CDZ David Hogg and NRA: Fight or Flight? Refuse Resist? Unite on Rights?

[emilynghiem]

I've been posting online to urge people not to take the hate bait over David Hogg and his rhetoric online.
And instead to use this opportunity to reach out and agree on Constitutional principles and arguments in common.

But then someone posted this and I just had to laugh:

Clearly it's not a First Amendment argument, but he's basically arguing against unreasonable searches and seizures without probably cause, and being deprived of liberty life or property without due process, and the issue of compelling interest by government in the LEAST restrictive way, ie that people will consent to.

Which approach do YOU support for NRA and opponents to take exception to David Hogg's statements:
1. Refuse and Resist, just argue back in DEFENSE using the same media tactics
2. Bully and Clobber to silence the opposition by yelling arguments louder and rallying to vote in opposition
3. Unite on common rights and principles both sides are arguing to defend,
so the narrative is redirected toward Constitutional laws and away from partisan attacks that detract
4. a combination of the above?

I believe we used 3, then we can organize the people who use tactic 1 or 2.
Whatever combination includes and represents different people and groups, let them do what works for them.

However I don't want to see resources wasted on fighting and attacking that
detract or obstruct the solutions from people working together.

I believe we can make this a teachable moment and reach across party lines to focus on common principles.
We can best teach the laws that govern society democratically, by example.

Which approach do you believe is most effective for you and why?

I wanted to come back to your original posting and inquire. You say we don't always agree, but if we add an option to what you said, how come you would be opposed to considering it?

I just heard some black girl and a really old white dude going at it on Newsmax. Got a call and did not get to finish that debate, but according to her, since the Assault Weapons Ban had been lifted, school shootings had gone up over 400 percent. Sounds horrific!

Then again, that has been over twenty years ago. And the total number of victims over-all has decreased! So, the other guy was arguing that schools should become like the county courthouses where you get screened on your way in. That was a good idea. Mass shootings generally happen in places that are gun free zones.

But, suppose that we could stop the bulk of mass shootings, save some lives, help some kids, and make government run more efficiently without spending much up front AND cutting the costs of government... all without infringing on the Rights of the citizenry (or individuals)???

Yes Humorme
Just because one district adopts one policy doesn't mean another can't do something different.
Instead of fighting, let districts decide, then study what works best and adopt and improve based on that.
I agree with you about not violating rights of any citizens.
So each district would have to agree on something that represents that population.

Within that agreement, sure,if they want to try "banning all weapons of certain levels"
just make sure your whole district agrees and you have the right to install any
standards you agree to, similar to religious schools that have higher standards or rules than others.

But it is unconstitutional to take one group's beliefs and force everyone else to follow or fund it.
So this is why we need Constitutional education ethics and enforcement as the basis.

The way i'd explain it to these absolutists who see the solution as banning guns,
don't you think Christians would LOVE to see all disease and addiction wiped out
by requiring all people to go through spiritual healing?

This would solve the problems of crime and costs of prisons and health care overnight!

But there is something called free choice and consent of the governed.
The law cannot impose people to do things against their beliefs but has to be their free choice in these matters.

But hey, if you really want restrictions on all guns,
let's ask the Christians. could a whole district agree to
require ALL RESIDENTS who enter that district to go
through spiritual healing as part of their background check
for any diseases, disorders, addictive or abusive issues
that might make them a risk to personal health and safety of themselves or others?

If THAT is the agreed standard, and the whole district
agrees to ban guns from anyone who refuses or fails
to pass a mental health diagnostic screening using spiritual healing
by medically proving how this process works to identify treat or cure mental illness
by isolating the internal causes, then that could be adopted as a locally enforced ban.
Just get everyone in the district to agree to this standard,
and that might be one way to craft a ban that only restricts truly mentally dangerous
people who cannot comply with medical or legal policies. Anyone else with conflicts
can resolve them as long as they are legally competent so nobody imposed any
policy except by consent of all residents affected in that limited area.

If people can't agree on that, that's fine too.
At least do the research on spiritual healing and the
effective methods of diagnosing treating and curing mental
illness including criminal addictions and obsessions that
otherwise drive people to homicide or suicide.

All these options can be considered and researched, no harm in that.
the harm is from fearing that nothing will get done unless something
is imposed against someone else. So that's the dynamic we need
to resolve firsst, and the rest can be done by educated informed choice and free will.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We had rubber book straps in the Bronx, no backpacks

 

[emilynghiem]

Dude, you need to think that one through. The reality is, I came up with a plan that spans some thirty six pages of text and goes a long way into identifying and dealing with people before they become a threat and without infringing upon any of their Rights. The right, just like the left think that a dozen paragraphs are a book so it is TLDR.

If you want to keep the guns out of certain hands, why not support an idea that would keep the bodies belonging to those hands in jail, prison, protective / supervised custody and /or mental health facilities?

So you do want to deny people their right to liberty even though they may have served their sentence, or just because they may have mental issues. Take their rights away but don''t dare touch my rights.

Liberty for me but not for thee. SMFH

Dear Liquid Reigns
Mental issues, impairment, disability or disorders can be resovled.
But the methods that are effective work by free will. They never work by requiring or imposing them.
So by the very nature of managing and healing mental (and social ills)
this process is based on voluntary participation and free will.

The whole political pardigm of trying to abuse outside authority
to bully, coerce or exclude others only makes people and society sicker.

This bullying anger is what triggers sick people to snap and act out aggression.
We need to go the opposite direction, in order to create safe sane environments
where people respond to reason and work with laws and govt not against each other in aggression.

By respecting free choice, and empowering people to set up and fund
their own schools and district policies THEY agree to, we don't have to fight to get what we want.

 

[emilynghiem]

We had rubber book straps in the Bronx, no backpacks

Wow, CrusaderFrank
nowadays kids need a separate set of textbooks to keep in their lockers, or in the classroom, and one set to leave at home, so they don't lose them and cost the school money. Maybe that will reduce the problem with backbacks?

