Group items tagged

asking a little kid 2 change his name is ridiculous. the boy has a right 2 his own name just like any person does

I think asking a young child to change his name just because they think it looks like a gun when its simply his hand sign to represent his name is ridiculous. It is an actual sign to represent his name and is no way a threat to the other children or staff. Kids that little don't even think of things as weapons like that.

that is crazy that they would ask him to change his name just because of a school rule

that is stupid that a school ask a family just to change the kids name just because of a rule, even though the sign is approved by the S.E.E. And the school also does not have the right to ask the parents to change the kids name when it is the parents right to name their own kid.

I personally think the the school is being ridiculous. He's just a kid, he's not gonna know what a gun is.

That's his name, his identity. They have no right to tell him to change it. He's a child and I see no problem with him and his name sign when it's registered and causing no legitimate harm.

This rule seem very unfair. He has already been saying his name this way for three years. He has no other way to communicate, he can only use his hands. Which i think is ridiculous, they don't make hearing (i don't know how else you would describe them) people change how they say their name. It also doesn't seem to represent a gun in any way, in my thoughts, so it should be fine.

I also find it to be unfair because it's his name, so he shouldn't have to learn or make a new name.

My thoughts on the debate is that guns should be more restricted, but not completely disallowed. Ideas like banning bump stocks are very good, but going without due process is a side that isn't good. However, the outrage and protesting about mass shootings like parkland and sandy hook should never become just yesterday news and should be a constant focus, but due to media jumping off issues quickly for ratings, how divisive the issue is among political groups, and the NRA lobbying extremely for gun rights, it is hard to reach any sort of conclusion and compromise,

I do believe that our government did have intentions of wanting to change in order to prevent gun violence, but as time passed, they seem to have little effort now to do anything. Yes, the solution may take a long time for everyone to be on board with, especially to those that support guns, they are now neglecting the idea. From the government's perspective, it seems to be old news to them, but society and civilians are still trying to remind and encourage the White House to make a change.

I think trumps thoughts on arming teacher is a good idea because it would keep schools safe and their students. It would also make the school shootings less likely to happen

I believe that we should ban bump stocks, and raise the age to buy a gun with stricter background checks.

I agree with Sara. It even said in the article that most of Trumps supporters republicans that don't want stricter gun laws. With that being said, he doesn't want to lose those supporters. It also talked about how he was for tightening the laws right after the shooting happened; moving into the idea without really knowing about gun laws. During the luncheon he hosted, he didn't stick to what he had proposed.

I think sadly it has begun to become yesterdays news. At first everyone was outraged and everyone wanted results with plans of walkouts and things like that but as time passes people slowly started talking about it less and the press for change lessened.

agreeing with sarah and dthomas how they had put their attention to it at first but after few days and weeks had passed they had lost the interest to put as much attention to it. They do need to put more attention and change the age to buy an assault rifle as it is as deadly as any other weapon, especially to an 18-year-old. The government risks more lives being taken with more school shootings by people who shouldn't have a weapon in the first place.

This outrage has become slightly a thing of yesterday. I know it's not completely out of people's minds because there is still a lot of local and national talk about the walkouts and movements planned to continue the spread of awareness. In this article it states that Trump had changed his mind on the gun legislation a few weeks following the tragedy. He was all for changing the ages and putting restrictions on the gun laws, but was very quick to change his mind after the media died down on the subject. Most of his supporters, shown in private polls, are not interested in changing the gun laws and legislation because he still wants to hold as many supporters as he can. The outrage seems to be yesterday news because it isn't in the media all the much anymore. I don't think our country has moved on from the tragedy yet because there is still a lot of talk about the national walkouts and the other movements that are being pushed to enforce change in the legislation.

I feel like as the president he should stick with his ideas and support them.Not switch up because hes afraid to upset people.The people voted him in he shouldn't cave because hes scared of the NRA when its our safety he should worry about

I agree with Grace. She right it has become old news which is sad, people should talk more about the safety of people. And like Grace said they plan all these walkouts and stuff but people stopped talking about it which made the press quit talking about it, and if the press isn't talking about it then no one else is. And if no one is talking then there is going to be no change

I think that this news has become "old". Huge amounts of support at first, but the momentum died eventually. The whole conversation is slowly dying because of the realities of politics too. Like one person said in the article, you can just swing a pen around for a bit and give way to legislation. It takes time. But sadly, this topic won't stay around long enough.

