11 year old boy dies during school walkout...

[JBJ 3648]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Did adults with subject matter expertise help with some of the technical details? I'm sure. This isn't a backyard musical. But the vast majority of this thing was done by high school kids. 
That being said, I don't think there were rolling closures. 

News article says there were going to be but that may have changed.  It would reduce the licensed PE requirement to prequalified person, which means your TTC company would also provide the MOT plan in most cases.  It does save substantial money.

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

News article says there were going to be but that may have changed.  It would reduce the licensed PE requirement to prequalified person, which means your TTC company would also provide the MOT plan in most cases.  It does save substantial money.

FYI  - I changed my post - there appears to have been a rolling closure, my mistake. APD managed it.  Not clear to me who the PE that signed off was, because the student organizer in my house didn't know.  That was the city-wide team that managed that part of it. 

Edited April 23, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[JBJ 3648]

14 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

FYI  - I changed my post - there appears to have been a rolling closure, my mistake. APD managed it.  Not clear to me who the PE that signed off was, because the student organizer in my house didn't know.  That was the city-wide team that managed that part of it. 

The "shadow people with the money" handled it.

I don't want anything I've posted to be construed as downplaying the grassroots elements. It's useful to acknowledge that there are rich millionaires who fund these things (on both sides).  You decide either to agree with those millionaires or you don't, but don't pretend that your group doesn't have them and demonize the other group for having them.

These things require money and organization. Everything is astroturfed.

Edited April 23, 2018 by JBJ

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

On 4/22/2018 at 5:51 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

How do you feel about military recruiters at high schools?

What's the connection ?  HS are supposedly preparing kids for stepping out into life, jobs, careers, college.

The military is all of those things so what's your beef?

 

 

[Brian Fantana 6667]

I'm eagerly awaiting the slightest shred of evidence to support JBJ's assertions.

[Newdoc 3429]

23 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

As usual, blow me.  My middle school kid took a city bus to the capital, participated, and took the bus back.  If you want to impugn my parenting, I cordially invite you to come to Austin and do it to my face.

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

I'm eagerly awaiting the slightest shred of evidence to support JBJ's assertions.

You mean assertions and assumptions aren’t evidence?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jim Tom Pinch 120]

21 hours ago, whatup said:

Like many many many others have pointed out before that we have a right to free speech but if you scream bomb at an airport you are going to get arrested for it. 

Common sense should prevail but muh guns crowd seem to lack it. 

Constitution isn't some infallible document, it was framed by humans and hence was the product of its times. It is outdated at this point with regards to the 2nd amendment.  

That doesn’t answer my question

[JBJ 3648]

4 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

I'm eagerly awaiting the slightest shred of evidence to support JBJ's assertions.

Logic probably isn't your strong suit, but I'm eagerly awaiting your rebuttal.

[Mike "Wags" Wagner 6]

12 hours ago, David Dennison said:

A lot of us don't think those are babies yet.

I thought you retards were the party of science.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

7 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said:

What if he lives longer than you? Wait, you're going to be buried with your guns, aren't you? 

Unless we pry them from his cold dead hands apparently.

What about his pocket knives though? Or do you think he just bends over and takes it from the TSA like the cuck he is?

 

[wildcat09 29226]

12 hours ago, JBJ said:

The "shadow people with the money" handled it.

Why don’t you just say “Jews”?

[Guest]

On 4/23/2018 at 12:55 AM, whatup said:

Like many many many others have pointed out before that we have a right to free speech but if you scream bomb at an airport you are going to get arrested for it. 

Common sense should prevail but muh guns crowd seem to lack it. 

Constitution isn't some infallible document, it was framed by humans and hence was the product of its times. It is outdated at this point with regards to the 2nd amendment.  

We don't walk around with tape on our mouths or while having our larynx removed.  the crime is committed by misusing speech.

 

Why the double standard for firearms?

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

3 minutes ago, slorch said:

We don't walk around with tape on our mouths or while having our larynx removed.  the crime is committed by misusing speech.