Thank God the First Amendment is only 45 words to learn. Not a whole book!


And the Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics fit on one page front and back.
We can use that for teaching and don't need tons of heavy books,
or thousands of pages of Congressional bills that nobody can read or make sense of.

With this attention challenged crowd (and I'm counting adults as well!)
we need to streamline basic civics education where it doesn't take reading
a bunch of books, or we'd never get there.

www.ethics-commission.net

 

[JoeMoma]

I don't know about schools in Fl, but in my state administration can search kids book bags and lockers at any time. High school kids are not adults and they are under the authority of the teachers and administration. The teachers and administration have responsibility for maintaining a safe environment for the kids.

 

[Humorme]

I've been posting online to urge people not to take the hate bait over David Hogg and his rhetoric online.
And instead to use this opportunity to reach out and agree on Constitutional principles and arguments in common.

But then someone posted this and I just had to laugh:

Clearly it's not a First Amendment argument, but he's basically arguing against unreasonable searches and seizures without probably cause, and being deprived of liberty life or property without due process, and the issue of compelling interest by government in the LEAST restrictive way, ie that people will consent to.

Which approach do YOU support for NRA and opponents to take exception to David Hogg's statements:
1. Refuse and Resist, just argue back in DEFENSE using the same media tactics
2. Bully and Clobber to silence the opposition by yelling arguments louder and rallying to vote in opposition
3. Unite on common rights and principles both sides are arguing to defend,
so the narrative is redirected toward Constitutional laws and away from partisan attacks that detract
4. a combination of the above?

I believe we used 3, then we can organize the people who use tactic 1 or 2.
Whatever combination includes and represents different people and groups, let them do what works for them.

However I don't want to see resources wasted on fighting and attacking that
detract or obstruct the solutions from people working together.

I believe we can make this a teachable moment and reach across party lines to focus on common principles.
We can best teach the laws that govern society democratically, by example.

Which approach do you believe is most effective for you and why?

I wanted to come back to your original posting and inquire. You say we don't always agree, but if we add an option to what you said, how come you would be opposed to considering it?

I just heard some black girl and a really old white dude going at it on Newsmax. Got a call and did not get to finish that debate, but according to her, since the Assault Weapons Ban had been lifted, school shootings had gone up over 400 percent. Sounds horrific!

Then again, that has been over twenty years ago. And the total number of victims over-all has decreased! So, the other guy was arguing that schools should become like the county courthouses where you get screened on your way in. That was a good idea. Mass shootings generally happen in places that are gun free zones.

But, suppose that we could stop the bulk of mass shootings, save some lives, help some kids, and make government run more efficiently without spending much up front AND cutting the costs of government... all without infringing on the Rights of the citizenry (or individuals)???

Yes Humorme
Just because one district adopts one policy doesn't mean another can't do something different.
Instead of fighting, let districts decide, then study what works best and adopt and improve based on that.
I agree with you about not violating rights of any citizens.
So each district would have to agree on something that represents that population.

Within that agreement, sure,if they want to try "banning all weapons of certain levels"
just make sure your whole district agrees and you have the right to install any
standards you agree to, similar to religious schools that have higher standards or rules than others.

But it is unconstitutional to take one group's beliefs and force everyone else to follow or fund it.
So this is why we need Constitutional education ethics and enforcement as the basis.

The way i'd explain it to these absolutists who see the solution as banning guns,
don't you think Christians would LOVE to see all disease and addiction wiped out
by requiring all people to go through spiritual healing?

This would solve the problems of crime and costs of prisons and health care overnight!

But there is something called free choice and consent of the governed.
The law cannot impose people to do things against their beliefs but has to be their free choice in these matters.

But hey, if you really want restrictions on all guns,
let's ask the Christians. could a whole district agree to
require ALL RESIDENTS who enter that district to go
through spiritual healing as part of their background check
for any diseases, disorders, addictive or abusive issues
that might make them a risk to personal health and safety of themselves or others?

If THAT is the agreed standard, and the whole district
agrees to ban guns from anyone who refuses or fails
to pass a mental health diagnostic screening using spiritual healing
by medically proving how this process works to identify treat or cure mental illness
by isolating the internal causes, then that could be adopted as a locally enforced ban.
Just get everyone in the district to agree to this standard,
and that might be one way to craft a ban that only restricts truly mentally dangerous
people who cannot comply with medical or legal policies. Anyone else with conflicts
can resolve them as long as they are legally competent so nobody imposed any
policy except by consent of all residents affected in that limited area.

If people can't agree on that, that's fine too.
At least do the research on spiritual healing and the
effective methods of diagnosing treating and curing mental
illness including criminal addictions and obsessions that
otherwise drive people to homicide or suicide.

All these options can be considered and researched, no harm in that.
the harm is from fearing that nothing will get done unless something
is imposed against someone else. So that's the dynamic we need
to resolve firsst, and the rest can be done by educated informed choice and free will.

None of what you said reflects anything to do with what I said.

I do not believe in gun control. As for districts, that didn't make much sense to me. The Parkland shooting, even as the government admitted, was a multi-system failure. If you diagnose the problem, then you will have the solution.

 

[emilynghiem]

I've been posting online to urge people not to take the hate bait over David Hogg and his rhetoric online.
And instead to use this opportunity to reach out and agree on Constitutional principles and arguments in common.

But then someone posted this and I just had to laugh:

Clearly it's not a First Amendment argument, but he's basically arguing against unreasonable searches and seizures without probably cause, and being deprived of liberty life or property without due process, and the issue of compelling interest by government in the LEAST restrictive way, ie that people will consent to.