When these shooting first happened the government had intentions of taking control of gun violence and preventing these type of events. But after a while their effort to control this has reduced to little or nothing. From the governments perspective they think that it will go away and but the community wants to have the laws change.

I think it's about perspective. a more privileged person can live without this change, they would be fine. But for others, going to college is not an option. Either because they don't have enough money, or they're just too busy with kids and keeping the house for them. Money should be livable. 1000$ a month is great for normal teens who just want some cash, but for people who work to live, 1000$ is not enough. People need to pay bills, hospital bills, food, water, shelter. It's not just "poor people", it everyone who is struggling, which is a lot more than you think.

I feel like its normal all its going to do is up the price to everything making no change besides the price to things

This can have many outcomes but personally, I think it will cause inflation and nothing will change other than the price of items

The idea of raising the minimum wage is a good idea however 15 dollars an hour is a good amount of money which is more likely to raise the cost of living bringing us back to square one.

I think the minimum wage should be raised. The minimum wage in many other countries makes so much more sense, as people can actually live off them. With how low ours is, people are struggling immensely.

I do not think raising the minimum wage is the right move because there are very many small businesses that will not be able to survive also, I believe that this will cause major inflation, making everything more expensive, so overall raising the minimum wage wouldn't be making things any better.

Inflation is making the prices of houses go up anyway regardless of the minimum wage, so we need to make the minimum wage compatible with modern prices. I don't know if I believe it should be 15$ but it should be more than it is now.

i don't think that raising the minimum wage to $15 is necessary, with the way the wage is set up now it give people an incentive to move up in life for a better job better pay. You may work at burger king for $9 an hour, that's not a lot so you want to do better and get a better job that pays 15 an hour but if you start out at 15 there is not really any incentive to move up in life when you can do better and achieve higher for your self and your family

I think it is a good idea to raise the minimum wage because it is pretty low but we should not raise it that much because It could be hard for the smaller businesses

I think raising the minimum wage would only cause a business to increase their prices on products to make up the amount of money they're paying employees so we would just have another problem to deal with.

I think that raising the minimum wage could be good but also bad. I personally think $15 would be too high and somewhere around $9-$11 would be a better option as it is a little low right now. Would raise costs of living but not by too much, and raising the minimum wage already could increase tax revenue. But from the article, it says they aim to increase to $9.25 then $15 by 2025, but I still believe by then it still is a pretty high number and prices of things will increase by a lot.

I think raising the minimum wage will only cost businesses to suffer especially small businesses because they aren't making a lot, to begin with, and businesses will have to raise their prices to make back the money they are losing.

I agree with both Thomas and Amirah we all had the same points and seem to have pretty much the same point of view on the subject.

I feel like if we raise the minimum wage people that worked for the pay they deserved will feel like they did all that for nothing and eventually all the workers will lose their work ethic and we will have worse products. On the other hand people that are already doing subpar work will be getting decent pay for terrible work. This just means there getting rewarded for doing a bad job. Just makes no sense.

I think that raising the minimum wage can be beneficial; for those who are working long days and not making enough to live without help from the government. If we raise the minimum wage, then those who are suffering will able to live a little better.

I think raising the minimum wage would just have a negative effect on smaller businesses and the economy in general. It would be pointless raising the minimum wage because of inflation. Some of you guys are saying the cost of living is currently too high so raising the wage would be a good thing for them. What some of y'all don't understand is that raising the minimum wage will also raise the cost of living.

Raising the minimum wage is a good idea. As the article says it would be over 5 years and there are many cities that have a $15 minimum wage and inflation isn't jacking up prices to an unbearable extent. No matter if the minimum wage was increased inflation will continue to rise and that will just put minimum wage workers in a worse situation with the same amount of money for more expensive food, water, clothes, etc.

It seems better because you have the chance to make more money, but in my opinion all this does is inflate everything else over time.

Raising the minimum wage will cause all businesses who have people working for under $15 an hour to raise their prices on their goods, this would make pretty much everything you buy more expensive like groceries, gas, and everyday necessities more expensive. Also across the US the minimum wage changes so for example Denver CO which is an expensive city to live in already had their minimum wage set at $14.77. There are also small rural towns in Iowa which are cheap to live in so there is no need to have a $15 minimum wage there.

It's not just important for the minimum wage to rise, it's a necessity. In fact, 15$ isn't enough! It's what was asked for years ago, and inflation has changed since then. Our minimum wage has, in fact, fallen over the years due to inflation. Prices won't raise by any significant margin. According to business insider (https://www.businessinsider.com/denmark-mcdonalds-pays-20-hourly-wages-2014-10), we could double the wages of employees, and give them benifits, and the prices of goods would be barely changed. Inflation will increase with or without an increase in the minimum wage, because it has increased in the past few years without one. An increase in the minimum wage would help people buy more. Finally, the idea that prices *have* to go up is bull. Nothing *has* to happen. McDonalds doesn't *have* to raise prices if wages were increased, because they would still make a massive profit, just not as absurd of one as they make now.

I believe if they raise the minimum wage they would need to increase every job as well,for example if you make above $15 and hour you would need to raise your wage as well. This would need to be done over the course of years however. We can't raise it all in such a small amount of time.

Brandon, according to your source, McDonald's "has warned that wage increases would force franchisees to raise menu prices." Also, I have read your article and have failed to find the spot where it says that after wages have been doubled and employees have been given extra benefits that prices of goods wouldn't change. It was comparing Denmark to the US when Denmark was one of the most expensive places to live in the world so it would also not be fair or accurate to compare them.

I think this will affect different groups differently. with people who never had money problem's not really being affected by this, and those who have will be greatly affected because of the change in income.

What I think is that it is good and I think it is bad in a way because if we raise the minimum wage to $15 and hour we would most likely have to raise the good paying jobs as well, and I want to think it is good because for the people who do only make minimum wage right now they would be able to afford more and be able to live better and not have to worry as much but then again, I think that would raise the prices to live and its would just be a big loop coming back to this.

We should increase minimum wave because those who have money problems or are in debt will be ebal to get back on their feet quicker and with less help.

It would seem useless to a lot of people, but I kinda see it as an opportunity for teens who are saving money for the future. With that additional money, a teen can save much more than they usually do. The minimum wage might not help people who are struggling to get by, but for teens, it would be a nice boost.

I think raising the minimum wage is a good idea because as of right now the minimum wage isn't a livable wage. The cost of living along with inflation has been rising consistently but the minimum wage hasn't changed in a very long time. So as of now, even the richest companies have no incentive to raise wages. Forcing them to raise their wages is really the only solution to cut into the massive wealth difference between the upperclass and the lower middle class.

i think we should raise minimum wage because even now its a lot more common for teens to be left on their own to buy things they need. some teens have more responsibilities than others and the current minimum wage does next to nothing in terms of help. i know tons of people in the same situation as me where they are struggling to buy things for their children while paying other bills because the highest paying job theyre able to get is still only $11 an hour. i just think minimum wage needs to be changed to reflect current situations in america.

The minimum wage isn't enough to live on right now, and with inflation being an economic factor the price of living with follow the phasing in of a $15 minimum wage. We don't need to keep on raising the minimum wage, but instead work on lowering the cost of living.

I think we should definitely raise the minimum wage. If we raise it students can put more into savings and prepare themselves for the world. If a student makes 15 dollars an hour, works 18 hours a week, and puts half of it away for 2 years they will have $12,312 dollars after taxes. This can cover everything a graduate needs to keep on their feet for a good half-year.

I think we should raise the minimum raise to $15 dollars because $7 dollars isn't enough to help others that have a big family in their house.

I think that it is time for the Supreme Court to rule on this issue. This is an issue that is important to a minority group that has never really been ruled on by the Supreme Court. I personally want to see how the Court applies the Loving v. Virginia case to one or all of the cases they may hear. I just don't expect anything until after the election in November because it has become an important issue this election cycle. Payton I don't think that the Supreme Court could end same-sex marriage. Marriage licenses are left up to each individual state and I can't imagine any possible outcome that would result in the Supreme Court taking away a State's right to issue a marriage license to whoever they want to grant a license to. I can see them saying there is no right to marry at the federal level or that the Federal Government doesn't have to recognize same-sex marriages but I don't see them telling states that they can't issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple if the state wants to.

