CDZ Are You Pro "Choice?"

[jwoodie]

No, I'm not talking about abortion. I am talking about forcing your political opinions on others. For example, most people on the Left want to ban guns on school grounds, while most on the Right want to allow them. Why not let the parents at each school decide? Is uniformity a such a virtue in itself?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I don't believe anyone should be forced to accept someone else's political views, world view, or any other view including matters of faith. People were given a free will and as such have a right to make up their own minds.

 

[jwoodie]

I don't believe anyone should be forced to accept someone else's political views, world view, or any other view including matters of faith. People were given a free will and as such have a right to make up their own minds.

I agree, as long as they don't actively harm others.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I believe my view and opinion overrides everyone else, and to say it does not is oppressing my opinion...

Now with that written what you wrote read like a Libertarian way of thinking, and when has Libertarian way of thinking ever replace the thought that my opinion is more important than yours?

If we allow the American Public to think on it own, and decide to support or ban something then it might start a process allowing people to think freely, and if you have not noticed our society has frowned on that notion for many generations now.

So as your idea is cute as can be the sad reality is humanity as a whole will never conform to the idea that each society should think for itself because there is always someone that will believe their opinion is more important than the next and will demand it be forced onto others while you do not enjoy the same right...

I know, I know how dare I be logical, and again my opinion is more important than anyone else and if you do not believe me then just ask me and I will tell you again... ( Hope you get the satire within the response and not get offended as many will when reading my response )

 

[Mudda]

Anyone who believes in invisible gay bashers (God) should be ignored politically.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Anyone who believes in invisible gay bashers (God) should be ignored politically.

I'm afraid you are severely outnumbered.

 

[320 Years of History]

No, I'm not talking about abortion. I am talking about forcing your political opinions on others. For example, most people on the Left want to ban guns on school grounds, while most on the Right want to allow them. Why not let the parents at each school decide? Is uniformity a such a virtue in itself?

Red & title question:
How droll of you to have posed the question as you did. With that understood between us, I will answer. I am pro-choice until my "side" earns or is given the authority to make decisions. Prior to that point, I'm fine with hearing all cogent arguments for one course of action or another. If my side wins, I'm not at all pro-choice. If my side loses, I don't expect the prevailing side to give me a choice. So once I have the authority, will and ability to act, hell no, I'm not pro-choice.

Quite frankly, I think it naive to think that any other person who gives a damn about "things" is pro-choice. What is the point of having a position on matters that have impact on more than oneself and one's immediate friends and family if one, upon being given a position to effect action, abdicates one's responsibility to take action for what one believes is for the good of the whole, even if the "losing side" of that whole doesn't necessarily think so?

Sure, leaders need to take input from wise advisors, but at some point, a leader must say, "Okay. Enough. I've heard you, and I've made my decision. We're going to do X." Does that mean that leaders will sometimes force their decisions on others? Of course it does. The leader's choice will either be effective or it won't. Either way, progress is made, be it the direct sort resulting from the decision made, or the indirect sort that results in having learned from a mistake.

Blue:
As goes the specific example you mentioned, to the extent any school still has (or used to have) no on-campus firearms carry proscriptions, isn't that what existed anyway? I don't recall my school (a boarding school) having any prohibition related to guns on campus. It may have, but having a personal firearm on campus was so distant from anything I wanted to have, that if it did, I never even noticed.

Be that as it may, the reason for not letting individual parents decide for themselves,campus non-security employees, and their children is because school security falls within the purview and skillset of security personnel, not teachers, not administrators and certainly not children. I believe the last thing we need is untrained and unskilled folks routinely "packing heat" on school campuses. If that means we need to establish airport-like security for school grounds, fine.

If I were the person in-charge of ensuring school safety -- be it at the school level, county level, state level, etc. -- might it be that I'd impose "something" (sitting here, I can't say what exactly) to make sure that if kids/teachers get shot, the gun that fires the bullets isn't inside the building. Would some folks feel put off and feel my solution was forced down their throat? They sure will. And you know what? Their kids will be alive and unharmed so they can go home and listen to them complain about how I usurped their rights and freedoms. I can live with that.

 

[jwoodie]

Lots of words, but not much content:

1. You obviously don't believe in democracy (the Liberal paradox), instead relying on "leaders" to hand down their decisions to the masses.

2. Your memories (or lack thereof) of boarding school are irrelevant and uninteresting.

3. You mischaracterize individual school choice as individual parents deciding to bring guns to school.

4. Campus security personnel almost always prefer to be armed.

5. Is the solution you would "impose" metal detectors, bullit-proof windows, or both?

6. How would you stop an armed gunman from walking in the front door?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, I'm not talking about abortion. I am talking about forcing your political opinions on others. For example, most people on the Left want to ban guns on school grounds, while most on the Right want to allow them. Why not let the parents at each school decide? Is uniformity a such a virtue in itself?

One can't expect 'clean debate' when the thread premise fails as a straw man fallacy.

 

[Anathema]

Nope. Not pro-choice in this way. I see no reason or sense in allowi g people to make poor choices simply because they're not bright enough to know better.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"For example, most people on the Left want to ban guns on school grounds..."

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Justice Scalia's on 'the left' – who knew.

 

[oldsoul]

No, I'm not talking about abortion. I am talking about forcing your political opinions on others. For example, most people on the Left want to ban guns on school grounds, while most on the Right want to allow them. Why not let the parents at each school decide? Is uniformity a such a virtue in itself?

One can't expect 'clean debate' when the thread premise fails as a straw man fallacy.

Then don't bother continuing. Thank you for your opinion though.

 

[oldsoul]

Be that as it may, the reason for not letting individual parents decide for themselves,campus non-security employees, and their children is because school security falls within the purview and skillset of security personnel, not teachers, not administrators and certainly not children. I believe the last thing we need is untrained and unskilled folks routinely "packing heat" on school campuses. If that means we need to establish airport-like security for school grounds, fine.

Excellent point. So, I guess you are saying that you are skilled in school security. If no, then by your own admition you could not have an educated opinion, much less a say in the matter.
That said, IMO one of the contributing factors in many, if not all, school shootings, is that they are a "gun free zone". Therefore, the shooter can expect little to no opposition, at least until the police show up.
Let's just say the average response time is a very quick 5 minutes. Now, even an unskilled shooter can fire through a 15 round semi-auto hand gun clip in well under a minute. So, conservatively let's say that, with moving from room to room, and reloading time, one shooter is able to empty 5 clips by the time the police show up. Let's see 5x15=75. Let's also assume, that an unskilled, emotional shooter hits their intended target a third of the time (likely wouldn't even be that accurate, but I"ll go with it, keeps the math simple). So, of 75 bullets fired, 25 hit their intended target. That's 25 wounded or killed people in the time it takes for the police to even show up. Once they are on site, they need time to assess the situation, locate the shooter and move in on them, giving the shooter even more time. Kinda sounds like a recipe for alot of killed or wounded kids, all in the name of "safety".
To the OP:
I am very much pro-choice on this matter. Although, I do not beleive that the parents should decide. That decision should be left to the people we elect to make decisions at the local/state level(ie. School Boards, State Legislatures). Of course they would need to be advised by highly competant, proven security proffesionals.
In my, humble, "unskilled" opinion, School officials, teachers, and faculty should be allowed the option of arming themselves. Of course they would need to obide by rules set forth by their respective state/school board, and be properly trained(ie. concealed carry permit), and vetted. That way, If a person where concidering violence at a school, they would have to consider the possibility, dare I say probability, that there are several armed, and trained people on campus.