Mass shooting of the week, high school in parkland, FL.

#5,601
#5,601
luthervol said:
No one is moving the goal post.

You are avoiding the question.

I've already stated a few times that if the kid has nothing in his past to peak suspicion, then the school over reacted and the people should be dealt with accordingly.

If the kid has things in his past that we don't know about, then they may have acted appropriately.

We do not know the whole story.

Now how about you go back and answer my question.
Click to expand...

Sure if the kid made threatening comments/posts. He Didn’t so those who felt threatened were idiots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,602
#5,602
hog88 said:
Sure if the kid made threatening comments/posts. He Didn’t so those who felt threatened were idiots.
Click to expand...

No, they're ****ing cowards and bullies.

They can't pull that **** on an adult. But a kid doesn't know any better. Of course, luther just thinks since the kid is under 18 and was handling a firearm even while under supervision his rights go out the window.

I mean, if his kid was underage and was playing a practical joke by picking up a six pack of beer in a mini-mart and took a picture, the school should be able to question them for hours on end because there is the POSSIBILITY they would drink underage and POSSIBLY get behind the wheel of a car and POSSIBLY kill someone.

No proof, but that doesn't matter to luther. He just doesn't care. As far as he's concerned Constitutionally protected rights only start at age 18. Or is it 21?
 
#5,603
#5,603
Grand Vol said:
No, they're ****ing cowards and bullies.

They can't pull that **** on an adult. But a kid doesn't know any better. Of course, luther just thinks since the kid is under 18 and was handling a firearm even while under supervision his rights go out the window.

I mean, if his kid was underage and was playing a practical joke by picking up a six pack of beer in a mini-mart and took a picture, the school should be able to question them for hours on end because there is the POSSIBILITY they would drink underage and POSSIBLY get behind the wheel of a car and POSSIBLY kill someone.

No proof, but that doesn't matter to luther. He just doesn't care. As far as he's concerned Constitutionally protected rights only start at age 18. Or is it 21?
Click to expand...

What's really cute here is that liberal politicians...the Governor of New York, for instance...are restoring the voting rights of convicted felons. So, on the one hand...gun control. On the other, restoring the voting rights of those who (some of whom, to be accurate), are very much in favor of it, as it will make their life so much easier moving forward.

And behold the legions of Useful Idiots who march in lockstep with those who are leading them into a future where they will be nothing more than over-taxed, under-represented, preyed-upon, brainwashed, educationally and politically institutionalized boot-lickers who depend on the "Big G" to solve all of their problems...without a single thought as to who caused those problems.

Don't believe me...go back and look at what LBJ said. He called it; he did it; and we're living with the fallout, to this very day.

So forgive me if I'm just a tad skeptical about the utopian enlightened society that Bernie, Hillary, Nancy, Barack, and their ilk want to create for me.

Unlike some, I'm a student of history. And there's an old rule about those who forget it.

Just send me a postcard from Paradise. I'll be up in the hills hunting dinner.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#5,605
#5,605
luthervol said:
No one is moving the goal post.

You are avoiding the question.

I've already stated a few times that if the kid has nothing in his past to peak suspicion, then the school over reacted and the people should be dealt with accordingly.

If the kid has things in his past that we don't know about, then they may have acted appropriately.

We do not know the whole story.

Now how about you go back and answer my question.
Click to expand...

Anybody mentions gun and you re free to interrogate. Hopefully he has something there to pinch him on, if not it's your ass for jumping the gun.

Sounds awesome.

Wow.
 
#5,606
#5,606
luthervol said:
I understand perfectly well.

A student posts a picture of himself holding a gun with a caption saying "I'm about to lose it." Should that be taken as a threat?

What if instead the caption said, "see you at school tomorrow."?

What if it said, "I'm taking out 19."

Should any of these be taken by school officials as threats?
Click to expand...

To Hogg, (and anyone else)

Do any of the above quotes constitute a threat?

I know the kid said none of these things, I just want your thoughts on those specific quotes.
 
#5,607
#5,607
Guilty until proven innocent. Seems to be what the left is pushing when it comes to guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,608
#5,608
Grand Vol said:
Okay, investigate properly.

AND AS A MINOR.

Don't give me this In Loco Parentis bull**** and explain to me why any school thinks the law stops applying to them just because that kid's on school grounds. If the threat is extreme enough, you call the ****ing parents and you have them sit in the interview. Because it isn't the ****ing school that's going to pay for a ****ing defense lawyer.

But no, in this situation, those three bullies, yes, BULLIES went completely unprofessional and out of line on a teenage kid doing nothing more than exercising his Constitutional Rights. He did NOTHING wrong. And I don't give a hootie darn how much you think a minor firing an AR-15 is wrong. They wouldn't get away with that **** with an adult. But a young impressionable kid who doesn't even know what he did wrong? Let's gang up on him. Succinctly put,

IT! IS! HIS! RIGHT!