 

Why the double standard for firearms?

I'm not allowed to enrich uranium. Why the double standard with firearms?

[Guest]

I missed the Constitutional right for citizens to have the uranium.  Could you please cite the provision?

 

The question remains:  Why do we want to be all Minority Report with guns, but speech is treated with kid gloves until someone actually...um...fires a shot?

 

Political capital...that's why.

Edited April 24, 2018 by slorch

[wildcat09 29226]

7 minutes ago, slorch said:

I missed the Constitutional right for citizens to have the uranium.  Could you please cite the provision?

 

The question remains:  Why do we want to be all Minority Report with guns, but speech is treated with kid gloves until someone actually...um...fires a shot?

 

Political capital...that's why.

You might want to sit down for this one, but words and bullets are actually two different things. Shocking, I know, but it’s the truth.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

10 minutes ago, slorch said:

I missed the Constitutional right for citizens to have the uranium.  Could you please cite the provision?

I know you're being willfully obtuse, but on the off chance you're actually this thick, let's rephrase the question:

Does the Constitution protect your right to own an atom bomb?

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

10 minutes ago, slorch said:

I missed the Constitutional right for citizens to have the uranium.  Could you please cite the provision?

 

The question remains:  Why do we want to be all Minority Report with guns, but speech is treated with kid gloves until someone actually...um...fires a shot?

 

Political capital...that's why.

2nd amendment. One could argue that enriched uranium would do a hell of a better job of protecting the security of a free State than a firearm could. Shit ask Iran and North Korea which they would rather have.

 

Why does the NRA fight every attempt to reduce the number of firearm related deaths whether they occur at a school, a concert in Vegas, or someone's workplace?

 

Political capital that's why.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I know you're being willfully obtuse, but on the off chance you're actually this thick, let's rephrase the question:

Does the Constitution protect your right to own an atom bomb?

It doesn't say anything about not owning an atom bomb. 

 

Please point out the clause in the Constitution where it protects your right to own semiautomatic firearms and high capacity magazines.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

 

 

Why does the NRA fight every attempt to reduce the number of firearm related deaths whether they occur at a school, a concert in Vegas, or someone's workplace?

 

Because restricting the liberty of law abiding citizens doesn't make us safer.  That's the fallacy in all of this.

 

Headcases and psychopaths don't give a fuck what the law says, so why would we attempt to affect their behavior with tighter controls on firearms?

 

Why not address the behavior/ human condition, not the fucking size of a magazine?  Again, because it is not about making our society safer( LOFL)  it is about imposing our political will upon others.

Edited April 24, 2018 by slorch

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

4 minutes ago, slorch said:

Because restricting the liberty of law abiding citizens doesn't make us safer.  That's the fallacy in all of this.

Then why can't we take a pocket knife on a plane?

Seriously do you think anyone is going to let a plane get hijacked again if the cowards that try it have a damn blade? Hell it only worked for less than an hour the last time before the passengers of flight 93 put an end to that shit.

 

Our liberties are restricted constantly. You can't legally drive above .08, for years you couldn't travel to Cuba, hell you can't even show Janet Jackson's titty during the Superbowl.

 

Why make this the hill to die on? Wouldn't we all be better served seeing more titties on TV?

[wildcat09 29226]

It’s a tough competition, but slorch might be the dumbest poster in whatever we’re calling this new CR. “WHY MAG RESTRICTIONS??!?”

[bad_teammate 13132]

35 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Does the Constitution protect your right to own an atom bomb?

Gun nuts dodge these questions constantly.

- Should I be able to own and carry an M249?

- Should I be able to own and carry frags?

- Should I be able to own and carry mortars?

- Should I be able to own and carry claymores?

[Celery Man 20882]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

 but speech is treated with kid gloves until someone actually...um...fires a shot?

unamerican lib cuck kid gloves imo.  disgraceful

[Guest]

Just to be clear, I am absolutely supportive of cranking down laws against CRIMES COMMITTED WITH GUNS  tighter than a virgin's honey pot.