Which approach do YOU support for NRA and opponents to take exception to David Hogg's statements:
1. Refuse and Resist, just argue back in DEFENSE using the same media tactics
2. Bully and Clobber to silence the opposition by yelling arguments louder and rallying to vote in opposition
3. Unite on common rights and principles both sides are arguing to defend,
so the narrative is redirected toward Constitutional laws and away from partisan attacks that detract
4. a combination of the above?

I believe we used 3, then we can organize the people who use tactic 1 or 2.
Whatever combination includes and represents different people and groups, let them do what works for them.

However I don't want to see resources wasted on fighting and attacking that
detract or obstruct the solutions from people working together.

I believe we can make this a teachable moment and reach across party lines to focus on common principles.
We can best teach the laws that govern society democratically, by example.

Which approach do you believe is most effective for you and why?

I wanted to come back to your original posting and inquire. You say we don't always agree, but if we add an option to what you said, how come you would be opposed to considering it?

I just heard some black girl and a really old white dude going at it on Newsmax. Got a call and did not get to finish that debate, but according to her, since the Assault Weapons Ban had been lifted, school shootings had gone up over 400 percent. Sounds horrific!

Then again, that has been over twenty years ago. And the total number of victims over-all has decreased! So, the other guy was arguing that schools should become like the county courthouses where you get screened on your way in. That was a good idea. Mass shootings generally happen in places that are gun free zones.

But, suppose that we could stop the bulk of mass shootings, save some lives, help some kids, and make government run more efficiently without spending much up front AND cutting the costs of government... all without infringing on the Rights of the citizenry (or individuals)???

Yes Humorme
Just because one district adopts one policy doesn't mean another can't do something different.
Instead of fighting, let districts decide, then study what works best and adopt and improve based on that.
I agree with you about not violating rights of any citizens.
So each district would have to agree on something that represents that population.

Within that agreement, sure,if they want to try "banning all weapons of certain levels"
just make sure your whole district agrees and you have the right to install any
standards you agree to, similar to religious schools that have higher standards or rules than others.

But it is unconstitutional to take one group's beliefs and force everyone else to follow or fund it.
So this is why we need Constitutional education ethics and enforcement as the basis.

The way i'd explain it to these absolutists who see the solution as banning guns,
don't you think Christians would LOVE to see all disease and addiction wiped out
by requiring all people to go through spiritual healing?

This would solve the problems of crime and costs of prisons and health care overnight!

But there is something called free choice and consent of the governed.
The law cannot impose people to do things against their beliefs but has to be their free choice in these matters.

But hey, if you really want restrictions on all guns,
let's ask the Christians. could a whole district agree to
require ALL RESIDENTS who enter that district to go
through spiritual healing as part of their background check
for any diseases, disorders, addictive or abusive issues
that might make them a risk to personal health and safety of themselves or others?

If THAT is the agreed standard, and the whole district
agrees to ban guns from anyone who refuses or fails
to pass a mental health diagnostic screening using spiritual healing
by medically proving how this process works to identify treat or cure mental illness
by isolating the internal causes, then that could be adopted as a locally enforced ban.
Just get everyone in the district to agree to this standard,
and that might be one way to craft a ban that only restricts truly mentally dangerous
people who cannot comply with medical or legal policies. Anyone else with conflicts
can resolve them as long as they are legally competent so nobody imposed any
policy except by consent of all residents affected in that limited area.

If people can't agree on that, that's fine too.
At least do the research on spiritual healing and the
effective methods of diagnosing treating and curing mental
illness including criminal addictions and obsessions that
otherwise drive people to homicide or suicide.

All these options can be considered and researched, no harm in that.
the harm is from fearing that nothing will get done unless something
is imposed against someone else. So that's the dynamic we need
to resolve firsst, and the rest can be done by educated informed choice and free will.

None of what you said reflects anything to do with what I said.

I do not believe in gun control. As for districts, that didn't make much sense to me. The Parkland shooting, even as the government admitted, was a multi-system failure. If you diagnose the problem, then you will have the solution.

Dear Humorme
Even if you and I do not support gun control
would you support policies such as requiring all citizens
to go through 2 years of military service and training
including screening for disabilities or disorders?

Would that solve the problem of people with dangerous
criminal illnesses getting treatment before they get a hold of guns.
And make sure people are trained in laws and law enforcement
so they agree to compliance with police and authorities?

All the people I know who defend 2nd Amendment rights
are well schooled in Constitutional laws and history.
What if we made that part of the requirements of citizenship?
So that with these rights come responsibility for knowing and upholding the laws not violating them?

 

[Humorme]

Dude, you need to think that one through. The reality is, I came up with a plan that spans some thirty six pages of text and goes a long way into identifying and dealing with people before they become a threat and without infringing upon any of their Rights. The right, just like the left think that a dozen paragraphs are a book so it is TLDR.

If you want to keep the guns out of certain hands, why not support an idea that would keep the bodies belonging to those hands in jail, prison, protective / supervised custody and /or mental health facilities?

So you do want to deny people their right to liberty even though they may have served their sentence, or just because they may have mental issues. Take their rights away but don''t dare touch my rights.

Liberty for me but not for thee. SMFH

Dear Liquid Reigns
Mental issues, impairment, disability or disorders can be resovled.
But the methods that are effective work by free will. They never work by requiring or imposing them.
So by the very nature of managing and healing mental (and social ills)
this process is based on voluntary participation and free will.

The whole political pardigm of trying to abuse outside authority
to bully, coerce or exclude others only makes people and society sicker.

This bullying anger is what triggers sick people to snap and act out aggression.
We need to go the opposite direction, in order to create safe sane environments
where people respond to reason and work with laws and govt not against each other in aggression.

By respecting free choice, and empowering people to set up and fund
their own schools and district policies THEY agree to, we don't have to fight to get what we want.

emilynghiem,

My alerts said you had quoted me, but the response was to another poster. But, I have that troll on ignore that you answered. Here is my point to you since I clearly do not understand where you are coming from.

