• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Company planning to put 'rib-breaking' drones in public schools

We can’t get teachers doors that lock and/or are sturdy in some districts…but a school district is suddenly going to be able to afford drones?

Teachers send out back to school lists including tissues because school budgets are so crappy…but hey, here’s money for drones.

😂😂😂
 
ttwtt78640 said:
My argument is that by definition criminals don’t obey laws.

www.security.org

GUN COUNTRY: Where in the U.S. Are Guns Most Popular? | Security.org

Texas leads in gun sales, but Wyoming tops per capita. Gun homicides are highest in the South, while the West has the most gun suicides.
www.security.org www.security.org
Click to expand...

Very true......they want to add/strengthen gun restriction through laws which criminals do not follow and simultaneously defund police and lower conviction rates and sentencing of these said criminals. They are NOT working for law abiding citizens.....seems very clear to me.
 
BirdinHand said:
We can’t get teachers doors that lock and/or are sturdy in some districts…but a school district is suddenly going to be able to afford drones?
Click to expand...
They have money for administrators! And shrinks, and buildings and grounds, and DEI consultants (or anti-DEI consultants), and metal detectors, and armed security guards, and fancy electronic football scoreboards... the problem with funding the teachers is that if they did that, the school couldn't ask for more funding because the education it puts out is so lousy.
 
bythoughts said:
They have money for administrators! And shrinks, and buildings and grounds, and DEI consultants (or anti-DEI consultants), and metal detectors, and armed security guards, and fancy electronic football scoreboards... the problem with funding the teachers is that if they did that, the school couldn't ask for more funding because the education it puts out is so lousy.
Click to expand...
Cool story?
 
Maidenrules29 said:
The fact that people like to off themselves with guns should not affect my ability to buy them.
Click to expand...
Gun purchases should be dependent on a full psych check of the purchaser. There is no reason a person of a sound mind should not be able to buy a gun. It is bad policy to allow just anyone to buy a gun without a full check.
 
Peacenik said:
Gun purchases should be dependent on a full psych check of the purchaser. There is no reason a person of a sound mind should not be able to buy a gun. It is bad policy to allow just anyone to buy a gun without a full check.
Click to expand...

Is that because guns can be used to kill?
 
bythoughts said:
I was focusing on the information rather than the opinion. The take-home points I was getting were:
  • It is POSSIBLE to remote-fly drones inside a schoolhouse and strike or shoot students with them. I mean yes, I've seen news stories from Ukraine, but I wasn't that clear that drones could maneuver in smaller spaces than an alleyway for very long without hitting something.
  • It is POSSIBLE to make these drones go 70 mph and to do serious damage by pure physical force.
I mean remember, these things were not available even in the Congressional building in 2021. This is a significant change.

You can rest assured that similar tactics are going to be used against pipeline demonstrators, truckers blocking intersections, ranchers trying to take over public land, charismatic cults, BLM groups (with a vengeance)... basically, any time anywhere that the people in power want some people hurt and they want an anonymous professional in a faraway basement to do it rather than asking a local cop to pose for the camera with his billy club.

I feel like I still haven't given any "opinion" in the editorial sense - that's just what's happening.
Click to expand...

Yes...and since it is fact...what else do you want people to contribute? It's a discussion forum...did you not post it to discuss?

And all of a sudden you hugely broaden the discussion to almost "everything." So it's your OP....do you want to discuss this method used in schools to ostensibly protect students/prevent school shootings...or discuss the use of drones in controlling the populace?

It now seems the latter is your opinion and preferred aspect to discuss.
 
Peacenik said:
It is bad policy to allow just anyone to buy a gun without a full check.
Click to expand...
It's an infringment. Who pays for that "full psych eval", the purchaser? What if poor people who want to be able to purchase a firearm for self defense cannot afford that extra cost?
 
Maidenrules29 said:
It's an infringment. Who pays for that "full psych eval", the purchaser? What if poor people who want to be able to purchase a firearm for self defense cannot afford that extra cost?
Click to expand...

It's deliberate. Poor people are probably a priority of people who the poster thinks shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns.
 
Maidenrules29 said:
It's an infringment. Who pays for that "full psych eval", the purchaser? What if poor people who want to be able to purchase a firearm for self defense cannot afford that extra cost?
Click to expand...

There is no requirement that a gun be purchased from a FFL dealer and for other than their first gun purchase the person buying another gun is already armed.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
There is no requirement that a gun be purchased from a FFL dealer and for other than their first gun purchase the person buying another gun is already armed.
Click to expand...
Yes, but remember, many states do not allow private sales.
 
Maidenrules29 said:
It's an infringment. Who pays for that "full psych eval", the purchaser? What if poor people who want to be able to purchase a firearm for self defense cannot afford that extra cost?
Click to expand...
There needs to be a system to prevent mentally unstable people from buying guns - for obvious reasons.
 
Peacenik said:
There needs to be a system to prevent mentally unstable people from buying guns - for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

What’s the obvious reason to allow “mentally unstable” (known to be dangerous?) people to roam freely among us - hoping that they are unable to gain access to a weapon to harm themselves or others?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What’s the obvious reason to allow “mentally unstable” (known to be dangerous?) people to roam freely among us - hoping that they are unable to gain access to a weapon to harm themselves or others?
Click to expand...
The founders worked very hard to establish this nation and document our government in the Constitution. They did what they could in what time they had. They knew as humans they could not produce perfection; and they also knew that the world changes. Realizing these things, they wisely included a provision that would allow the new nation to modify the Constitution as the need arises.

Much has changed since then. Their immediate situation included a very strongly held concern among the colonists for having a standing army which could ignore the rights of subjects of the crown at will. They wanted to guard against that; so no standing army was included in the Constitution. Congress was instead given the power to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use could be longer than a term of two years. Instead of having a standing army to defend the nation, the plan was to be able to quickly raise an army if needed. They figured a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the nation, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a better idea. What they didn't consider was crazy people getting guns and committing senseless slaughter of innocents and mass shootings. That was something which was not occurring then, something they could not have foreseen.

Now, here we are, centuries later. So much has changed it now falls upon us to update our Constitution. We have a standing army and strong rules to prevent it from being used against our own people. There is no need for the people to have guns to quickly raise an army to defend the nation. The main reason for people to have guns is mostly just because they want to play with them. Crime is low. The need for personal defense is low. We should still have guns because people want them, but we should regulate who gets them. Our Constitution needs to be modified to reflect the world we currently live in. It is absurd to have a prescription from 1789 and expect it to adequately cover our current needs.

We are such a psychotic nation that it is more likely a personally owned gun will be used in a tragic accident or regretful action of rage than in personal defense. Gun deaths cost our nation greatly. It would be far wiser of some of that cost was instead applied towards properly vetting who gets guns.
 
Peacenik said:
The founders worked very hard to establish this nation and document our government in the Constitution. They did what they could in what time they had. They knew as humans they could not produce perfection; and they also knew that the world changes. Realizing these things, they wisely included a provision that would allow the new nation to modify the Constitution as the need arises.

Much has changed since then. Their immediate situation included a very strongly held concern among the colonists for having a standing army which could ignore the rights of subjects of the crown at will. They wanted to guard against that; so no standing army was included in the Constitution. Congress was instead given the power to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use could be longer than a term of two years. Instead of having a standing army to defend the nation, the plan was to be able to quickly raise an army if needed. They figured a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the nation, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a better idea. What they didn't consider was crazy people getting guns and committing senseless slaughter of innocents and mass shootings. That was something which was not occurring then, something they could not have foreseen.

Now, here we are, centuries later. So much has changed it now falls upon us to update our Constitution. We have a standing army and strong rules to prevent it from being used against our own people. There is no need for the people to have guns to quickly raise an army to defend the nation. The main reason for people to have guns is mostly just because they want to play with them. Crime is low. The need for personal defense is low. We should still have guns because people want them, but we should regulate who gets them. Our Constitution needs to be modified to reflect the world we currently live in. It is absurd to have a prescription from 1789 and expect it to adequately cover our current needs.

We are such a psychotic nation that it is more likely a personally owned gun will be used in a tragic accident or regretful action of rage than in personal defense. Gun deaths cost our nation greatly. It would be far wiser of some of that cost was instead applied towards properly vetting who gets guns.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we should amend the Constitution such that anyone deemed “mentally unstable” loses their right to roam freely among us.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Perhaps we should amend the Constitution such that anyone deemed “mentally unstable” loses their right to roam freely among us.
Click to expand...

Several states have done so for extreme situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom