Another school shooting

[DQ12]

This is being seriously discussed/debated/editorialized and it doesn't deserve to be.

I did.  I came away thinking John Warner is a condescending bad person. His idea is best and other ideas don't merit discussion. 

Who decides what ideas deserve to get debated?  Agree with it or not -- think it's a stupid idea or not -- it's an idea that has considerable support among the public.

Where you getting it has public support?

Essentially every single real Republican supports it, so like 35% maybe.

[CHONGS]

Nice to see verification

[Rage Against the McKee]

20% of democrats supporting this idea really surprises me. Maybe they are republicans in deep blue states who want to vote for the least liberal democrat in the primaries or something.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Once you understand that what has been repackaged as "arming teachers" started as "not prohibiting teachers from carrying", you start to understand where the policy support comes from.

I personally don't think it's a great idea, but don't think it's a big deal either way because I'm not a gunophobe.

[DQ12]

Nice to see verification

Well it's 44% of the population, including roughly half of independents and 1 in 5 democrats.  Just because everyone in your twitter circles think the idea is bad doesn't mean all your fellow citizens do.   

The comparison to farming the moon for cheese made by Rusty's twitter guy is unbelievably arrogant.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Notice it's "allow teachers to carry"

Not the libtard propoganda "arm all teachers"

[CHONGS]

Nice to see verification

Well it's 44% of the population, including roughly half of independents and 1 in 5 democrats.  Just because everyone in your twitter circles think the idea is bad doesn't mean all your fellow citizens do.

Not sure how you are misunderstanding, but keep on citizen.

[DQ12]

Nice to see verification

Well it's 44% of the population, including roughly half of independents and 1 in 5 democrats.  Just because everyone in your twitter circles think the idea is bad doesn't mean all your fellow citizens do.

Not sure how you are misunderstanding, but keep on citizen.

Well it's not all or only republicans like your post implied.  if that's not what you were meaning to imply then sorry.  rusty's twitter man triggered me.

to be clear, i think it's a bad idea too.  i just hate that guy's tone.

[michigancat]

Who decides what ideas deserve to get debated?

um the media? It's pretty naive to think the press should or even have an ability to simply "report the news" - deciding what they do and don't report is absolutely editorializing on some level. They don't report, debate, and editorialize every crazy rant from everyone they come across, nor should they.

You have a good point on the "considerable support" thing. I still think the media treating it less seriously would have seriously reduced its support. It would be interesting to see the minimum support a president could get from his side on the issue.

[DQ12]

Who decides what ideas deserve to get debated?

um the media? It's pretty naive to think the press should or even have an ability to simply "report the news" - deciding what they do and don't report is absolutely editorializing on some level. They don't report, debate, and editorialize every crazy rant from everyone they come across, nor should they.

You have a good point on the "considerable support" thing. I still think the media treating it less seriously would have seriously reduced its support. It would be interesting to see the minimum support a president could get from his side on the issue.

My "who gets to decide" question is tied to the issue having considerable support.  Obviously this isn't a fringe idea.  We're not dealing with flat earthers or moon cheese.  A lot of people think this is a good idea.
 
IMO, welcoming debate on the subject and having people say "hey this is a bad idea and here's why..." is a lot more beneficial than just pretending like it doesn't exist and/or nobody supports it.

[CHONGS]

Nice to see verification

Well it's 44% of the population, including roughly half of independents and 1 in 5 democrats.  Just because everyone in your twitter circles think the idea is bad doesn't mean all your fellow citizens do.

Not sure how you are misunderstanding, but keep on citizen.

Well it's not all or only republicans like your post implied.  if that's not what you were meaning to imply then sorry.  rusty's twitter man triggered me.

to be clear, i think it's a bad idea too.  i just hate that guy's tone.

I was just saying that of course it has support.  At minimum it will have the support of all real Republicans which is a substantial chunk of citizens (which I estimated to be about 35%).  Dems, RINOs, and Indies who support it as well are just icing.

[DQ12]

I was just saying that of course it has support.  At minimum it will have the support of all real Republicans which is a substantial chunk of citizens (which I estimated to be about 35%).  Dems, RINOs, and Indies who support it as well are just icing.

Understood.  Sorry for my snippy response earlier. 

[Woogy]

Executive Order to ban bump stocks.

"By the way, bump stocks, we’re writing that out. I'm writing that out myself, I don't care if Congress does it or not, I'm writing it out myself, okay? You put it into the machine gun category, which is what it is, it becomes essentially a machine gun."

oh man can you imagine if Barry would have suggested this?

Only Nixon could go to China....

[Phil Titola]

Thanks for the poll data. Shocked me.

[michigancat]

Who decides what ideas deserve to get debated?

um the media? It's pretty naive to think the press should or even have an ability to simply "report the news" - deciding what they do and don't report is absolutely editorializing on some level. They don't report, debate, and editorialize every crazy rant from everyone they come across, nor should they.

You have a good point on the "considerable support" thing. I still think the media treating it less seriously would have seriously reduced its support. It would be interesting to see the minimum support a president could get from his side on the issue.

My "who gets to decide" question is tied to the issue having considerable support.  Obviously this isn't a fringe idea.  We're not dealing with flat earthers or moon cheese.  A lot of people think this is a good idea.
 
IMO, welcoming debate on the subject and having people say "hey this is a bad idea and here's why..." is a lot more beneficial than just pretending like it doesn't exist and/or nobody supports it.