What constitutes a mental health issue is ultimately defined by mental officials, legislators and courts.

When people pose a threat to themselves or others, they should most assuredly be looked at. This is not a criminal process. It is an intervention that prevents drug use / abuse and helps identify who has a mental health issue and who may benefit from therapy.

Because we allow the entire process to be run by the most incompetent collection of misfits in America - DFACS / DCS - or whatever they are in your jurisdiction, it is a joke. It is one that needs oversight. It needs to be reworked and it needs to have an agency that looks at their records along with the records of children that are generated from a myriad of sources. One agency gets the big picture and is able to police those in government that stick their nose into family issues. Nobody oversees the people who have the real power. That is the key to figuring it all out.

 

[Cosmos]

Like all leftists, Hogg does not understand the issue. Additional gun control measures, especially the idea of an "assault weapons ban", will be ineffective at reducing shootings. There are better ways of going about it, like improving security at schools, doing a better job of identifying persons who should be prohibited from firearms ownership, and of course enforcing the laws we already have. Hogg is just a demagogue in the making, financed by Hollywood and various other leftist hate organizations and individuals.

 

[Humorme]

I've been posting online to urge people not to take the hate bait over David Hogg and his rhetoric online.
And instead to use this opportunity to reach out and agree on Constitutional principles and arguments in common.

But then someone posted this and I just had to laugh:

Clearly it's not a First Amendment argument, but he's basically arguing against unreasonable searches and seizures without probably cause, and being deprived of liberty life or property without due process, and the issue of compelling interest by government in the LEAST restrictive way, ie that people will consent to.

Which approach do YOU support for NRA and opponents to take exception to David Hogg's statements:
1. Refuse and Resist, just argue back in DEFENSE using the same media tactics
2. Bully and Clobber to silence the opposition by yelling arguments louder and rallying to vote in opposition
3. Unite on common rights and principles both sides are arguing to defend,
so the narrative is redirected toward Constitutional laws and away from partisan attacks that detract
4. a combination of the above?

I believe we used 3, then we can organize the people who use tactic 1 or 2.
Whatever combination includes and represents different people and groups, let them do what works for them.

However I don't want to see resources wasted on fighting and attacking that
detract or obstruct the solutions from people working together.

I believe we can make this a teachable moment and reach across party lines to focus on common principles.
We can best teach the laws that govern society democratically, by example.

Which approach do you believe is most effective for you and why?

I wanted to come back to your original posting and inquire. You say we don't always agree, but if we add an option to what you said, how come you would be opposed to considering it?

I just heard some black girl and a really old white dude going at it on Newsmax. Got a call and did not get to finish that debate, but according to her, since the Assault Weapons Ban had been lifted, school shootings had gone up over 400 percent. Sounds horrific!

Then again, that has been over twenty years ago. And the total number of victims over-all has decreased! So, the other guy was arguing that schools should become like the county courthouses where you get screened on your way in. That was a good idea. Mass shootings generally happen in places that are gun free zones.

But, suppose that we could stop the bulk of mass shootings, save some lives, help some kids, and make government run more efficiently without spending much up front AND cutting the costs of government... all without infringing on the Rights of the citizenry (or individuals)???

Yes Humorme
Just because one district adopts one policy doesn't mean another can't do something different.
Instead of fighting, let districts decide, then study what works best and adopt and improve based on that.
I agree with you about not violating rights of any citizens.
So each district would have to agree on something that represents that population.

Within that agreement, sure,if they want to try "banning all weapons of certain levels"
just make sure your whole district agrees and you have the right to install any
standards you agree to, similar to religious schools that have higher standards or rules than others.

But it is unconstitutional to take one group's beliefs and force everyone else to follow or fund it.
So this is why we need Constitutional education ethics and enforcement as the basis.

The way i'd explain it to these absolutists who see the solution as banning guns,
don't you think Christians would LOVE to see all disease and addiction wiped out
by requiring all people to go through spiritual healing?

This would solve the problems of crime and costs of prisons and health care overnight!

But there is something called free choice and consent of the governed.
The law cannot impose people to do things against their beliefs but has to be their free choice in these matters.

But hey, if you really want restrictions on all guns,
let's ask the Christians. could a whole district agree to
require ALL RESIDENTS who enter that district to go
through spiritual healing as part of their background check
for any diseases, disorders, addictive or abusive issues
that might make them a risk to personal health and safety of themselves or others?

If THAT is the agreed standard, and the whole district
agrees to ban guns from anyone who refuses or fails
to pass a mental health diagnostic screening using spiritual healing
by medically proving how this process works to identify treat or cure mental illness
by isolating the internal causes, then that could be adopted as a locally enforced ban.
Just get everyone in the district to agree to this standard,
and that might be one way to craft a ban that only restricts truly mentally dangerous
people who cannot comply with medical or legal policies. Anyone else with conflicts
can resolve them as long as they are legally competent so nobody imposed any
policy except by consent of all residents affected in that limited area.

If people can't agree on that, that's fine too.
At least do the research on spiritual healing and the
effective methods of diagnosing treating and curing mental
illness including criminal addictions and obsessions that
otherwise drive people to homicide or suicide.

All these options can be considered and researched, no harm in that.
the harm is from fearing that nothing will get done unless something
is imposed against someone else. So that's the dynamic we need
to resolve firsst, and the rest can be done by educated informed choice and free will.

None of what you said reflects anything to do with what I said.

I do not believe in gun control. As for districts, that didn't make much sense to me. The Parkland shooting, even as the government admitted, was a multi-system failure. If you diagnose the problem, then you will have the solution.

Dear Humorme
Even if you and I do not support gun control
would you support policies such as requiring all citizens
to go through 2 years of military service and training
including screening for disabilities or disorders?

Would that solve the problem of people with dangerous
criminal illnesses getting treatment before they get a hold of guns.
And make sure people are trained in laws and law enforcement
so they agree to compliance with police and authorities?

All the people I know who defend 2nd Amendment rights
are well schooled in Constitutional laws and history.
What if we made that part of the requirements of citizenship?
So that with these rights come responsibility for knowing and upholding the laws not violating them?

I would not support mandatory service. I would support a firearms training course for high school students.

I told you that I already have a plan three decades in the making that will identify and deal with those who have mental issues that make them dangerous to themselves or others BEFORE they go down that path to drugs and violence. It will pass constitutional muster; does not infringe on the Rights of others, does not affect Due Process (rather protects it at every stage)

What the recent marches are saying to us is that the far left is in control of teaching children some kind of ideology diametrically opposed to constitutional history. We need to make sure that the government teaches children the correct view of our laws and history.

We do that by reading the textbooks before they are issued to students and making our voices heard.

 

[Humorme]

Like all leftists, Hogg does not understand the issue. Additional gun control measures, especially the idea of an "assault weapons ban", will be ineffective at reducing shootings. There are better ways of going about it, like improving security at schools, doing a better job of identifying persons who should be prohibited from firearms ownership, and of course enforcing the laws we already have. Hogg is just a demagogue in the making, financed by Hollywood and various other leftist hate organizations and individuals.

It's pretty evident that Hogg is being indoctrinated by the far left.

You hit the nail on the head that we should better identify people who should be prohibited from owning a firearm.

If you intervened at an early stage to address children who may be in a vulnerable position, you could help them years before they become violent criminals.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dude, you need to think that one through. The reality is, I came up with a plan that spans some thirty six pages of text and goes a long way into identifying and dealing with people before they become a threat and without infringing upon any of their Rights. The right, just like the left think that a dozen paragraphs are a book so it is TLDR.

If you want to keep the guns out of certain hands, why not support an idea that would keep the bodies belonging to those hands in jail, prison, protective / supervised custody and /or mental health facilities?

So you do want to deny people their right to liberty even though they may have served their sentence, or just because they may have mental issues. Take their rights away but don''t dare touch my rights.

Liberty for me but not for thee. SMFH

Dear Liquid Reigns
Mental issues, impairment, disability or disorders can be resovled.
But the methods that are effective work by free will. They never work by requiring or imposing them.
So by the very nature of managing and healing mental (and social ills)
this process is based on voluntary participation and free will.

The whole political pardigm of trying to abuse outside authority
to bully, coerce or exclude others only makes people and society sicker.

This bullying anger is what triggers sick people to snap and act out aggression.
We need to go the opposite direction, in order to create safe sane environments
where people respond to reason and work with laws and govt not against each other in aggression.

By respecting free choice, and empowering people to set up and fund
their own schools and district policies THEY agree to, we don't have to fight to get what we want.

emilynghiem,

My alerts said you had quoted me, but the response was to another poster. But, I have that troll on ignore that you answered. Here is my point to you since I clearly do not understand where you are coming from.

What constitutes a mental health issue is ultimately defined by mental officials, legislators and courts.

When people pose a threat to themselves or others, they should most assuredly be looked at. This is not a criminal process. It is an intervention that prevents drug use / abuse and helps identify who has a mental health issue and who may benefit from therapy.

Because we allow the entire process to be run by the most incompetent collection of misfits in America - DFACS / DCS - or whatever they are in your jurisdiction, it is a joke. It is one that needs oversight. It needs to be reworked and it needs to have an agency that looks at their records along with the records of children that are generated from a myriad of sources. One agency gets the big picture and is able to police those in government that stick their nose into family issues. Nobody oversees the people who have the real power. That is the key to figuring it all out.

I liked your other posts. Thanks for this level of informative response
which is exactly what we need, not emotional personal attacks.

I don't agree with govt deciding that, as this involves spiritual processes in with the mental and physical.
So I agree totally it cannot be criminalized, and I believe the medical research and model can make it secularized for the public.

If people locally in schools or neighborhood districts have an AGREED system
in place for reporting abuses and complaints, then the people can agree to their
own process for resolving any issues, regardless if these are longterm mental or just situational conflicts.

We don't have to judge the person, if we can solve the problems.

I'd like to invite you to form a team like a think tank to present
these solutions you have formulated. And offer them to others to adapt or adopt.

If we start with solutions that do not criminalize or politicize the problems,
we have a better chance of working things out logistically.

Thanks for this Humorme
I nominate you for Trump's task force on opioids and now gun issues
to focus on how to deal with mental illness medically without criminalizing the people or process.

 

[boedicca]

I opt for laughing at the the poor misguided ignorant dweeb.

Posh Hogg!

 

[Picaro]

I've been posting online to urge people not to take the hate bait over David Hogg and his rhetoric online.
And instead to use this opportunity to reach out and agree on Constitutional principles and arguments in common.

But then someone posted this and I just had to laugh:

Clearly it's not a First Amendment argument, but he's basically arguing against unreasonable searches and seizures without probably cause, and being deprived of liberty life or property without due process, and the issue of compelling interest by government in the LEAST restrictive way, ie that people will consent to.

Which approach do YOU support for NRA and opponents to take exception to David Hogg's statements:
1. Refuse and Resist, just argue back in DEFENSE using the same media tactics
2. Bully and Clobber to silence the opposition by yelling arguments louder and rallying to vote in opposition
3. Unite on common rights and principles both sides are arguing to defend,
so the narrative is redirected toward Constitutional laws and away from partisan attacks that detract
4. a combination of the above?

I believe we used 3, then we can organize the people who use tactic 1 or 2.
Whatever combination includes and represents different people and groups, let them do what works for them.

However I don't want to see resources wasted on fighting and attacking that
detract or obstruct the solutions from people working together.

I believe we can make this a teachable moment and reach across party lines to focus on common principles.
We can best teach the laws that govern society democratically, by example.

Which approach do you believe is most effective for you and why?

Never heard of David Hogg, and re the fake 'protests' they're irrelevant; the SCOTUS rules on such matters for the most part, and these stupid puppets being marched around by the Democrats and their operatives in the teachers unions, funded with Hollywood money, aren't Supreme Court Justices, nor are they going to be appointing any for at least 6 more years, so no need to keep discussing the idiot 'Marchers' as if they were important or something.

 

[Picaro]

The NRA just need to keep doing what is has been doing. Hogg will be a just a distant memory this time next year.

buying legislators who then don't listen to the 90% of us who want guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies and domestic abusers?

You aren't '90%' of us, but you are big supporters of guns in the hands of your Party's street thugs and doing nothing to stop the terrorism and serial killers infesting black and hispanic neighborhoods, though.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Dude, you need to think that one through. The reality is, I came up with a plan that spans some thirty six pages of text and goes a long way into identifying and dealing with people before they become a threat and without infringing upon any of their Rights. The right, just like the left think that a dozen paragraphs are a book so it is TLDR.

If you want to keep the guns out of certain hands, why not support an idea that would keep the bodies belonging to those hands in jail, prison, protective / supervised custody and /or mental health facilities?

So you do want to deny people their right to liberty even though they may have served their sentence, or just because they may have mental issues. Take their rights away but don''t dare touch my rights.

Liberty for me but not for thee. SMFH

Dear Liquid Reigns
Mental issues, impairment, disability or disorders can be resovled.
But the methods that are effective work by free will. They never work by requiring or imposing them.
So by the very nature of managing and healing mental (and social ills)
this process is based on voluntary participation and free will.

The whole political pardigm of trying to abuse outside authority
to bully, coerce or exclude others only makes people and society sicker.

This bullying anger is what triggers sick people to snap and act out aggression.
We need to go the opposite direction, in order to create safe sane environments
where people respond to reason and work with laws and govt not against each other in aggression.

By respecting free choice, and empowering people to set up and fund
their own schools and district policies THEY agree to, we don't have to fight to get what we want.

emilynghiem,

My alerts said you had quoted me, but the response was to another poster. But, I have that troll on ignore that you answered. Here is my point to you since I clearly do not understand where you are coming from.

What constitutes a mental health issue is ultimately defined by mental officials, legislators and courts.

When people pose a threat to themselves or others, they should most assuredly be looked at. This is not a criminal process. It is an intervention that prevents drug use / abuse and helps identify who has a mental health issue and who may benefit from therapy.

Because we allow the entire process to be run by the most incompetent collection of misfits in America - DFACS / DCS - or whatever they are in your jurisdiction, it is a joke. It is one that needs oversight. It needs to be reworked and it needs to have an agency that looks at their records along with the records of children that are generated from a myriad of sources. One agency gets the big picture and is able to police those in government that stick their nose into family issues. Nobody oversees the people who have the real power. That is the key to figuring it all out.

By what right do you have to have the govt intervene in taking a child away from the parents based on some determination of mental health issues? Is the child not the responsibility of the parents?

 

[usmbguest5318]

I've been posting online to urge people not to take the hate bait over David Hogg and his rhetoric online.
And instead to use this opportunity to reach out and agree on Constitutional principles and arguments in common.

But then someone posted this and I just had to laugh:

Clearly it's not a First Amendment argument, but he's basically arguing against unreasonable searches and seizures without probably cause, and being deprived of liberty life or property without due process, and the issue of compelling interest by government in the LEAST restrictive way, ie that people will consent to.

Which approach do YOU support for NRA and opponents to take exception to David Hogg's statements:
1. Refuse and Resist, just argue back in DEFENSE using the same media tactics
2. Bully and Clobber to silence the opposition by yelling arguments louder and rallying to vote in opposition
3. Unite on common rights and principles both sides are arguing to defend,
so the narrative is redirected toward Constitutional laws and away from partisan attacks that detract
4. a combination of the above?

I believe we used 3, then we can organize the people who use tactic 1 or 2.
Whatever combination includes and represents different people and groups, let them do what works for them.

However I don't want to see resources wasted on fighting and attacking that
detract or obstruct the solutions from people working together.

I believe we can make this a teachable moment and reach across party lines to focus on common principles.
We can best teach the laws that govern society democratically, by example.

Which approach do you believe is most effective for you and why?

What's the best way for NRA and Hogg supporters to address their issues with gun laws?

Best in pursuit of what end(s)?

Dear Xelor thanks for joining in.
They both want to defend their rights they believe are under attack and threat of suppression by political monied interests.
What's the best way you see for both sides to defend their rights from infringement?
To team up and enforce common laws so everyone can have their own beliefs?
Or compete to bully each other down, in the media and in polls elections and govt office.

Both sides think the only way they can win is to outnumber and remove the other from office.
I'm saying if we agree to separate and respect each other's beliefs,everyone can enjoy and exercise representation
and nobody has to get infringed upon to do this.

We can all m anage, fund and reform our own local school programs to represent each community these serve.
So we don't all have to agree on all policies, and we can separate and fund different programs as religions do.

Prefatory Remarks:

You know, some folks will raise the most inanely founded complaints imaginable. Hogg's gripe about clear bag requirements is one such inane objection. It is so insipid that it verges on being an abuse, not use, of his First Amendment rights.
​

They both want to defend their rights they believe are under attack and threat of suppression by political monied interests.
What's the best way you see for both sides to defend their rights from infringement?

I take it, then:

• That your answer to my question is "to the end of "[defending] their rights from infringement."
• That you see there as being but one end, the one noted above. I expected you would identify multiple ends of varying priority, but apparently your conception of the matter is that NRA and Hogg supporters have but one objective.

I'd hoped you'd respond with a far more precise answer. I'd hoped that because I wan't looking forward to having to write a long post to provide a reasonable answer the central question. Alas, I don't always get my way....

