- Joined
- Jun 10, 2014
- Messages
- 10,999
- Reaction score
- 13,092
- Points
- 113
A school board in Philly voted to install metal detectors in their schools in order to make them safer places for the students. However at the school board meeting, a number of students showed up to protest! They argued that they did not want to be 'imprisoned' and made to feel like 'criminals'. This mindset has been demonstrated before in other schools that have moved to transparent backpack solutions for their students. Some argue this is an 'invasion of privacy' and certainly it could be argued that this is true. Off the top of my mind the first thing that pops into my head as a bonafide problem with transparent backpacks is that girls regularly need to bring in feminine products and obviously a clear backpack solution makes this embarrassing at best.
However, a metal detection solution resolves this issue and allows students their privacy back.
Of course the liberal agenda calls such a solution barbaric, cruel, even a form of child abuse. Some people of this persuasion argue that our children should not be punished for our sins or some equally diverting point. Indeed, a large segment of the liberal movement believes the only way to control school violence is to (say it with me) ban guns! Banning guns, they argue will resolve these issues. They'll make it difficult to impossible for students to get guns into schools. Banning guns will reduce crime, reduce poverty, reduce drug usage. It may even reduce global warming.
Here's the problem. Guns are ALREADY banned in public schools, (I'm pretty sure they're banned in most private schools too, but maybe Ted Nugent has a charter school somewhere in Texas.) So, given the fact that a full on Gun Ban is already in effect, one must look to the results of said Gun Ban. If the liberals believe gun bans will indeed resolve issues in society at large, then they need merely look to the results of Gun Banning in schools. Liberals are then left with two options:
A) Gun Banning is highly effective in our public schools and we don't need to worry about our children there anymore.
B) Gun Banning is ineffective in our public schools, and indeed, it may be wise to consider why one should believe gun banning would be effective on a large scale.
You can't have it both ways. Either the public school gun ban is effective enough and you are satisfied with the results, or it is not. If Gun Banning is NOT effective, why would you demand to implement an ineffective policy on a larger scale?
Of course people of an extreme liberal persuasion believe they CAN have it both ways. Gun Banning is ineffective in public schools but it WOULD be effective in the public domain. Because... Well, because it would be a BIGGER ban and if somebody broke the law, by golly we'd know it.
Of course, when somebody goes nuts and shoots up a school, we already KNOW they've broken the law. But don't let logic get in the way of your agenda. Anything but that!
However, a metal detection solution resolves this issue and allows students their privacy back.
Of course the liberal agenda calls such a solution barbaric, cruel, even a form of child abuse. Some people of this persuasion argue that our children should not be punished for our sins or some equally diverting point. Indeed, a large segment of the liberal movement believes the only way to control school violence is to (say it with me) ban guns! Banning guns, they argue will resolve these issues. They'll make it difficult to impossible for students to get guns into schools. Banning guns will reduce crime, reduce poverty, reduce drug usage. It may even reduce global warming.
Here's the problem. Guns are ALREADY banned in public schools, (I'm pretty sure they're banned in most private schools too, but maybe Ted Nugent has a charter school somewhere in Texas.) So, given the fact that a full on Gun Ban is already in effect, one must look to the results of said Gun Ban. If the liberals believe gun bans will indeed resolve issues in society at large, then they need merely look to the results of Gun Banning in schools. Liberals are then left with two options:
A) Gun Banning is highly effective in our public schools and we don't need to worry about our children there anymore.
B) Gun Banning is ineffective in our public schools, and indeed, it may be wise to consider why one should believe gun banning would be effective on a large scale.
You can't have it both ways. Either the public school gun ban is effective enough and you are satisfied with the results, or it is not. If Gun Banning is NOT effective, why would you demand to implement an ineffective policy on a larger scale?
Of course people of an extreme liberal persuasion believe they CAN have it both ways. Gun Banning is ineffective in public schools but it WOULD be effective in the public domain. Because... Well, because it would be a BIGGER ban and if somebody broke the law, by golly we'd know it.
Of course, when somebody goes nuts and shoots up a school, we already KNOW they've broken the law. But don't let logic get in the way of your agenda. Anything but that!
