I bet if you criminalize thieves with a mandatory 20 years for the first offense I bet there would only be one offense. How about rapist, mandatory 50 years?
Hooray for the 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter sobester
- Start date
The phones broke us. Out of all the things we could do, draconian regulation on those is the answer.
"Phones out of the school day" is a brilliant idea. Freedom we wish to preserve doesn't necessarily include being able to do everything you want to do every second of the day regardless of your circumstances. So why isn't it happening?
If you listen to him on Rogan, it’s a catastrophic introduction into society. Especially with girls, who seem to be much more affected negatively.
He also stated that his work shows that teens that identify as liberal are much more unhappy than their conservative counterparts.
Youngkin did that in VA. It should be adopted nationwide.
Didn't the Chinese eliminate the problem with opium dens by eliminating the opium users?
I probably admire about 3 politicians. Youngkin and Desantis are two. I'll have to think about the third.
It IS happening, and on a fairly wide scale given that most schools/states only started banning phones this school year or last. I would not be surprised if it goes nationwide (or nearly nationwide) within two years.
My wife is a 6th grade teacher and constantly fighting the cell phone issue.
I tell her all the time when I retire I want to go become a sub. I will bring a box each day and kids will have to drop their cell phones. She tells me it will never work. Parents would throw a fit. I say who cares.
Liberal kids are being fed a tik tok diet that tells them their parents suck, adults suck, the world is going to melt, they live in a horribly racist country, that not coping well with the world is cool, and on and on.
It is madness. Out of all the apps out there, Tik Tok is the one I would metaphorically take behind the barn and beat to death with a rusty shovel. Everything about it is mentally unhealthy.
Yeah parents are part of the problem. “How will I reach my kid during the school day? What if there’s an emergency?”
Try calling the office like people have done for decades.
I want my daughter to have her phone at school. She takes the school bus. She takes pancreatitis meds during the day at school. Shit happens. I wish there was instead a way to ban the apps until age whatever
You ever met these people working the office now? Shit. Ring and ring and ring. It’s the apps that are the problem
I was in the principals office a decent amount. I think the tranny principal had a thing for me.
This is a different side of you. You a helicopter parent?
I’m really not. Just Sunday I dropped her and her buddy off in our little downtown to go do whatever. Knowing they have a phone provides a little piece of mind. Wherever they are. And it’s nice. Shit when we going over the ga shooting this morning here i shot her a text (hey have a great day. Always keep your head on a swivel there ❤️). She’ll see it at lunch. I like being able to do that. Again it’s the apps not the phones.
As an aside times have changed. When you drop your kid off bc they’re going to lunch with buddies you can’t just give them a $20. Now it’s $40. $20 won’t buy lunch and sbx or ice cream whatever
We ban TikTok in our house. Have for years. I wish my kids’ friends’ parents would follow suit. Otherwise smart people have their heads way up their asses.
Last edited:
Thank you for saying respectfully!
I understand that there is a wide variety of guns. For the purpose of brevity, I used the phrase "automatic". My apologies.... but I am generally saying Assault Rifles. The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."
Am I the most sophisticated gun owner? No. But I own 5 of them (one is actually a Nazis from WWII that my grandpa brought back. Not "Cool", but you know what I mean). I've been to Gun Shows. I at least know what I don't know. I know I wasted $50 on an open carry permit because Indiana got rid of the need for the permit shortly there after.
It seems you are implying that every gun owner is a very sophisticated owner, and those are the only people that should be allowed to have an opinion.
Yeah, we are no Tik Tok as well.
I think part of the application and/or screening process for buying fire arms should be that you have to prove that you know what all these guns are, how they work, etc... And know how to safely operate them, what it actually feels like to fire them, etc...
I'm not a gun owner...and I'd say a small, but not insignificant reason for that, is the memory I have of my sprained wrist and huge bruise on my shoulder from shooting guns at a gun range when I was a teenager. Obviously I wasn't "doing it right". But the romantic nature of guns nearly evaporated when I felt those kick backs. Everyone should be forced to feel that, to know how to use them properly, know the differences and capabilities each type of gun has, etc... before owning them, and/or before getting permits to own them.
And its not hard. There are probably less people wanting to own guns than there are people wanting drivers licenses. Make them take classes. Do the deep screening on them and their backgrounds while they're taking those classes. THEN allow them to buy whatever they want assuming it all checks out.
No, there are a ton of very unsophisticated gun owners. So the two things in your post that got me were the background check and "automatic" weapons.
