DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus 11yr old Texas student dies "participating" in gun violence walkout

I'm not sure what it says about people who will try and use this as propaganda against gun protests.

Bet schools rethink their participation in social engineering/protests from here on out.

We are told by the left that “now is not the time” is not valid when discussing gun issues immediately after a tragedy,but I get the sense that you feel that “now is not the time” to address the responsibility of the school in this death by allowing kids to “walkout”.....preventable on the school’s part.

Kids have the same rights that all Americans have. Whether you agree or disagree with their protest, they still have free speech.

Kids have the same rights that all Americans have. Whether you agree or disagree with their protest, they still have free speech.

On their time...not while they are in the the care of forced attendance education centers.

maybe the same as those who use others deaths for propaganda for gun protest....

I suppose you're blind to this fact, so let me help you. This tragedy isn't about the protest. It's about a kid who got hit by a car crossing a street. You and others will make this about the protest, but in reality the protest had nothing to do with him getting hit by a truck. Had he been hit by a truck while attending the protest, then you could take that narrative. But no, he wasn't even at the protest. Not about the protest! It's about the kid. The terrible tragedy of a kid's death.

What enabled him to leave school "the protest" had he been in school learning nothing would have happened.

You and others will make this about the protest, but in reality the protest had nothing to do with him getting hit by a truck.

Chicken, meet egg.

Where would this kid have been if not protesting?

Im gonna go out and a limb and say alive.

He could've skipped school for any number of reasons.

ahhh, but he didn't. what if is a what if, and lame excuse. We could have won a game if we would have fired hue, or hired someone else.....no way of knowing.

But the chances are actually about a gazillion to one. Lets say he skipped school - he wouold have had to leave class the exact same second, the exact same day, the exact same way he did for the protest to get hit by that car. He would have to have taken the exact same steps at the exact same time, if not, he would not have been at that spot to have died.

So, your argument is rather lacking.

Not really. To say the kid is dead because of the protest is ridiculous. He's dead because he was hit by a truck crossing a street he wasn't supposed to be crossing.

My wife went to the Women's March on Washington, and had her bus crashed on the way there, or she'd been hit by a car walking to the protest, or come under some other form of absolute accidental tragedy, I would not blame the protest.

Or for an even better analogy, let's say she only told me she was going to the protest, but in reality she got off the bus at another stop and had an affair with someone, and then was accidentally killed by getting hit by a car, or murdered. It's still not the protests fault my wife is dead in that case.

had he been in school learning nothing would have happened

Isn't that exactly what all school shooting victims were doing when they were gunned down?

Are you sure about that?

[quote=PerfectSpiral]


Using children to protest is disgusting...period.

The biggest issue here is, someone died. An 11 year old, at that.

Hit by a freaking Ford F-150.

F-150's should require more training to own and drive. I say ban all F-150's.

In fact, I say ban all trucks.

(in gun threads, some want to blame the gun, not the person. So, I'll play along here)

The biggest issue here is, someone died. An 11 year old, at that.

Hit by a freaking Ford F-150.

F-150's should require more training to own and drive. I say ban all F-150's.

In fact, I say ban all trucks.

(in gun threads, some want to blame the gun, not the person. So, I'll play along here)

By the same token, anyone who wants to own a gun should have to be a registered gun owner, with specific license number and be a part of a database. Also, said gun owner should have to go through written and physical testing to obtain a gun license. Also, those not fit to own/operate a gun, due to health and mental conditions should not be able to obtain a license or subsequently have their license removed if found to have health or mental issues.

No. If a ford f-150 kills someone, all ford f-150's should be banned. Even the ones that the owner bought legally, licensed, registered, paid insurance on, and used/uses legally.

Chicken, meet egg.

Where would this kid have been if not protesting?

Im gonna go out and a limb and say alive.

See, if guns were regulated like cars/trucks, it'd be more difficult to get one.

