new info out on last years arapahoe shooting

[boomerhc9]

[QUOTE=Whistler;1699735]Bailey while that may be true of you and some others I disagree it's the overwhelming attitude expressed here and many gun forums. It's a position shared by some who believe as you do and most who support onerous restrictions, "I believe in the 2nd Amendment but..." I think it's important to recognize that some like guns but not gun rights, support restrictions, licensing, minimum training, etc. and generally believe most [other] people shouldn't be allowed to carry. Hell I've seen folks on here propose voting rights be confined exclusively to land owners! "Good for me but not for thee" is not something I'm okay with.
I think you're well aware we're on the same side and are disagreeing on the details.QUOTE]

Whistler, my apologies. I was referencing the big picture in my OP, but a lot of people didn't get my reference, and applied the responses to the small picture(the article). and Your response was about the big picture, and I didn't see the connotations it had for the big picture.
This was just mixed signals, and my mistake. Sorry about that.
I forgot about the people wanting stricter licensing and minimum training for ccw and stuff like that. I think we need to really push how stupid the anti's are by using their tactics against them. suggest stuff that will never go through. Every car in order to be licensed needs to have a minimum of 4 airbags, and antilock brakes, and must also be a gross poluter. or before a bank will approve a loan, you have to prove that you aren't a terrorist or a politician. The stupider the better, give them lots of stupid little proposals to fight us over, and then keep trying to add to them.
They would be so busy fighting stupid stuff we care nothing about, they would splinter their own ranks for us.

[boomerhc9]

Good points and I can sympathize with each one (except the but, no buts) however I disagree on the time line somewhat. The antis and others who support restrictions to carry were active and successful before the the OC protests. They were just as loud, hated us just as much and pushed for just as many restrictions, the only thing that changed was who they pointed their bony finger at though it changed frequently anyway.

But it only works for them because they are so unified, like you said.


I think the proper response is “he wasn’t doing anything wrong or endangering anyone, why are you panicking and making a fuss over something so minor?” Antis are deathly afraid of being called out for their cowardice and irrationality, that's why they get loud and insulting because deep down they know their argument doesn't hold water, they just don't like it period. That's where organized groups come in to point out the nonsense and use the attention to our benefit as well as working internally to present a united front. We'll never change their minds but we can't let them change our country. Yes I'm aware we face an unsympathetic media, didn't say it was easy...

+1 on this. splinter their unity, and show how weak they are. call them sissys, and they will have to wimper and say no we aren't. (and sound wimpy doing it).

Some people are scared of spiders and think all spiders should be eliminated from the face of the earth despite any benefit or the irrationality of the fear. They can’t see any justification, don’t care about good spiders and want them all dead, such is the battle we wage.

As a side note, replace the word spider with guns, and thats the way anti's think.
P.S. I don't like spiders, but I don't bother them, and only 1 has ever realy caused me a problem. I felt movement on my arm, and looked down as the damned thing bit me. my forearm swelled up the same size as a golfball. almost as much puss came out of that spider as my arm. Moving back up north, I've started getting so used to them, I only kill the ones in the bathroom or bedroom.

[boomerhc9]

Getting back to the original subject, it's not about the kid's privacy, it's about the danger he posed to the community -- a danger he proved out.
Right, but at the time, they had no way of realy knowing what he'd do. And by all means, he should have been looked at harder after a death threat, but what they find about him his mental history, shouldn't be printed out, and mailed off to every parent, they could have gotten the police involved, and taken more disciplinary action, like expulsion.

He invited additional scrutiny by not only issuing a death threat (which could have been heat-of-the-moment) but by not being remorseful about having done so. Yeah, he apologized but it sounds pro forma if he didn't express remorse about a death threat.

very true, and I think because of that, the school should have looked at it less like he was just an ass for not apologizing, and treated it more like the issue wasn't resolved and that he was still being threatening.

In the OP, I don't have any problem with additional scrutiny being placed on someone who has issued violent threats and shown no remorse over them. Said individual has already demonstrated by his/her own actions a threat to the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" by other citizens.

Ok, agreed. But that additional scrutiny doesn't require his entire personal life be published and handed out to every parent. At that point, I do think the school should have every right to dig into his life, and use what they find to support their discipline, or involve the authorities.