So just using the definition of assault rifles that you did up above, that wouldn't cover AR-15's. In fact, those types of guns are very heavily regulated to the point where they are hard to own privately. The selective fire function is what would delineate the two weapons. An AR-15 is semi-automatic. The selective fire function allows a gun to switch between say semi and fully automatic or to something in between like a 3 round burst for each trigger pull.
So I wasn't really hitting at the responsibility of someone but moreso the knowledge around the item they are talking about regulating. Frankly, people talk about the guns more than they do what they are firing. The AR-15 isn't effective because of the fact it looks like a military weapon nor is it because of its ability to get off multiple rounds in quick succession. The ammunition is the main determinant in its lethality. More than anything it is the attributes of 5.56/.223 rounds that make the AR-15 effective at its job.
Then... help define it and put it into law. Any useful law will require input from gun enthusiasts who are concerned about school shootings and other public mass shootings.
That would be incredibly helpful and wouldn't violate the 2nd amendment. Why? Some arms such as hand grenades are already banned, under the premise that they have no legitimate sporting or self defense use and having them in the public's hands poses a danger to society. AR15-like rifles ought to be in that same category.
But no... we'll just hear "SQUAWK, 2nd amendment! SQUAWK, 2nd amendment!" all day long.
I'll try.
"It is now illegal to kill people and you will go to jail if you do".
Now that is a law that should fix all kinds of issues. ^Fixer!
With that logic, you might as well just make selling, possessing and taking any and all drugs legal too. Might as well get rid of DUI laws and speed limits too. So long as you don't kill anyone, you're good to go.
My kids school banned phones in classrooms. They can have them in their locker or at lunch, but if they get caught with them in the classroom, they get caught and taken down to the office (from what I've been told by her).
She was legitimately surprised with how much more she got done without it. The phrase "no shit sherlock" may have come out of my mouth.
To be fair...there are types of hunting that either require higher capacities, and/or higher lethality... Wild boar hunting in Texas, Oklahoma, etc.. comes to mind.
I'm VERY ignorant on it all, and maybe that example isn't a good one. But seems that there are practical uses for the AR-15s, outside the outdated one about militias, defending themselves against tyrannical governments, etc...
But those uses are pretty specialized...I would think requiring those farmers/ranchers/hunters to take a class (that they should be able to breeze through in 10 minutes), wouldn't be the end of the world. And the added layer of scrutiny and process, could weed out a chunk of the loonies that buy them to shoot people up??
You don't have a kid, do you.
Late last year i called my youngest' school to make sure she would be a car rider because our sitter had an emergency. I called about 11 am, school got out at 3:20. Guess who didn't get the message and was dropped off with no one at the sitters house?
Having a phone just for talk and text would stop that kind of thing from happening. That and after school sports are the reasons why my kids got phones in middle school.
In Florida I think the new law, as most schools are enforcing it, is that you turn in your phone as you walk in the classroom door and then pick it up as you leave the classroom.
So... you would have your phone between classes (maybe 5 minutes?), at lunch (maybe 45 minutes?) , and as soon as your last class is over.
There would be time to get a text to the student and that text to get read, even if it's not getting read or responded to during a class.
In short, you can have a phone, but it is handed in WHILE CLASS IS GOING ON.
Other places might be saying that you can't even come to school with a phone. I'd agree that in some situations (like people getting rides for after school events) that's an unnecessary bother
No one cares about your prostate exams.
I think they have done both. Nobody is out here calling for more school shootings. So the first has been done. As to the second, there have been solutions offered, you just don't like the solution.
And really, to quite a few of you, the only solution that will be acceptable at this point is some type of banning/restrictions on a certain class of weapons. So any solution that doesn't include that is one you won't be willing to listen to anyway.
I'm a supporter conceptually of the 2A, but have never owned and gun and may never. I would be pressing hard on anyone that isn't a believer in expansion of red flag laws, particularly given the deinstitutionalization. Anyone that has been convicted a any felony should be barred from owning a gun, regardless of the type of crime. Anyone who has ever had a history of mental disease or diagnoses should be banned from owning a gun. Period.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
so in other words, accept a partial solution because limiting guns is a no go.
I would say you're not willing to listen to anything that addresses the issue from ALL angles.
What are the solutions offered?
Edit: Yes, I agree that any rational person would say we want to end school shootings. But if you refuse to take a single action that could help, that says something about your true beliefs. It gets into lip service. Almost a cost of doing business to have completely unfettered access to firearms. I simply think kids and their live should be our priority. Someone’s ox will be gored.
Last edited:
I agree and the 2A supporters push back on these. Universal background checks? They say no.
Similar threads