Jeremy, what I am saying is that same sex marriage, if ruled against, will have almost no chance of reversing the choice for a very long time. Based upon our constitutional values though, I doubt that they will rule in favor of those that oppose same sex marriage though.

I'm still like . . . trying to figure out why exactly some people hate the idea of gay marriage so much and want to make sure that it's not legal. I mean, even if it's for religious reasons, like their religion doesn't support gays and lesbians, it's not like they would be getting married in their church or that they even want to. It doesn't affect those against gay marriage at all. It really only affects gays and lesbians and it makes them happy.

I think whatever the outcome and effects of the ruling will be a new direction in our lives as Americans. I'm interested in how this will effect us in the future.

http://gaymarriage.procon.org/ I know I got a little confused about why some people think same sex marriage marriage is bad and I found this to be very helpful in understanding it.

I, myself, do not agree with gay marriage, or being gay at all. But that is my personal beliefs. I don't want people to try to tell me that I'm wrong, because I'm not saying I am right. I know this is a big issue in the U.S and it does need to be addressed, but I do think it is more of a state issue. As for gay marriage, it will probably be passed to be legal, and that's fine because it really doesn't affect me, I am straight. But from a conservative viewpoint, here is why some don't agree with gay marriage, not just because of religion. It is because it defeats the whole sacredness marriage was and still is meant to be. To me it is for man and wife. Not man and man or woman and woman. I am not intending to offend anyone at all, if someone wants to be gay, then be gay. I will not discriminate, I just will not support it, because I don't agree with it.

You do realize that times have changed, right? And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights. Honestly, unless you're white, straight, and male, you haven't really gotten rights until sometime in the late 19th /20th century, and for some in the 21st century. Also, how would a homosexual relationship ruin the sacredness of marriage? When you really consider it, marriage isn't all that sacred, especially these days because there's money and materialism involved, and then of course sex too. Of course, sex is okay so long as you're married, but if you're not married and you've had sex, it's considered immoral, according to society. And even though people these days marry for love, those things are still involved in it. And if marriage is sacred, then why are divorces allowed? Aren't sacred things supposed to be protected no matter what? Divorce obviously doesn't protect marriage. It just ends marriages. If marriage was considered sacred then divorces wouldn't be allowed, and divorce is necessary at times.

I think that if a man and a woman hate each other but still have more rights to get married than two homosexuals who actually love each other, then we should definitely legalize it!

Whoa, I never said anything about the roles of men and women, sex or divorce. I was stating my opinion on gay marriage, and I will continue to do so in this comment. Again, not intended to offend anyone, just my take on what I think about gay marriage and being gay in general. Kirstina, you just proved my point for me that being gay isn't right by saying it depends on how people are raised that changes how they will be like when their older. So are the way people are raised now, affecting if they are gay or straight? If someone were told tell me that people are born gay, I would say they are wrong. (I'm bringing this up because that is probably what you and many viewers believe) Here's why, when you're a little kid, you don't think about which gender you like. You think about having friends with whoever and don't even know about how to take friendship further than that, as a child. There is no gene in your body that makes you gay.Plus, no one that says they're gay, knows until they are teens or older. That is because they observe how others are, think about how they are treated by the opposite gender and make their decision. And why are there all of the sudden so many gay people? Why weren't there any back then? Not because it wasn't allowed, because it wasn't not allowed, it was just unheard of. It's (to me) because it isn't natural. It is a life CHOICE that people have made for their OWN reasons. Some for attention, some to fit in, some because they can't find someone of the opposite sex that is interested in them and some for reasons I don't know. People are put on this Earth to make more people, just like animals are here to live, provide for people and make more animals. Two men or two women physically cannot make more people. Man and man and woman and woman are not meant to be together. What is and/or was meant to be can't change. Because whatever is meant to be is just meant to be and you can't change that, no matter what time in history it is. Gay marriage d

Gay marriage does ruin the sacredness of marriage because a married couples are supposed to stay together, reproduce, carry on the human race, and be a happy family. I know, sounds a little far fetched in this modern day, but if America could go back to that, this country would be so much better off. I'm not saying divorces don't happen, or are wrong because my parents are divorces and my mom is remarried and that doesn't make them bad people. But I am saying that they made a mistake somewhere and did, in turn affect the sacredness of marriage. Divorces should not be illegal, but people should think twice before getting married. Also, I'm not trying to squash the dreams of gay couples, or tell anyone that I'm right and their wrong, that is not my intention.

Alex I would just like to point out a few things you may have over looked or may not have known. The first thing is that there aren't "all of the sudden so many gay people?" There have been homosexual and bisexual people throughout history. One example is the first gay couple to be joined by Civil Union in the world, in Denmark, in 1989 and had been in a relationship 40 years prior to their Union. The reason we don't hear much about homosexuality in history is because it used to be a crime that if found guilty of being homosexual you could be put to death or thrown in jail for it (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has more information on this particular subject). It is reasonable, then, to believe that homosexuals would keep their homosexuality to themselves as to protect themselves from violence. Another thing you seem to overlook is that there are heterosexual couples who "physically cannot make more people," for one reason or another without using alternative methods such as surrogates and/or in vitro fertilization. that still enjoy the benefits and legal aspects (such as inheritance and the right to hospital visits and end of life decisions for their spouse) of marriage. These same options are also available for Same-Sex couples and they have the option to have children that are the biologic child of one of the parents just like families where one of the parents is infertile. Homosexual behaviors have also been observed in natural populations in a large number of other animals have shown homosexual behaviors while observed in their natural habitats and also in unnatural locations such as zoos. So to say that homosexuality is unnatural ignores that these observations have been made in the "natural" world. The finial thing that you brought up was about when people form, or in your words "choose", their sexuality. The American Psychological Association says that a persons sexual orientation can start to form in middle childhood and early adolescence a

Alex . . . you totally missed my point with me saying how people used to be raised. This is what I said: "And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights." I was merely giving that as an example of how times have changed and how things have changed. If women and nonwhite races can get rights over time, then why can't homosexual people? That doesn't seem fair. Marriage has now become a legal thing, and even if you don't want to, you have to accept it as it is - a legal thing that's nowhere near sacred. So what's so bad about gays having the the same legal rights to get married and all the legal things that come with it? Also, at dinner tonight, my dad told me that marriage used to be a property thing. Women/wives used to be considered property and not human beings. African Americans became slaves of the American white people, and therefore were also property. Now slavery is illegal, and marriage happens between two people who love each other and are willing/want to be legally bound. Also, therefore marriage has never been sacred. I also agree wholeheartedly with what Jeremy said.

Guys, Alex gave her opinion, she even said in her that is her personal belief, and that she didn't want anyone trying to tell her that she was wrong. She stated her opinion, you don't have to kill her through a website, It is her opinion, lay off.....

I think that Jill Stein is just having the recount to be able to raise money so that she can donate it to her own campaign if she decides to run in the next election.

I feel like Jill Stein is just using this for farther popularity and to help with her campaign if she ever decided to run for president.

She has a right to do this since this country thrives on our freedom. I don't think she should be suing states just because she wants a recount though. If a state doesn't want to vote again isn't that also in our rights? I don't know what all of Jill Steins motives are and though I disagree with her, she still has the right to ask for a recount however the turnout will be.

Whatever her reasons for fighting for a recount are, she is gaining attention. Whether the recount comes out how she wants it to or not, Stein will have benefited. That being said it's understandable why she feels the need to raise money for it.

Donald Trump denounced the Stein recount effort as "ridiculous" and "a scam." and I disagree with what he said. It is not a scam because she is using the donations for how much the recount will cost.

I agree with Landon, I also think though she will give it to other charity,but use it as popularity.

I believe that Jill Stein has the right to demand a recount and has good intentions for such sudject, but I also belive that when it all follows through, that it will not change anything for the future.

"By continuing to raise money, she is building up a larger donor list that she can later turn to if she runs again." I think that even though she didn't win, it's a good opportunity to help her in other ways. I also think its a good idea because she'll then have a backup if she runs again.

The article said that she would donate all excess donations to election reform systems, weather or not this turns out to be true remains to be seen. Regardless the changes would be considered extremely important by many of today's voters who think that the electoral college ruins democracy and therefore don't vote. If the election recount doesn't result in evidence of fraud or tampering, then the excess money should be put to good use regardless.

I think that jill Stein is gonna earn all this money for the next upcoming election . She is going to donate the money to her election fund.

I agree with Landon as well because I feel like she just wants the attention and to gain the money

I agree with Lauren because she shouldn't be suing states because they don't want to do a recount, it's our choice if we do our not. We picked who we wanted and that's who we got she's just using this for publicity and to help her if she runs again.

Jill Stein has the right to a recount whether shes in it for the money or not, shes someone who can afford and has the power to do so opposed to some citizens who want to have a recount but obviously don't have that kind of money or power. If she does prove the voting ballets wrong after to recount, she will not only have gotten Hillary president, but she is going to increase her popularity for her own benefit in the future. Even if she doesn't achieve her goal she will have gained attention in some sort of way.

I agree with Landon. I also think she is having this recount to get attention.

I agree with Landon and Lauren, she's gaining attention for herself and it's not right for her to try and sue states because they don't want to recount.

Jill Stein is just doing it for more publicity so when or if she runs again in 2020 it will make her look better and be the more popular vote

I agree with Faith, because if she wants to run again, she is already sorta popular, and will have more attention drawn to her than she does now, ans she may be a candidate with the media partially on her side.

I think Jill Stein is just using this to raise money for herself and her party and once they get enough, they'll drop the whole thing and use the money for other reasons. Her reasons for a recount are idiotic and it will prove that Donald Trump won the election fair and square.

This is pretty cool. Even if the end result does not chance the ability to call for a recount is cool to me, it allows for total certainty in the voting process and gives Jill stein a potential platform for the next election. Assuming she runs as a third party all the publicity she can gain to validate a 3rd party is a positive.

I think Jill Stein is just doing this to get people to notice her.

I understand why she is doing it however it is a choice and could what she is doing reflect her reaction to who won? her intentions may be more to change who won rather than seeing if the votes are justified

Jill Stein has the right to call for a recount if she wants to. People amuse too quickly that she is only in it for her self. And yes, while doing so will give her some sort of an advantage in one way or another, she is doing this to show once and for all who won the election. If this happens, it could change who are president will be.

delanie hi and i agree

I think that the election is over and Jill Stein should just leave it alone.

This is not even worth it, because Trump won fair. Jill is just like Hillary. Sure she has the right to do so, but its not going to do anything Trump won deal with it america!.

I don't know anything about this election, but I think that if she wants to keep doing this more power to her, I don't think that it will change anything. I partly think she is doing this for attention and to get herself known so that she may be able to move up in her career eventually, but I think she knows that the recount won't matter.

I think it is pointless to even try and it won't change the outcome.

She has the right to do this but I think the election is over and it wouldn't change anything

I agree that Jill has the right to call for a recount. I really hope that in doing that she is using her power for good, and standing up for what she believes in rather than to get attention. If she's fighting for what she believes in, then you go girl!

I think that she is raising money for her own benefit, because even if she gets enough for a recount it wont change anything.

This student's name is Zach Wahls and this was a very powerful speech. Here is another link for the story with some more details http://goo.gl/LfiKK . I also know that he did a reddit AMA recently but I can't find a link right now.

"marriage- ... 3) an intimate or close union" i think that if you asked a random person on the street what they thought marriage was this would be close to what they said, so why WOULD we be against it?

If they are together the same as a man and a women are, why shouldn't they get the same benefits? I mean their relationships generally last longer then "legitimate" marriages so why shouldn't they be treated the same? By not allowing them to get married, are you doing anything? Besides denying them the benefits of that little piece of paper...such as lower insurance rates, higher health benefits, what happens if their partner dies? Then simply because they weren't ALLOWED to be married, the living partner does not get their belongings unless it is in the written will, they wont get any of the insurance money because that only goes to family, so if they are just "dating" they don't get any money to help them through the hard times...I think they should allow same sex marriage simply because if they are going to be together whether or not you allow them to get married, they should get the same benefits as everyone else.

I don't mean to start a fight or anything like that, I just don't think it's right in the biblical sense. I am very close minded about this topic, and can't seem to change and I don't plan on it. I can see where people come from, but I bet some of those people don't believe in God, or the bible. It even states it in the bible that is wrong.

I am glad to see opinions on both side of this issue in the comments. Discussion groups like these can easily turn into arguments with little information on either side. Thanks for being respectful in your comments! To continue the discussion, Americans are almost equally divided on gay marriage. Here is the most recent poll data to see how we have changed our opinion since 1996... http://goo.gl/BFKIo

I don't think that religion can play a part in what marriage is in today's world. Marriage now in the eyes of our government is a way for 2 people to share benefits that the government gives them.

casue it sthe same sex it shold not be

this is a hard question to answer. I believe very strongly that gays have the right to be together and form a union, so i think that marriage is all well and good, but there is another issue. No matter what the dictionary says what the definition of marriage is, it doesn't take superiority over the bibles definition, which clearly states marriage is only to be formed between a man and a woman. Some say that the bible was not very clear on that, and that it is up for debate, but if one looks at leviticus 18:22 it states "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I don't think it is abominations, but the concept of christianity, and judaism does, which is where it gets tricky. Does the government have the right to force the church to do things against their belief such as allowing gays and lesbians to marry? quite frankly i don't think so. Its not like the pope can just say, hey gays are ok now. It would be blasphemous. the only way gays would be allowed is if God himself came down from heaven and made it publicly known that he has changed his mind on the concept. If i was lets say jewish and had my own resteraunt, and i didn't serve pork due to my belief that pork was a dirty meat, would you go to the mayor and convince him to force me to change my rule even though its against my religion, and causes the lord to look down on me with disdain? I dont think you would because its preposterous. So i believe we need to meet in the middle. Make a union that gives gays all the same rights and privileges as regular marriage, but make it a different term than marriage, or at least make it known that the church is not ordaining it. The trick is not to force people to do things against their will, but to find new methods to do things so that we can all co exist without such petty argument.

I just think people come up with poor excuses for gay marriage not to eligible..

they do, but many people are scared of change. its going to change i believe, but its going to take time.

I think that if a gay couple want to be want to be married, why can't they? There isn't a negative effect of a gay marriage, and you can see from the young man in this video that they can be just the same as a straight marriage. Infact I think that man was in more successful than any of us coming from opposite sex parents would be at that age. I also think that they provide a better family life for their children as well. His family seemed alot closer than most families today. So theres no reason a gay couple can't be married. Sure you can say that its wrong because its against Gods will and all, but being gay isnt a choice. Its who you are. God created man, and if being gay is really as terrible as they say it is, then God wouldnt have made them gay. And to the guy who says people that are for gay marriage aren't christian or don't belive in God, guess what? I go to church, believe in God, and I am for gay marriage. Who's to say that gay people can't have the same rights as straight people? The only difference is the gender we prefer. Why should gay marriage be outlawed and ridiculed? Where has prejudice ever gotten us?

I do not think religion has anything to do with marriage. After all atheists can get married can't they? Also if you have read the entire bible there are more things that god has said is wrong then gays, and i guarantee everybody has done something god has said is a sin. It is up to the people getting married whether they want their marriage to be religious or not. If we let religion be a part of our everyday lives we would go insane with all of the "rules" the bible states. Who is to say that gays shouldn't have the right to get married? If that is the case then maybe we should limit what straights can do.

Dakota, If you look at Americas past there has always been prejudice. And in the end it united America. Look at the way people treated colored folk, or women for that example. There has always been prejudice in the past and there will always be in the future. People are going to voice their opinions no matter how ignorant or naive they are.