There's plenty of dumb crap that is largely supported by a lot of the people. I mean 45% of people say they believe in ghosts, should we debate that crap? (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/10/25/how-many-people-believe-ghosts-dead-spirits/794215001/)


If someone wanted to debate arming more teachers with me I'd tell them they're stupid and to eff off and/or mock them mercilessly and not discuss it further. I really don't care if it's arrogant. It's a diversion in the gun control debate that should center around registration, background checks, and how our country fails at mental health treatment and doesn't deserve any further thought.

[ChiComCat]

If someone wanted to debate arming more teachers with me I'd tell them they're stupid and to eff off and/or mock them mercilessly and not discuss it further. I really don't care if it's arrogant. It's a diversion in the gun control debate that should center around registration, background checks, and how our country fails at mental health treatment and doesn't deserve any further thought.

Telling people an idea is stupid and mocking it mercilessly instead of treating it seriously is how Trump gets elected.

[DQ12]

Who decides what ideas deserve to get debated?

um the media? It's pretty naive to think the press should or even have an ability to simply "report the news" - deciding what they do and don't report is absolutely editorializing on some level. They don't report, debate, and editorialize every crazy rant from everyone they come across, nor should they.

You have a good point on the "considerable support" thing. I still think the media treating it less seriously would have seriously reduced its support. It would be interesting to see the minimum support a president could get from his side on the issue.

My "who gets to decide" question is tied to the issue having considerable support.  Obviously this isn't a fringe idea.  We're not dealing with flat earthers or moon cheese.  A lot of people think this is a good idea.
 
IMO, welcoming debate on the subject and having people say "hey this is a bad idea and here's why..." is a lot more beneficial than just pretending like it doesn't exist and/or nobody supports it.

There's plenty of dumb crap that is largely supported by a lot of the people. I mean 45% of people say they believe in ghosts, should we debate that crap? (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/10/25/how-many-people-believe-ghosts-dead-spirits/794215001/)


If someone wanted to debate arming more teachers with me I'd tell them they're stupid and to eff off and/or mock them mercilessly and not discuss it further. I really don't care if it's arrogant. It's a diversion in the gun control debate that should center around registration, background checks, and how our country fails at mental health treatment and doesn't deserve any further thought.

Ghosts aren't public policy.  People believing in ghosts doesn't really have any affect on anything.  If 45% of the public thinks that the ghost of Abe Lincoln should be our next president, then yes, it's time to have a serious discussion on why ghosts shouldn't be president.

[CHONGS]

Who decides what ideas deserve to get debated?

um the media? It's pretty naive to think the press should or even have an ability to simply "report the news" - deciding what they do and don't report is absolutely editorializing on some level. They don't report, debate, and editorialize every crazy rant from everyone they come across, nor should they.

You have a good point on the "considerable support" thing. I still think the media treating it less seriously would have seriously reduced its support. It would be interesting to see the minimum support a president could get from his side on the issue.

My "who gets to decide" question is tied to the issue having considerable support.  Obviously this isn't a fringe idea.  We're not dealing with flat earthers or moon cheese.  A lot of people think this is a good idea.
 
IMO, welcoming debate on the subject and having people say "hey this is a bad idea and here's why..." is a lot more beneficial than just pretending like it doesn't exist and/or nobody supports it.

There's plenty of dumb crap that is largely supported by a lot of the people. I mean 45% of people say they believe in ghosts, should we debate that crap? (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/10/25/how-many-people-believe-ghosts-dead-spirits/794215001/)


If someone wanted to debate arming more teachers with me I'd tell them they're stupid and to eff off and/or mock them mercilessly and not discuss it further. I really don't care if it's arrogant. It's a diversion in the gun control debate that should center around registration, background checks, and how our country fails at mental health treatment and doesn't deserve any further thought.

Ghosts aren't public policy.  People believing in ghosts doesn't really have any affect on anything.  If 45% of the public thinks that the ghost of Abe Lincoln should be our next president, then yes, it's time to have a serious discussion on why ghosts shouldn't be president.

45% of voting public

[Joker]

The idea has already been implemented in Texas in response to Sandy Hook(signed into law in 2013).

At least 172 of Texas' roughly 1,200 districts have implemented the policies as the nation has re-engaged in debate over whether teachers and other school employees should be armed at work, according to an analysis by the Texas Association of School Boards.

Under the program, schools in districts that participate can designate marshals who undergo background checks and active-shooter training. “This is not some insignificant, go-to-a-weekend class and all of a sudden you’re Rambo,” Villalba said. “This is a serious requirement.”

It's not clear how many marshals there are because it is a secret force. The few districts that are thought to have authorized them typically won’t even say they have done so — so gunmen can’t target them. Students don’t know if their teacher is a marshal. Neither do parents. It’s based on the theory of secret flight marshals — which Trump has also referenced.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/education/article/Armed-teachers-In-some-Texas-classrooms-the-12704933.php

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/24/armed-teachers-texas-trump-362397

[Phil Titola]

Trump wants it more known than that program based on his description of cowards not going into a place where they know there are teacher guns.

[Dugout DickStone]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/968163890206068736

unless his bone spurs were acting up

[Brock Landers]

That fat coward wouldn't even drive an armored golf cart into Ivanka's gym class to save her.

[Institutional Control]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/968219332995141637

https://twitter.com/CaseyCagle/status/968199605803454465

[Rage Against the McKee]

Somebody should probably let him know that Lt. Governors don't actually do anything that matters.

[mocat]

haha, not giving someone an airfare discount for owning a gun = attacking