What's the best way you see for both sides to defend their rights from infringement?
To team up and enforce common laws so everyone can have their own beliefs?
Or compete to bully each other down, in the media and in polls elections and govt office.

You've identified a collaborative and a combative approach to achieving two ends that differ from and that are presumably subordinate to (thus making them tactical ends with regard to the earlier identified strategic end) the one you imply in the question I addressed in the previous section of this post:

• End of "[having] their own beliefs" --> This is an absurd end to do anything to achieve.
• End of "[bullying] each other down" --> This end is flat-out immoral. I won't deign to suggest what be a "best" way to achieve it.

What's the best way you see for both sides to defend their rights from infringement?
To team up and enforce common laws so everyone can have their own beliefs?

Quite literally, everyone, and I do mean everyone, who has the capacity to form or embrace a belief already "can have their own beliefs," and I assure you such individuals most certainly do. Have you ever met anyone who doesn't have his/her own beliefs? Other than those whom you've met and who were/are in a vegetative state, every person you've ever met has their own views.

To the extent that "[defending] their rights from infringement" aims to allows NRA and Hogg supporters to "have their own beliefs," there's nothing to do; mission accomplished.
​

Dear Xelor thanks for joining in.

You're welcome.
​

Main Post Remarks:

Clearly it's not a First Amendment argument, but he's basically arguing against unreasonable searches and seizures without probably cause, and being deprived of liberty life or property...

That may be what he thinks he's arguing. It may too be what you think he's arguing. Be either as it may, unreasonable search and seizure is not the literal or implicit right about which Hogg argues. Hogg's beef has to do with the privacy privilege due/accorded to minors. More specifically, Hogg is asserting/arguing that requiring students to carry their belongings in clear bags exceeds what the SCOTUS called the “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Privacy privileges differ materially in scope/scale from search and seizure; however, they do derive from notions pertaining to the right to be free of warrantless/unwarranted searches and seizures.

Privacy Concepts:

In 1967, the SCOTUS decision in Katz v. United States formulated the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test that is used to decide when a governmental intrusion constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. That test extends has found its way into common law and statutes, and even the laws of other countries. In short, Katz v. United States represents a great touchstone in the law of privacy.

As a matter of legal history, Katz was the culmination of a long legal debate about whether the Fourth Amendment covered government initiated electronic surveillance—a debate that began early in the twentieth century with the invention of the telephone, microphone, and dictograph. Such devices enabled law enforcement officers to eavesdrop with much greater secrecy, efficiency, and accuracy. In 1928, the question of the constitutionality of electronic surveillance finally reached the SCOTUS in Olmstead v. United States (1928), a challenge to a conviction based on evidence obtained through the use of warrantless wiretaps. The Court affirmed the conviction by adopting a narrow reading of the Fourth Amendment wherein it concluded that because the government did not physically trespass on the defendants’ property, the Court held that there was no “search” in a constitutional sense by the government.

In Katz:

Justice Harlan created the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test in his concurring opinion. Although it was not formulated by the majority, this test has been the main takeaway of the case. Justice Harlan created a two-part test:

• An individual has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy.
• The expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.

If both of these requirements have been met, and the government has taken an action which violates this "expectation," then the government's action has violated the individual's Fourth Amendment rights.

According to the Supreme Court in Rakas v. Illinois (1978), the "expectation of privacy must have a source outside of the Fourth Amendment either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society." For example, private homes are at the core of Fourth Amendment protection, as they are closely associated with the ownership interest in property law.
(Source)
​

Application of Privacy Concepts to Minors in Schools:

Central to the "clear bags requirement" to which Hogg and NRA supporters object summarily [I'm taking the OP-er's word for the fact both do] is that it applies most frequently to minors. That anyone is actually arguing that minors in school have any right to privacy that applies to anything beyond their bodies and the details of undergarments that adorn them (assuming they wear them, which some students may not), is preposterous to me. Since when have students' lockers, bags, pockets, etc. not been subject to search by the school's administration and teachers? AFAIK, at no point in the past decade or so. Indeed, the only way I'd argue such a position is if someone were to beg me to accept their very handsome payment to do so.

Be that as it may, New Jersey v. T.L.O.(TLO) is the SCOTUS decision/case that defines the students' privacy rights while they are on school property. In TLO, the Court considered the Fourth Amendment rights of students and concluded to drop the requirement of probable cause and a search warrant in favor of a “reasonable suspicion” standard, because the privacy interests of school children are outweighed by the substantial need of teachers and administrators to maintain order in the schools. Students at school have some Fourth Amendment rights, but not many.

(Interested parties may, after reading TLO's decision, care to read the following editorial about the interaction of Katz and TLO: "Comments: No Expectation of Privacy: Should School Officials Be Able to Search Students ' Lockers without Any Suspicion of Wrong Doing? A Study of In re Patrick Y. and Its Effect on Maryland Public School Students")
​

Societal equivalents to "clear bags":

The "clear bag" is nothing but a less intrusive and markedly less expensive means of doing the same thing airport and secure building bag scanners do. Students can pass their belongings through a scanner such as those found at airports or carry them or they can carry them around in a clear bag.

I don't particularly care which solution schools implement, but I don't pay taxes in a jurisdiction that has stipulated the use of clear bags and in which Hogg and the NRA supporters of his objection are going to find much concordance among the local polity. If the taxpayers of such jurisdictions are amenable and willing to pay for such devices, fine by me.

I, however, would sooner try the "clear bag" approach before moving to scanners and/or metal detectors. I would because that approach will slow students' entry and exit into the building, which, given that many students arrive by the bus load, will necessarily extend the length of the school day without increasing the amount of scholastic instruction the students receive. And for what? Because someone objects to students being required to, on school property, tote their belongings in a clear bag.​

Clearly it's not a First Amendment argument, but he's basically arguing against unreasonable searches and seizures without probably cause, and being deprived of liberty life or property...

