Parents of Michigan high school shooter Ethan Crumbley will go to trial, judges rule

I shall post your post in its entirety then.

And, just in case it wasn't clear what part of the link I sent you were referring to, you followed up with

I say again: This thread is about irresponsible parents not dealing with their son's obvious mental issues. If you have researched about the school's responsibility, you can open a thread about that. I did my due diligence (basic research) to open this thread. You would need to do the same for yours.

However, neither derailing this thread, nor denying that you said what we can all SEE that you did say, is not going to help your case... whatever that case may be....

 

You asked a question. Despite the fact that I knew it was off-topic, as a courtesy to you, I responded linking to MY own comments. And you couldn't rebut them... or even address them. So you demanded my post deleted.

It could not be more clear.

I could bump my thread easily by simply responding to your question in the thread where that WAS the topic, if that had been my intention.

 

Not confused in the least. Legislating is what the Supreme Court did. Heller was legislation that has been used to make rulings in subsequent cases.

And I'm not saying that it's not legal. Just ... immoral. I would say it's abuse of power. But SCOTUS DOES have that power, unfortunately.

 

You're confused again Golem, this seems to happen a lot with you doesnt it? McDonald vs Chicago was not legislation, that was a lawsuit that was brought to the Supreme court.

Any other questions?

 

Not true that "they didn't do anything". They called the parents. Which might not have been enough. But it's not as easy as just using binary thinking. You DO have to do research. If YOU think they should face legal consequences, you would need to research what it is they COULD do. Like school policy, or county policy or state policy... or state law... It's a complex issue. I'm sure that, in your mind, there are only two options: "they didn't do anything to stop it" or "the would have stopped it". Great example of binary thinking. But reality is very rarely that simple. A lot of research would be required to make that claim you are making in such a casual way. I don't have the time to research that. So it's up to you, if you want to create a thread about the topic.

 

I'm talking about Heller.

 

I think I've had enough of this stupidity. The argument from the left is just emotions. Somebody should do something!!! Yet, every time someone asks what do you want done, what charged do you want brought, etc., you answer with some garbage about how it's not relevant, not on topic, or your magical list of how to stop mass shootings that actually wouldn't stop mass shootings.

Let me know when you feel like having an honest discussion.

 

once again Golem you are completely confused. lets recap.. I said this..

you quoted my above post with this..

So again. all you have done is shown that you have no idea whats going on in a debate on guns.. Maybe catch up on some sleep?

 

Let's not. There is no need. Heller is an instance of the Supreme Court legislating. It used the 2nd A as an EXCUSE, but got the historic and linguistic arguments wrong. And the link I provided shows this.

It's that easy....

 

And, of course, three children dead wouldn't move yours, right?

Ah. Of course. Binary thinking could not be absent. I don't know how to STOP mass shootings. My proposal is only intended to save as many lives as CAN be saved without banning all guns.

 

and told them their children were killed in their care because they're negligent. What kind of world do we live in or someone can just walk straight into the school and blow away children.

And the school that lets that happen does nothing and faces no consequences?

You want us to rely on these inept morons for our safety.

This is why your gun control angle at this will never get anywhere because these people couldn't stop a slug on a salt bed. They aren't responsible so therefore you have to take your protection into your own hands.

why do you use binary thinking?

public schools are not a separate entity from the state they are the state. A policy of the state protecting itself from responsibility to care for children is part of the problem.

You don't wait on corrupt *******s to police themselves that will never happen. You show up to school board meetings with a rifles and shotguns and demand your government serve you. And be held accountable.

no that's your mind.

Given to your authoritarianism gun control Nazism or you're not going to do anything and your kids can just keep dying.

pot calling the kettle black. You're the one who's trying to pretend there's a simple solution. This is too protect your leftist twaddle from the scrutiny it deserves.

no it wouldn't how many people try and rip off fort Knox? Why is your government's gold more important to you than your own children?

you are gaslighting pretending something is more complicated than it is to avoid criticism of your ideology.

Gardening things works it's worked for millennia. There's no research needed.

People don't do mass shootings at police stations or armories or gun ranges.

They only do them where there is gun control gun control causes this. That's what you're trying to deny do you want gun control to be the solution.

It's already done 98% of these mass shootings occur in places where there's gun control.


It's almost like making people defenseless targets means that they're defenseless targets is that too binary for you? You don't like it that simple what are your excuses for your stupid leftist propaganda

 

no we need to recap because of how often you get confused, Look how confused you got again thinking the District of Columbia v. Heller is legislation. you see Golem that is a lawsuit. Do you understand the deference between legislation and a lawsuit?

 

I don't "think" it. I PROVED it. And you refused to even LOOK at my proof. Much less attempt to rebut it.

Therefore, my case is made!

Thanks for playing...

 

Only thing you have proven is how confused you are, you somehow think the Judicial branch of the government is actual the legislative branch of government. Its not..

lets start very very simple so hopefully you don't get lost and confused again

Here is some simple old schoolhouse rocks videos that seem to be on your level so watch both and if you have any questions then we can answer them.

 

Not surprising that slave owners would want to make sure their militias were armed to keep slaves from killing their masters. Sorry but the truth about the 2nd amendment is simple to grasp if you want to grasp it. There were no standing armies, no police forces and a lot of slaves.....they got kind of spooked about slave uprisings after Haiti.

 

The deaths of thousands of us every year and the massacres of innocents by gun owners does induce an emotional response from a rational human being. The rest of the civilized world shares these emotions as you call it and have taken measures to ban or strictly reduce the number and type of weapons in their societies. Unlike America, they understand that giving everyone a weapon gives those who own them the power to kill other human beings at will. But we are stained by the sins of our founding, that of genocidal annihilation of native Americans, the forced bondage of indentured servants, the inhuman treatment of millions of slaves and the need to have thirteen colonies ratify a constitution. Those original sins and the compromises the founders took to create America still haunt us every day. Combine that with senseless arguments about what the 2nd really meant to the men who signed off on the BOR, the parsing of words in a very poorly written compound sentence, the need for ammosexuals to prove their manliness with guns, the NRA, the mythology of the American frontier bullshit and plain old racism and here we are, being told Totts and Pears are all we can do. The rest of the world looks at us as savages, they are right.

 

so your reply to me posting what the founding fathers actually said is "ignore what they said and believe me" Why would anyone believe you over what was actually said? The arrogance of your post is unbelievable

 

The parents are scum to be sure but not criminal. Bad legal decision.

 

So are you saying that you are ready to have a serious discussion about how to reduce murder in this country? If so, let's get to it and stop the BS about assault weapons and mental illness and start the real discussions.

 

And yet, it survived this attempt to have it dismissed in a court.

The parents were scum long before they decided to provide a gun to their son... then people died....

Should be a helluva trial... I hope this is covered as much as that ridiculous trial in South Carolina that few cared about...

 

I doubt a higher court would let it happen.

Not a chance. There is no millionaire lawyer as defendant and no murder on their part. Nobody wants to watch scum in a trial for trying to protect their son from prosecution. Even scum have parental love. Who knows, they may start suing gun manufacturers because some people have misused their product.

 

As I'm sure you doubted this court would...

As Mr. Miyagi once said, "Aye.... have good chance".... If it's televised, it'll be a much covered case.... Much more interesting than routine murder.

And I have no earthly idea what the bold means... EVERYBODY wants to watch scum on trial, even if that's not what they are on trial for...