My friends and I think a classmate is planning on shooting up the school, we have no concrete evidence, but should we report it anyway?
Yes.If you genuinely believe a classmate of yours is going to shoot up your school or even bring a weapon onto campus, you need to report it. The fastest way to do this is by talking to the administrators. If you're not on good terms with with any office staff (this can include a guidance counselor as well), tell a teacher. Any teacher. Just ask if you could whisper to them or maybe see them after class. You could even write it on a note and hand it to them if you want. If you do that, make sure to tell them it's very important, so they know not to lose it. Any school employee will report it, and there's a chance your name will come up.If you want to make the report anonymously, your school or police department may have a tip line, or you might be able to get a teacher that knows you to agree not to give your name. Know that if you choose this route, make sure to give as much detail in your report as possible, since they won't be able to follow up.It's important to say that these reports are serious. If you make one, even anonymously, just to hurt another students reputation or to get out of class for a day, you can face severe punishments. If you make a report that you genuinely believe and it turns out to not be the case, that's okay. You won't ever be punished for reporting something you honestly believe to be a threat.I recommend getting to know your schools administrative staff. It's helpful to have someone to talk to, and who knows you by name. Then, they will be able to tell, should a situation like this arise, that you are doing this because you need to to keep people safe. They will see that it's important in your eyes and tone of voice and they will drop everything to deal with it. I guarantee you, if you go to report a possible shooting threat to the school, whoever you talk to will drop everything they are working on. You will get their full attention.TL;DR: Yes, report it. You might be able to do it anonymously, but that's up to your school. If you do it as a joke, you will be punished, but if you meant well, you will not be punished, even if they determine there's no threat.
In the wake of the Las Vegas shooting that claimed the lives of 60 people (as of today), what do you think of Michael Moore's proposed 28th Amendment?
Original Question: In the wake of the Las Vegas shooting that claimed the lives of 60 people (as of today), what do you think of Michael Moore's proposed 28th Amendment?What about the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The founders had the foresight to include SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. These two positions can not exist side by side. (Comments continue in item #3 below.)We the American people need to have a calm debate.We need facts and data, not feelings and rhetorical flourishes. (See graph below)Cars aren't banned after thousands die annually while our government’s CAFE standards are increasing fuel efficiency and increasing deaths. (I know the argument: cars aren't designed to kill…but they do.) Knives aren't blamed after stabbing deaths. It is more about mental health than guns. In Sandy Hook the killer took legal weapons from his mom who passed a background check, he never would have passed a background check.We need to contact our state legislatures with our best ideas and suggestions.We need an article V convention Tom Byron's answer to Would you like to see an end to all private firearm ownership in the United States?18,000 shootings in Chicago in 2011–2016 See Chicago’s Deadly Year in 3 ChartsConclusion: Let’s use Chicago as a test bed for new laws, before we go national with any suggested laws that change our constitution. Remember this while you're debating—criminals never follow the law, or they wouldn't be called criminals.After thought for your consideration about funding and deaths.Planned Parenthood (PP) donated $38M to political candidates in 2016. Planned Parenthood Arms Spend $38 Million for Democrats (note there is some government money (fungible) which goes to PP [I am aware of the Hyde Amendment.]Reproductive Health 2013, 664,435 legal induced abortionsThe NRA donated $36M ($0 government funding) to candidates in 2016 The NRA Has Broken Its Record for Election Spending15,696 murders in 2015 Latest Crime Statistics Released)
What would be NRA's ideal "dream" plan to put into action to prevent atrocities such as Orlando shooting, and will such a plan work in society?
I agree wholeheartedly with Paul Zink’s answer on this question. As a gun owner, let me just say this, there is absolutely no way that a plan can be created to prevent a mass shooting of any sort from starting. The law enforcement community, the Federal government, any special interest groups such as the NRA or the Brady Campaign or Mom’s Demand Action or a host of other gun control groups would ever be able to come up with a plan to stop such a thing from occurring. Only the deranged gunman knows when and where he or she is going to draw their firearm and begin shooting. If, by some chance there was an officer nearby or perhaps an armed citizen it still wouldn’t matter. There are going to be people that get shot and some will die.Also, each mass shooting is a special case. In the specified mass shooting in the Orlando night club then it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for anyone armed, whether police officer or civilian, to have been able to take down the shooter right after he began to murder people just because of all the sheer chaos occurring at that moment.If we had a way around HIPAA where we could identify those who are truly mentally ill, not those who temporarily depressed because their Mom or Dad or someone special died but, those who are truly mentally ill and taking medication for it and put them on a Ban List of some sort that could help. They wouldn’t be able to purchase firearms themselves. Hopefully no one in their families would be stupid enough to buy firearms for them. However, that wouldn’t have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting from occurring because he just killed his mother and then took her firearms. But hey, maybe it would stop some others that might have happened. If only that pesky HIPAA laws could be gotten around though. So, while it wouldn’t stop them all it may stop some. Unless the Feds kept track of such folks banned we’d never know just how many might have been prevented.
Is Dr. Steve Pieczenik telling the truth when he asserts that 9/11 was an inside job and that the killing of Bin Laden was an complete hoax?
Like Daniel Ellsberg, Piezcenik is a former aide to Henry Kissinger who went on to work for the CIA-connected Rand Corporation. The most important thing about whistle-blowers is the fake ones get high profile attention in the media and/or the conspiracy media (both controlled by intel), while real ones get whacked quick.Of course, the most logical explanation for 9/11 is an inside job organized at the highest levels of the national security state, but until more evidence on the inside emerges, that remains a plausible theory and nothing more.The most suspicious thing about Piezcenik is his appearances on the Alex Jones show. Obviously, Jones is not a real whistle-blower, but someone who is ramping up fear and playing on prejudices. Among Jones’ most ludicrous beliefs is that the Sandy Hook shooting never happened.Obviously, the “assassination” of Osama made zero sense. If he was the primary perpetrator to 9/11, it would have been essential to bring him back to the States to stand trial. This could have easily been accomplished. However, if the man killed in Pakistan was not the real Osama, but a stand-in created and manipulated by intel, he could not be brought to trial without exposing the fraud.You ask “is he telling the truth.” I think he is telling the truth and believes 9/11 was an inside job and that Osama died long before that massacre in Pakistan. However, Piezenik may also believe Sandy Hook never happened. Certainly, he has put out a lot of false info. He also believes that Wikileaks is a real operation, and not some sort of intel dangle. Judging from the evidence, I would assume he remains an undercover spook seeding rabbit holes with time bombs, which means most of what he says can not be trusted.