View Single Post
Old 03-06-2009, 02:31 AM   #36
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,001
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Depends, at the university I go to, quite a few instructors actually own firearms. The teacher has gotten in trouble in this case already and there sounds like there will be a lawsuit, further it sounds highly likely that the student has an ironclad case.
I'm not against firearm ownership. I just think that having guns available to both teachers and all students in a university or high school could lead to accidental shootings, spur of the moments shootings, etc. While a single shooting can be pretty bad, my personal belief is that having more on campus, especially hidden, would just cause more trouble.

When some kids get into a fist fight during or after school, I think it would be preferable for them to not have a gun in that particularly heated moment. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Explains why there is such an uproar and the fact the teacher is in trouble.
I guess so. Being questioned doesn't seem that bad, and if the court determines the teacher was unjustified in her concern and call then that'll settle the matter.

I think the teacher made an OK call, but not the best one. I wont disagree that it was an overreaction to immediately go to the police, but I would have also had something to say if nothing had been done.

Police tend to take stuff like this seriously, as does the law. If she screwed up, let it be said out of the judge's mouth.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
So you're saying that someone that advocates something legitimate that some states allow guns to be carried in other areas, is the same as something that is absolutely immoral. It wouldn't surprise me if you would want to do away with the Keystone amendment and consider everyone that owns a gun to be a criminal based on your comments.
Nah, I'm saying that it isn't surprising that a teacher would take something like this seriously, as would an entire school perhaps. In her position, I would have asked him to go to the councelor or something to discuss the project, as advocating weapon handling and possible use in a situation may have some underlining meaning behind it.

The only gun control I really advocate is control over concealed weapons, and control over heavy weaponry. I border at assault rifles. While I would like to own an assault rifle, I also feel in some ways I and other's shouldn't have easy access to buying them. Other than that, feel free to own as many gun as you'd like.

The reason I bring something like pedophilia into this isn't for the legal immorality, but the Social Law that someone like that supports. You and others have the right to talk, advocate, etc pedophilia but the social implications of doing such are heavy in many parts of the world. It can also be argued that a "I think everyone on campus should have a gun so we can shoot them before they shoot us" attitude could lean on the side of potential danger or immorality.

Heavy handed comments that don't so much have a basis in US law, but could potentially get your teacher to call the counselor on you or, in an extreme case, call the police.

Doesn't mean it shouldn't be said, but that said there is a time and a place for everything.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
I'm against them using their position to indoctrinate students into a particular political party. That's a difference from teaching them to think for themselves.
Agreed, but limiting the ability of someone to express their opinion is essentially limiting freedom of speech.

The same, effectively, could be said about religion. Do parents push their religious or political agenda on their children at all? If they do, aren't they just like the teacher "indoctrinating" his/her students?

Thinking for yourself is a hard thing to place, because don't we all basically think off of what happens around us? Don't events in our everyday life indoctrinate us in some way?

Then the question arises: Are you speaking of indoctrination, or are you simply playing down the teacher's ability to say such things because you would prefer them to be influenced to your side, away from the liberal mindset?

I'm not calling you on anything, just trying to figure out the line of logic.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
No, I'm against the Nazi style of indoctrination. Teachers are in a position of authority, and indoctrinating students into a political party using their position in the classroom is abusing their position.
Yes, but the same thing could be said about parents, TV, politicians, ALL media, political parties, debate forums, you, me, etc.

There are plenty of people in seats of authority trying to get you to believe what they want you to believe. MSNBC wants you to hate Fox News. Fox News wants you to hate the liberals. Pepsi wants you to buy more Pepsi. Parents want their kids to share their religion.

Its something you can't avoid as long as there is someone in some perceived level of authority above you.

So, by quelling the voices of said authority, you are still effectively trying to limit their freedom of speech. Their ability to say what they want, when they want, how they want. While perceived authority may have influence, those that use that to their advantage or disadvantage are still American Citizens.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
No, the teacher called 911 without any input from school officials and the cops showed up at the student's house, they then discovered the teacher's call had no basis, and the school thought it was out of line and overreacting on her part. Don't try to misrepresent the facts of the case, the teacher misrepresented the situation to the police.

This is being considered an assault on free-speech, he never made any threats to anyone according to the article.
Personally, I have better things to do that work off of assumptions that some journalists make.

The police found it suspicious enough to check it our, but if she did in fact blow it our of proportion then the fault is on her shoulders. I'll reserve judgment till the court decides whether she over reacted or not. I'm simply presenting why I think she and others may have reacted in such a way.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Actually it sounds like the teacher is in trouble because it looks like she's gonna end up in court and potentially the university too for violating the first amendment.
And I'll await the courts decision on whether she did or not.

Originally Posted by Tommycat
That makes recent news a prime target. Unless you want him to be like CNN covering octomom and the toddler killin moms, instead he chose to take something with less fluff. Relevant issues would be issues that affect them. That means that he chose a proper subject. In fact he took a position that several of the people who went to VA Tech also advocated in their interviews to the media.
I'm sure many people agreed with him. Charged issues should not be kept in the dark, and neither should this one.

But, again, a time and place.

Originally Posted by Tommycat
Sorry, but even my lil ole high school in Texas was reasonable enough to allow charged issues. My old drummer WENT TO COLUMBINE and did a report on how the incident could have been made less severe if teachers and students were allowed to carry legally. He didn't get the police called on him.
Not saying he shouldn't have the right to. I doubt he got the best looks when possibly telling columbine teachers that if they and others had carried guns all would have been fine. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know.

That is about as far as my argument can go. I can't reasonably explain a phenomenon that is unreasonable, but can simply state that it doesn't take a genius to realize that talking about guns on a school campus might call some eyes. He just happened to pick the unlucky card in this situation, and got someone to overreact on him.
True_Avery is offline   you may: