If the school can’t suspend him for allegedly making this threat there’s no way they’d be able to take the guns out of the house for the same thing. There’s no right to an education in the Constitution, but there is a right to bear arms.
There was no proof it was him who made a threat - that’s the point.
There are ways to take away weapons from people when a threat is credible, during the course of an investigation.
There should be more limits on access to guns regardless.
The constitution needs an update. For one, this was not the purpose of the second amendment, and two, its an amendment - just like every other aspect of the constitution, it can be changed.
There is no gun crime without guns. The idea that we need to look anywhere else is, to me, absolutely ludicrous and shameful.
Edit: Regarding the edit - the fact that there is no right to education is also a problem, albeit a different one.
The idea that the 2nd amendment exists but nothing regarding education does should not mean “Well fuck all these kids because 1 out of several hundred may have actually been a threat” is completely deranged to me. Sorry, but there is no world where you’re going to convince me otherwise. The problem is the guns.
I’m saying that if I were a principal and the FBI let me know they talked to a kid my response wouldn’t be to wait for him to show up, regardless of what the rules say, because I care more about kids not getting shot than the rules. Which is why I’m not a principal.
Also, if the threat wasn’t credible enough to suspend him, it was definitely not credible enough to remove the guns from his parents’ possession. The guns would still have been there.
Anyways, this topic pisses me off more than the awful conference call I’m avoiding so I’m not going to respond anymore.
And I would disagree on not being able to seize weapons, hell they can seize anything without a crime today, that’s what civil asset forfeiture is. No crime even needs to be committed, no arrest needs to be made, and its legal for them to do today. Republicans would lose their collective marbles over it though - but fuck them.
But directly incarcerating (or punishing kids based on an unknown set of anonymous sources) would absolutely be a problem.
If the school can’t suspend him for allegedly making this threat there’s no way they’d be able to take the guns out of the house for the same thing. There’s no right to an education in the Constitution, but there is a right to bear arms.
There was no proof it was him who made a threat - that’s the point.
There are ways to take away weapons from people when a threat is credible, during the course of an investigation.
There should be more limits on access to guns regardless.
The constitution needs an update. For one, this was not the purpose of the second amendment, and two, its an amendment - just like every other aspect of the constitution, it can be changed.
There is no gun crime without guns. The idea that we need to look anywhere else is, to me, absolutely ludicrous and shameful.
Edit: Regarding the edit - the fact that there is no right to education is also a problem, albeit a different one.
The idea that the 2nd amendment exists but nothing regarding education does should not mean “Well fuck all these kids because 1 out of several hundred may have actually been a threat” is completely deranged to me. Sorry, but there is no world where you’re going to convince me otherwise. The problem is the guns.
I’m saying that if I were a principal and the FBI let me know they talked to a kid my response wouldn’t be to wait for him to show up, regardless of what the rules say, because I care more about kids not getting shot than the rules. Which is why I’m not a principal.
Also, if the threat wasn’t credible enough to suspend him, it was definitely not credible enough to remove the guns from his parents’ possession. The guns would still have been there.
Anyways, this topic pisses me off more than the awful conference call I’m avoiding so I’m not going to respond anymore.
I agree its good you’re not the principal.
And I would disagree on not being able to seize weapons, hell they can seize anything without a crime today, that’s what civil asset forfeiture is. No crime even needs to be committed, no arrest needs to be made, and its legal for them to do today. Republicans would lose their collective marbles over it though - but fuck them.
But directly incarcerating (or punishing kids based on an unknown set of anonymous sources) would absolutely be a problem.
I hope your day gets better.