And was supervised and under the direction of a trainer while at that range.

How dare the same department that has ****ed this up since day one even remotely think they have any standing to question a minor. I'd have a lawsuit against them so fast, that ****head Israel wouldn't know what hit him. And if the school interfered? There'd be all sorts of legal carnage getting spewed. While you might want to give up control of your kids to the state, there are plenty of people that just won't tolerate that ****. Too many parents for too long have given up control of their children to the faceless monster called "School." And schools think they can do whatever the eff they want since apathetic fools like yourself just don't care enough to put a stop to it.

No, if they questioned my child for some BS like what happened? You'd better believe they get a storm in return.
Click to expand...
Apathetic fools like me? wow....hurtful.

You sure had a lot of ******'s in that post.

Your knowledge and understanding of schools is much worse than my knowledge and understanding of guns and the 2a debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,613
#5,613
I'll give it to Luther..when he digs his own grave and realizes it he is perfectly content to lie in it and let others fill it in..Thats commitment to a cause!















Or insanity..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,615
#5,615
luthervol said:
I understand perfectly well.

A student posts a picture of himself holding a gun with a caption saying "I'm about to lose it." Should that be taken as a threat?

What if instead the caption said, "see you at school tomorrow."?

What if it said, "I'm taking out 19."

Should any of these be taken by school officials as threats?
Click to expand...
But the picture in question said none of those things and you are cowering in the corner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,617
#5,617
SpaceCoastVol said:
But the picture in question said none of those things and you are cowering in the corner.
Click to expand...

You guys collectively have no depth of thought.

I have acknowledged that he did none of those things...more than once.

I said that if the kid had no previous "red flags", then the school and LEO over reacted and should be dealt with accordingly....numerous times.

How you guys continually fail to process what has been said is baffling.

My whole effort has been an attempt to get unanimous acknowledgement that a line must be drawn and then determine where that line is drawn and by whom. You guys continually run from that debate. There are only a couple of reasons as to why that would be true. Neither are very flattering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,618
#5,618
luthervol said:
You guys collectively have no depth of thought.

I have acknowledged that he did none of those things...more than once.

I said that if the kid had no previous "red flags", then the school and LEO over reacted and should be dealt with accordingly....numerous times.

How you guys continually fail to process what has been said is baffling.

My whole effort has been an attempt to get unanimous acknowledgement that a line must be drawn and then determine where that line is drawn and by whom. You guys continually run from that debate. There are only a couple of reasons as to why that would be true. Neither are very flattering.
Click to expand...
If ands and buts were candy and nuts....

Your 'thought' process is as shallow as the Democrat gene pool. You are even telegraphing your intent to spin the answers you would get to your loaded questions. Sorry, I don't want to play your stupid game.
 
#5,619
#5,619
luthervol said:
You guys collectively have no depth of thought.

I have acknowledged that he did none of those things...more than once.

I said that if the kid had no previous "red flags", then the school and LEO over reacted and should be dealt with accordingly....numerous times.

How you guys continually fail to process what has been said is baffling.

My whole effort has been an attempt to get unanimous acknowledgement that a line must be drawn and then determine where that line is drawn and by whom. You guys continually run from that debate. There are only a couple of reasons as to why that would be true. Neither are very flattering.
Click to expand...

You’re own words show we can’t draw a hard line because you specifically said someone might “feel threatened”. When you throw feelings into the mix your line becomes subjective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,620
#5,620
hog88 said:
You’re own words show we can’t draw a hard line because you specifically said someone might “feel threatened”. When you throw feelings into the mix your line becomes subjective.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point. Lines are frequently arbitrary and subjective but nonetheless necessary.

Once you accept that undeniable truth, the debate becomes legitimate. Until you acknowledge that undeniable truth, the debate is pointless.
 
#5,621
#5,621
luthervol said:
That's the whole point. Lines are frequently arbitrary and subjective but nonetheless necessary.

Once you accept that undeniable truth, the debate becomes legitimate. Until you acknowledge that undeniable truth, the debate is pointless.
Click to expand...

When it comes to our enumerated rights the lines cannot be arbitrary and subjective.
 
#5,622
#5,622
SpaceCoastVol said:
If ands and buts were candy and nuts....

Your 'thought' process is as shallow as the Democrat gene pool. You are even telegraphing your intent to spin the answers you would get to your loaded questions. Sorry, I don't want to play your stupid game.
Click to expand...

The questions are only loaded to the extent that they require actual thought to answer.

And if you think about it, the democratic gene pool would most likely be much deeper than the republican gene pool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top