I'm no second amendment absolutist, but I don't follow you. If there had been a teacher or other school personnel inside the school with a gun, a "good guy with a gun" could have cut this rampage short. The fact that the police were twiddling their thumbs outside would be irrelevant. [/QUOTE]Interesting party you're a part of. Teacher speech has to be heavily regulated by the state because they can't be trusted not to "groom" kids (that's the word elected officials used) and say scary words like gay. But they should be armed and trained to stop a school shooter.


[QUOTE=OhioCatFan]


I have no problem with any of the restrictions that rpbobcat proposed and that BTC said a high percentage of Americans agree with. However, I don't think that our major problem is the weapon used -- whether it be a gun, a canister bomb, or dynamite, as in the 1927 Bath, MI, school massacre. We are dealing with symptoms here, and not causes. Two relevant issues that get, at least in part, at root causes are, I believe, the devaluing of the lives of our most vulnerable citizens and an increasingly incapacitated mental health system.

I'm no second amendment absolutist, but I don't follow you. If there had been a teacher or other school personnel inside the school with a gun, a "good guy with a gun" could have cut this rampage short. The fact that the police were twiddling their thumbs outside would be irrelevant.

In some states, I know, there are programs that allow teachers and other educational personnel in a school to have concealed carry within the school. I'm not a huge advocate of this approach, but in this case it could have saved lives.

I have no problem with any of the restrictions that rpbobcat proposed and that BTC said a high percentage of Americans agree with. However, I don't think that our major problem is the weapon used -- whether it be a gun, a canister bomb, or dynamite, as in the 1927 Bath, MI, school massacre. We are dealing with symptoms here, and not causes. Two relevant issues that get, at least in part, at root causes are, I believe, the devaluing of the lives of our most vulnerable citizens and an increasingly incapacitated mental health system.

In the conversation where you said I "slinked away" my major point was that the Florida law was aimed at protecting young children in grade school from being exposed to sexual issues inappropriate for their age group. I actually posted the complete text of the law. My reading of it, which you and your sources disagree with, is that it is fairly well-focused on that issue. I suppose, ultimately, a court will decide just how focused it is, but if you listen to the sponsors of the bill and particularly, Governor Desantis, it's clear that that was the intent of the law. If a court rules it's overly broad, I'm sure they'll craft one that's better worded. But, I'm not at all sure at this point that that will be necessary.

I'll try to respond more later, I've just gotten back from a work party at a local Catholic cemetery, where my Sons of Union Veterans camp took a tombstone and two base stones of a Union Civil War veteran up to the Logan Monument Company to repair and then replace, and I'm hot and sweaty, and my brain is fried.

But, I will take time now to make one gestalt level observation. I think our major difference is that you see the state as the major player and as the defacto parents of children. If a parent, for instance, thinks the earth is flat, I suspect that you feel that it is the duty of the state to teach him or her otherwise. I simply don't agree with that assertion. I purposely took an extreme example to illustrate my point. In contrast, I think parents have an unalienable right to raise their children any way they so choose, short of actual physical or psychological abuse (but that last one can be tricky, if you have an agenda-driven therapist). That's why I emphasized that I see compulsory attendance laws that are on the books, I think every state, as an invasion of parental rights.

Hard to debate you when we totally disagree on the premise. Parents are responsible to raising children not the state, IMHO. You disagree. We'll just have to leave it at that.

But, I will take time now to make one gestalt level observation. I think our major difference is that you see the state as the major player and as the defacto parents of children. If a parent, for instance, thinks the earth is flat, I suspect that you feel that it is the duty of the state to teach him or her otherwise. I simply don't agree with that assertion. I purposely took an extreme example to illustrate my point. In contrast, I think parents have an unalienable right to raise their children any way they so choose, short of actual physical or psychological abuse (but that last one can be tricky, if you have an agenda-driven therapist). That's why I emphasized that I see compulsory attendance laws that are on the books, I think every state, as an invasion of parental rights.

As a parent I always thought of my children's teachers as the most influential adults in their lives with the exception of me and my wife. And, with very few exceptions, I believe my trust in them was rewarded without the new push in red states for more restrictions (censorship) on teachers.

As a teacher of 29 years, I trust my co-teachers do not fail their students in a way OCF is concerned about or in a way that requires our legislators in Columbus to limit what we can and cannot teach concerning race and gender.

Where I don't feel comfortable, however, is arming my co-teachers with guns as a first line of defense against an active shooter. Not sure I want the teacher across the hall brandishing a loaded gun with a hallway full of panicked sixth graders.

Just my 2 cents.

Sorry, but nothing I've said suggests that I think it's the role of the state to raise children. That's a truly absurd interpretation of my point here, which to be abundantly clear, reduces the state's power to control what's taught to children. [/QUOTE]I do think that's where your position ultimately ends up logically. If a school's curriculum calls for teaching X, Y, or Z at a specific grade level, you seem to be against the rights of parents through their legislature to specify that they don't think "Z" is appropriate for children at that grade level. Here let's not argue about the Florida law, take this as another hypothetical. So, it seems to me that you do, at least in the public school context, place rights of state (via its school system) above the rights of parents.

Again, I don't think you are really pushing for less regulation. You may be against the Florida law or similar laws in other states, but you really want the State Department of Education to wield great power over what teacher's say to students and what they teach them. And, these state departments of education often get their ideas for the federal Department of Education. Wouldn't a better approach be to abolish both federal and state departments of education and allow each school district to adopt the curriculum that they desire? Or how about, and this is radical, let teachers design their own curricula! That's the way it was done in the US in 19th Century, which gave us some great thinkers, scientists and leaders. Why do we need any bureaucracy at all involved in telling teachers what they should teach?


I'm glad to see that we agree on something!

Again, I'd prefer that we trust teachers to decide free of any curriculum imposed from the outside. I think we'd have a much freer and robust exchange of ideas in the classroom under such a scenario. And, some parents still might object to X, Y, or Z being taught, but they can they take it up directly with the teacher involved and have a one-on-one dialogue. The resolution would then by one that's culturally specific to the school and the local environment as well as the people involved. No using "state guidelines" as a crutch to lean on and a cudgel to smash all debate.

[QUOTE=Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame]Further, I don't think you're making a super compelling point regarding 'compulsory attendance.' Compulsory attendance doesn't apply only to public schools. If a parent has real misgivings about the curriculum of a public school, compulsory attendance laws to not prohibit them from sending their kid to a private school or choosing to homeschool them. In other words, parents have the right and ability to educate their children however they see fit.