I think you were too caught up in your ridiculousness that you missed my point. See, if guns were regulated like cars/trucks, it'd be more difficult to get one. And while we're at it, why don't we go ahead and make guns cost tens of thousands of dollars so you have to go to a bank to finance one.

You want more regulation on guns. I get it. What regulations are you thinking of? And how do we enforce new regulations when the current ones aren't abided by - criminals?

We are told by the left that “now is not the time” is not valid when discussing gun issues immediately after a tragedy

Any kid who dies of an accident, the argument could be made that if they weren't in that place at that time, it wouldn't have happened.

It's actually an argument frequently used by our liberal friends more often than not.. if we made them wear a helmet, if their parents had been nearby, if we made them put a fence up.. then the accident could have been prevented...

And while that is sometimes technically true.. you are showing causation where none exists. It's not "Because of the protest, he's dead"... it's "Because he was crossing the street and somebody wasn't paying attention, he's dead"

It's a tragic accident, to try to link it to, or place blame on, the protest.. is disingenuous.

And while that is sometimes technically true.. you are showing causation where none exists. It's not "Because of the protest, he's dead"... it's "Because he was crossing the street and somebody wasn't paying attention, he's dead"

he has stated multiple times on this board, he wants a complete BAN of ALL firearms.

I know you feel you are more intelligent than I am.

Perhaps in your 'intelligence', you missed the point?

I can go buy a ford f-150 right now. For $500, that runs. No one is going to check if I have license plates, or insurance, or even a drivers license.

I could buy 10 of them if I wanted. The only risk I have is getting caught driving it with no insurance, no license, and no tags.

See, all these laws about having them apply only to law abiders, and IF caught, law breakers - but only when caught.

Now, you, or someone else will try to twist that into "Oh, Arch is in favor of no laws", and that would be foolish.

You stated you would be in favor of banning AR-15's for everyone because a few have used them in an illegal manner and killed people.

In fact, some have used them in a LEGAL manner, and killed someone.

Same as with trucks - the F-150 in this instance.

You want more regulation on guns. I get it. What regulations are you thinking of? And how do we enforce new regulations when the current ones aren't abided by - criminals?

I'm open to a fix, trust me.

Perhaps we need a federal tax to cover this? You know, I pay extra each month on my vehicle insurance bill for 'un insured motorist' coverage. I am forced to do that, if I want to be legal and be covered.

In essence, I'm forced to pay to protect myself against people that break the law. I think it would be right and decent for the usa to impose a 1% tax on all citizens to protect us all against shootings.

You up for it?

See how crazy this is? You're in favor of banning a legal product that MIGHT get used illegally, against the current laws, right?

What I find elitist, that because you want to ban firearms (probably the most ridiculous thing ever said aloud), that why somehow does the country HAVE to compromise with your feelings or your opinion on the subject? Honest question.

That would be akin to someone saying "I believe that if you are a democrat you should have to pay double the taxes. But because its me and my feelings, we HAVE to compromise and they only have to pay an additional 25%".

The words "Shall not be infringed" are not comprisable statements. Once again, look to the other threads already going.

We already have compromised because you and your thinking have whined and complained - and nothing has slowed the shootings have they? ALLLL those laws we came up with already, why haven't they stopped any shootings which you and your side said they would when they were passed?

By the same token, anyone who wants to own a gun should have to be a registered gun owner, with specific license number and be a part of a database. Also, said gun owner should have to go through written and physical testing to obtain a gun license. Also, those not fit to own/operate a gun, due to health and mental conditions should not be able to obtain a license or subsequently have their license removed if found to have health or mental issues.

Saying I want to ban firearms does not make me elitist. I want to ban them because it works. This has been proven in other countries.

The majority of the people I think want regulation.

Our laws haven't been working, and I think that's because your side with the NRA make sure that they don't work.

So I want new laws and regulations that actually work. You know, like one that says if you legally have your guys taken from you, they're destroyed. Not returned to a family member.

How's that for a start?