 

I just oppose making simple possession illegal, beyond current regulations.

Edited April 24, 2018 by slorch

[jimmyjazz 45546]

So you're OK with current restrictions yet you cannot even begin to imagine how some people might think those restrictions need to be somewhat tighter.

That's logical.

Edited April 24, 2018 by jimmyjazz

[bad_teammate 13132]

17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So you're OK with current restrictions yet you cannot even begin to imagine how some people might think those restrictions need to be somewhat tighter.

That's logical.

slorch commonly exhibits reactionary thinking at its finest. The worldview and attention span of a goldfish.

[JBJ 3648]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Gun nuts dodge these questions constantly.

- Should I be able to own and carry an M249?

- Should I be able to own and carry frags?

- Should I be able to own and carry mortars?

- Should I be able to own and carry claymores?

There is a semi-auto M249, so you can own and carry it.  It is one of the few legal belt-fed weapons.

The others aren't "arms" in the normal sense and don't have a common use, so people don't give a shit.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

Ah, the "normal" sense.  Thanks for clarifying that.

[bad_teammate 13132]

8 minutes ago, JBJ said:

There is a semi-auto M249, so you can own and carry it.  It is one of the few legal belt-fed weapons.

The others aren't "arms" in the normal sense and don't have a common use, so people don't give a shit.

Should I be able to own and carry a full-auto M249? Should I be able to buy a newly manufactured one?

Should I be able to own, carry, and purchase new the other things? (frags, mortars, and claymores)

Come on, buddy, they aren't hard questions.

[JBJ 3648]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Should I be able to own and carry a full-auto M249? Should I be able to buy a newly manufactured one?

Should I be able to own, carry, and purchase new the other things? (frags, mortars, and claymores)

Come on, buddy, they aren't hard questions.

I'd say the current restrictions on those items don't need to be changed for civilians. I would increase the restrictions on local law enforcement.

I'll further my explanation: most importantly - they don't have a common use.  Explosives in general are are still accessible to professions who use them. And serious hobbyists are willing to go through the costs and wait to get them. 

Outside of suppressors, I have no problems with current restrictions.  Expanding those restritions to weapons with common uses (pistols, rifles, shotguns, knives, axes, saws) is what I am against.

Edited April 24, 2018 by JBJ

[bad_teammate 13132]

35 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I'd say the current restrictions on those items don't need to be changed for civilians. I would increase the restrictions on local law enforcement.

I'll further my explanation: most importantly - they don't have a common use.  Explosives in general are are still accessible to professions who use them. And serious hobbyists are willing to go through the costs and wait to get them. 

Outside of suppressors, I have no problems with current restrictions.  Expanding those restritions to weapons with common uses (pistols, rifles, shotguns, knives, axes, saws) is what I am against.

What "common use" does an AR-15 have that a select-fire SCAR-H or even the LMG M249 would not have? You are basically arguing that the laws we have right now are fine because they are the laws we have right now.

And why are you guys so evasive when asked simple questions?

Should I be able to own and carry a full-auto M249? Should I be able to buy a newly manufactured one?

Should I be able to own, carry, and purchase new the other things? (frags, mortars, and claymores)

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

5 hours ago, slorch said:

I missed the Constitutional right for citizens to have the uranium.  Could you please cite the provision?

 

The question remains:  Why do we want to be all Minority Report with guns, but speech is treated with kid gloves until someone actually...um...fires a shot?

 

Political capital...that's why.

I don't recall the 2nd amendment putting a limit on what constitutes arms.  If we're going to argue the second amendment gives us an unfettered right to bear arms, it should include all arms, including nuclear.  If we aren't willing to argue that, then we need to all admit that the 2nd amendment, while giving us access to bearing arms, does have some logical limits to it. 

