor right? You permit it? :laugh: That is the fucking funniest thing I've heard this morning. A nation of 'yes men' indeed.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You know federal officials can look at the video by asking your councilor right?
Well, duh! Of course the police and MI5 can view the "vidoes". That is why the cameras are installed: crime detection. The point is that we could have them removed, they remain because they have proved to be of benefit to us. They have been used not only to provide evidence for the police but also against the police.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
A nation of 'yes men' indeed.
"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly."
Bob Emmett
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
You're right, you can't bring a gun to some special places like a courtroom or an airport. Both those places have security checkpoints to make sure nobody brings a gun in. Colleges and universities are too spread out to be able to enforce that kind of security though.
So if you can do it, then you should?
This is probably obvious, but I don't get it, if I can do ... what?
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
-
Aside from inheriting Guinness I'd say our micro-brews beat to crap anything you can bring forth from Young onward. :)
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
our micro-brews beat to crap anything you can bring forth
Synaptrik wrote:
This statement is false
How observant you are? And when was the last time you were in the UK, drinking real ale?
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.