As goes depriving minors of the right to property, there is no legitimate basis for asserting that requiring students to use a clear bag/container to hold/carry their belongings while on school property deprives the students of property, much less life. Nobody's depriving the kids of any possession(s). The kids are simply being required to put whatever be those possession in a clear container.
​

Conclusion:

In consideration of the points above, I think the best way for Hogg and NRA supporters to achieve their ends is to bring a case before a judge in a court of law and, not receiving satisfaction, work their way to the SCOTUS so they can effect the overturn of TLO.
​

 

[usmbguest5318]

I've been posting online to urge people not to take the hate bait over David Hogg and his rhetoric online.
And instead to use this opportunity to reach out and agree on Constitutional principles and arguments in common.

But then someone posted this and I just had to laugh:

Clearly it's not a First Amendment argument, but he's basically arguing against unreasonable searches and seizures without probably cause, and being deprived of liberty life or property without due process, and the issue of compelling interest by government in the LEAST restrictive way, ie that people will consent to.

Which approach do YOU support for NRA and opponents to take exception to David Hogg's statements:
1. Refuse and Resist, just argue back in DEFENSE using the same media tactics
2. Bully and Clobber to silence the opposition by yelling arguments louder and rallying to vote in opposition
3. Unite on common rights and principles both sides are arguing to defend,
so the narrative is redirected toward Constitutional laws and away from partisan attacks that detract
4. a combination of the above?

I believe we used 3, then we can organize the people who use tactic 1 or 2.
Whatever combination includes and represents different people and groups, let them do what works for them.

However I don't want to see resources wasted on fighting and attacking that
detract or obstruct the solutions from people working together.

I believe we can make this a teachable moment and reach across party lines to focus on common principles.
We can best teach the laws that govern society democratically, by example.

Which approach do you believe is most effective for you and why?

Personally, I think clear backpacks ARE a violation of privacy, and I don't like them anymore than clear trash bags. I'd be very unhappy to have to use either and I don't blame the kids for not liking them. However, it is kind of funny to try and turn it into a Constitutional issue.

I don't blame the kids for not liking them.

I don't either, but the fact remains that as kids, (1) nobody need ask whether they like them, and (2) they don't have to like them. They just have to use them.

What be the controlling factors in this matter?

• The fact that they are minors, kids, not adults.
• The fact that we're talking about a school.
  
  What do day-hop students need to take to school? IMO, nothing other than articles that pertain to their scholastic, school athletic activities, and perhaps prescribed medications and/or other health related items. I'm sure that some sort of arrangement can be made between the school administrators and the child/child's parents to protect the kid's privacy regarding that last category of effects. A very simple solution would be to put such things inside a small opaque bag that's carried inside the larger clear bag.
  
  (At the schools my kids attended, parent/guardians must inform the administration of their kids' health related maladies and treatments. Is it not the same at public schools? For most of us parents, we sent our kids to school malady-free, and during the school year, it was we who received calls informing us of one or more infirmities that our kids obtained at school, sprains, strains, fractures and breaks being the most common.)
• The existence of New Jersey v. T.L.O

However, it is kind of funny to try and turn it into a Constitutional issue.

Indeed. Absurdly so.

 

[Picaro]

By what right do you have to have the govt intervene in taking a child away from the parents based on some determination of mental health issues? Is the child not the responsibility of the parents?

No, they aren't; they are no longer allowed to discipline their own kids any more, thanks to lawyers and other assorted vermin, plus so many parents have sued school systems for disciplining their obnoxious brats responsible parenting is all but impossible.

The bureaucratic response is to load them full of drugs, socially promote the little animals, and forget them after they're pushed along to the next set of bureaucrats, and then they go to college, whether qualified or not. In some cases, like Cruz's, nobody is going to stick their necks out to stop his obvious decline into sociopaths homicidal fantasy land, not the school, not his parents, not the FBI, not the police; nobody is going to risk their careers, savings, and freedoms any more for the obvious reasons: it would just be stupid, and futile, to do so these days for the most part. This goes many times over if the animal is a 'minority' of some sort or other.Parents love this 'solution', too; they can claim lil Johnny/Joanna isn't really just an obnoxious little spoiled brat after all, he/she/it/mutant has a 'medical problem' .... works like 'no fault insurance', everybody's off the hook now, re lawyers and other vermin.

Nobody can afford the court costs if they're sued, guilty or not. See Mueller's fake indictments for how that works, too.

 

[2aguy]

The NRA just need to keep doing what is has been doing. Hogg will be a just a distant memory this time next year.

I wouldn't count on it. The media smells blood on this one and what the NRA offers is pure baloney instead of a solution. I have another option.

The problem is, you can't fix what's wrong with bumper sticker slogans. It takes a real plan.

Yes so why not a real plan to teach the Billl of Rights in schools
so students CAN be armed with knowledge of the laws as the best defense, deterrence and correction of abuses of power
www.ethics-commission.net

What I propose is not only an educational outreach through public schools
and electoral districts, but a set of Holidays from Dec 15 to 24 to celebrate
the meaning and history of the articles in the Bill of Rights, plus add a day
for Christmas to celebrate 14th Amendment equal protections or Equal
Justice Under Law that is the secular meaning of Jesus being Lord of All, or Universal Law
and Justice for all people equally.

How about that as a plan? Humorme
we may not agree but at least it's more positive than all the yelling and bullying I see going on now....

Actually, I do find something worthy of support in your post.

Children are not being taught the history of our nation. They don't understand the Bill of Rights. They cannot appreciate the values of the founders nor what it has helped us accomplish as a nation.

Part of that problem is that we, as adults, do not go into the schools and review the teaching curriculum, read the textbooks, and then challenge the absolute dung that far left liberals are indoctrinating the children with.

They are also not being taught the history of socialism around the world, or the danger of a government that has disarmed their people....