If you want to say there are limits, then you are admitting that this isn't a 2nd amendment conversation, and that you are in agreement that unfettered access to weapons is an unreasonable reading of the 2nd amendment.  Once you've done that, this isn't a 2nd amendment conversation at all, its a discussion on how much regulation you prefer.  And that means that your comparison between this and the first amendment doesn't hold water.  

[jimmyjazz 45546]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What "common use" does an AR-15 have

Killing innocent schoolchildren and waffle aficionados? 

[JBJ 3648]

Select-fire exceeds common use.  You can use a select-fire SCAR for the same things, but they exceed that use.  And where they exceed that use I'm fine with restrictions. Take it to the silly-level: a shotgun with a grenade launcher doesn't become legal because you can hunt birds with it.  The grenade launcher portion still exceeds that.

As I've already pointed out, they make semi-auto SCARs and M249s that don't.

Edited April 24, 2018 by JBJ

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

I don't recall the 2nd amendment putting a limit on what constitutes arms.  If we're going to argue the second amendment gives us an unfettered right to bear arms, it should include all arms, including nuclear.  If we aren't willing to argue that, then we need to all admit that the 2nd amendment, while giving us access to bearing arms, does have some logical limits to it. 

If you want to say there are limits, then you are admitting that this isn't a 2nd amendment conversation, and that you are in agreement that unfettered access to weapons is an unreasonable reading of the 2nd amendment.  Once you've done that, this isn't a 2nd amendment conversation at all, its a discussion on how much regulation you prefer.  And that means that your comparison between this and the first amendment doesn't hold water.  

They both have limits.  I did not argue what you are proposing in your post.

 

I am saying there is no need for further restriction to achieve a safer society.  Guns are not the problem.  People are.

We have an aversion to accountability...so let's go after the possession of firearms by (otherwise) law-abiding citizens.

 

Let's do everything else but actually address the issue-  irresponsible human behavior.

[Nolacycling 893]

double secret probation = unexcused absence

 equals

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

10 minutes ago, slorch said:

They both have limits.  I did not argue what you are proposing in your post.

 

I am saying there is no need for further restriction to achieve a safer society.  Guns are not the problem.  People are.

We have an aversion to accountability...so let's go after the possession of firearms by (otherwise) law-abiding citizens.

 

Let's do everything else but actually address the issue-  irresponsible human behavior.

I agreed that you were arguing that.  What I was doing is saying that this isn't a 2nd amendment conversation, so comparing those regulations to the 1st amendment  is not appropriate.  

[hayden_horn 11360]

14 minutes ago, slorch said:

They both have limits.  I did not argue what you are proposing in your post.

 

I am saying there is no need for further restriction to achieve a safer society.  Guns are not the problem.  People are.

We have an aversion to accountability...so let's go after the possession of firearms by (otherwise) law-abiding citizens.

 

Let's do everything else but actually address the issue-  irresponsible human behavior.

actually, guns are a part of the problem. refusing to acknowledge that is folly. it's also true that irresponsible human behavior is a part of the problem.

irresponsible human behavior + access to guns capable of killing a large number of people IS the problem.

and mental illness. one could argue that a mentally ill person is not capable of responsible human behavior.

[bad_teammate 13132]

16 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Select-fire exceeds common use.

Why?

Make an argument. Explain your rationale. You're just throwing dust in the air and hoping you aren't forced to actually engage with the conversation.

16 minutes ago, slorch said:

I am saying there is no need for further restriction to achieve a safer society.  Guns are not the problem.  People are.

If guns are not at least part of the problem, why have any restrictions on them at all?

Quote

Let's do everything else but actually address the issue-  irresponsible human behavior.

Who here advocates not punishing the violent offenders? Who ANYWHERE advocates not punishing the violent offenders?

[Nolacycling 893]

20 hours ago, JBJ said:

An MOT plan with rolling closures requires a PE seal.  ADT approval would have to be expedited, which means you are using an engineering firm with a relationship.  I don't think ADT pre-qualifies (TxDoT doesn't IF you have a PE seal). Someone also hired event security (through APD), a TTC company, inspection for the TTC.

There was easily $100grand sunk into this.

JBJ, FWIW IMHO IDGAF. DYSWIDT?

[wildcat09 29226]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

They both have limits.  I did not argue what you are proposing in your post.

 

I am saying there is no need for further restriction to achieve a safer society.  Guns are not the problem.  People are.

We have an aversion to accountability...so let's go after the possession of firearms by (otherwise) law-abiding citizens.

 

Let's do everything else but actually address the issue-  irresponsible human behavior.

We should abolish DUI laws too, right? The real problem isn't a specific irresponsible behavior, but irresponsible behavior generally, and there just ain't nothin we can do about that.

[whatup 0]

10 hours ago, slorch said:

Because restricting the liberty of law abiding citizens doesn't make us safer.  That's the fallacy in all of this.

 

Headcases and psychopaths don't give a fuck what the law says, so why would we attempt to affect their behavior with tighter controls on firearms?

 

Why not address the behavior/ human condition, not the fucking size of a magazine?  Again, because it is not about making our society safer( LOFL)  it is about imposing our political will upon others.

 

This isn't about political will, no atom bombs, no nuclear holocaust by these headcases. No guns?....follow the thought. 

[whatup 0]

4 hours ago, slorch said:

They both have limits.  I did not argue what you are proposing in your post.

 

I am saying there is no need for further restriction to achieve a safer society.  Guns are not the problem.  People are.

We have an aversion to accountability...so let's go after the possession of firearms by (otherwise) law-abiding citizens.

 

Let's do everything else but actually address the issue-  irresponsible human behavior.

OK, why don't you share what nugget of an idea(other than banning guns) you have to ensure responsible behavior in a country of 300 million people?

[Guest]

10 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

It’s a tough competition, but slorch might be the dumbest poster in whatever we’re calling this new CR. “WHY MAG RESTRICTIONS??!?”

Prove how it keeps them out of criminals' hands and you might have a point. 

 

Insult my intelligence all you want, but none of you fuckers can prove additional restrictions shut down the bad guys. 

[whatup 0]

15 minutes ago, slorch said:

Prove how it keeps them out of criminals' hands and you might have a point. 

 

Insult my intelligence all you want, but none of you fuckers can prove additional restrictions shut down the bad guys. 

Whoa, calm down. Sounds like you aren't that far from those "headcases". 

 

We are not giving restrictions enough chances. What we are doing with restrictions is difficult to impose. Gun safe zones in this county and then the wild west in the next isn't going to cut it. There is no quarantine or account of people entering and leaving the county with and without weapons. Ban guns completely throughout the US with mandatory minimums should help somewhat. But what's really going to help is the free market. We already have gun manufacturers struggling despite high sales, with losing economies of scale they will struggle further consolidating into one or two companies who will hike up the price.

 

Banning them completely will also artificially inflate its price in thousands in the black market which will keep it off of the hands of moronic kids and gang bangers low on the totem pole.The ones that can afford them, the successful ones that are able to conjure up a few thousand dollars in one go already know the value of non violence thereby helping eliminate gun violence to substantial level.

You really want gun violence to die down? Let free market do its work after imposing the correct regulations. 

[Texas73 420]

On 4/23/2018 at 4:03 PM, Rip76 said:

No way...

A bunch of 10-11 year old kids put it all together.

The vast majority of students and schools who have protested and walked out of class are high school students. It is my opinion that those students can think for themselves and thus don't have outside organizers telling them where the doors are that lead them outside.  All it takes is for it to be on the news and/or travel by word of mouth the day and time of the walkout protest.  It isn't that difficult for any age student to walk out of a classroom and go outside. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just because you were too stupid and/or unliked in high school to organize a walk-out or protest doesn't mean everyone else was, furious conservatives.

[Sawbonz 27398]

This thread has achieved maximum cloakroom. Well done and go suck a dick (except NAIU)  to you all

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

But I want to!