I am against gay marraige but I also think that people have the right to chose what they want. they can make their own choices and I will make mine. I have friends that are gay and I have no problems with them or the way they act. I may not like it but im not going to hate them for it.

i actually have read the whole bible, and i spent 7 years of my life in a private christian school. it doesn't matter if you stole an orange or killed a man, a sin is a sin. what you dont understand is that god weighs all sins the same, and quite frankly if i really should tell the truth gay people are going to burn in a pit, just as that guy with the orange will if they dont change their ways and repent. The church is like a private club, and they say gays cant marry. end of story. they dont care if your not christian, they care about anatomy. anything else people want to ask questions about so i can answer them? or how about making false statements i can shoot down? listen unless we find an alternate to marriage, we should not and i will not stand up for gay marriage. perhaps if it was termed differently and done done in the name of god, i would just say more power to them. no matter how much you want to, you cant change the laws in the bible and call them legitimate.

"broxton anderson " so your saying that the homosexuals need their own form of union instead of marriage? I thought that most marriages were now legal constructs with religious ceremonies being a personal choice? Does anyone else think this touches on separation of church and government? Should there be a true separation between the phrases "civil union" and "marriage" or is there already and some of us just can't see it yet?

From a biblical point of view God made women for man and man for women, not man for man and women for women! #RealTalk

yes it should be a "true separation" that way it removes itself from religion which leaves religions no room to complain. I feel that a civil union should give ALL the same benefits as marriage to. must people truly complain so much over two words? its the same thing, just a different name, and can prevent millions of wasted arguments.

for those of you that say it is wrong according to the Bible, what happens if you were gay? It's not like you can change how you feel...and if "God" created all people "equal" why shouldn't they actually be treated equal? And i honestly think that simply because gays are the minority, they are being picked on...it's wrong...so why would "God create" people just to send to the deep south? ...just a thought

Broxton Anderson- You have read the bible, yet you chose to use the most uncredible source in the bible. Using Leviticus is ridiculous. Leviticus also states that it is okay to own slaves and that if one performs the act of beastiality, that person is to be murdered and so shall the animal. It also states that you may not speak to a women on her menstrual cycle and it is also forbidden to touch pig skin and for men to cut their hair. You are completely fine with ignoring these very radical notions, but when it comes to gay marriage you instantly are against it? Seems to me like there is a lot of hypocrisy in your ways. I am a Catholic, but I fully accept the institution of gay marriage. I myself am not gay, nor do I plan on becoming gay. Leviticus is outdated and does not apply to our modern lives. Do not pick apart the bible and try to sound as if you know the way people should be. Anyone can misquote the bible. If you have a problem with homosexuals, keep it to yourself. They have just as much rights as everyone else in this world and should not be denied rights such as being married. A few men who disliked gay people have started this constant circle of quoting Leviticus in order to make their way sound just. If anything, they are doing more wrong by corrupting the bible to use it to justify their personal views.

Same goes to Jay Cook. Talking on something you do not understand, or even researched, makes you arrogant and naive. If you are so fine with not allowing gays to be married, then you should be put back into slavery. Fair trade, yes? From a biblical view?

I compltely agree with you^ Most people that are against gay marriage claim to say they are against it mostly because its against the bible while over half of them have no idea what they are talking about and likly havent read the bible. I think people should be able to marry who they wish the gender should not matter.

It's too bad the bible is a bunch of tall tales exaggerated, can't trust religion for anything, it's a petty excuse for any argument.

From an evolutionary stand point homosexual relations don't have an impact other then thinning the human gene pool. Not that I'm against gay rights, but since everyone dismisses religion I thought it would be important to note that in the commonly held belief of evolution, unless a person has offspring, it's as if never existed. Just some food for thought...

Obviously what he is saying that from the stand point of evolution. He wasn't saying the homosexuals provide nothing to their societies.

If you think about it the bible states go forth and populate, and that's the premise of evolution....

Yeah thats a good point but maybe thinning the human population isnt all a bad thing. Also have you even considered how many children gay people adopted from other countris and places were they probably would have not had a good chance in living a good long heaalthy life. I dont understand how people can be so one minded about things. What if you were gay and wanted to marry a person you loved and you couldnt because judgmental people didnt approve?

I'm cool with gays as long as they don't try and make a move on me.

I agree with Brittany, everyone as a human being has their rights

i totally agree with riley its peoples life and they have their own rights

They should take into consideration how well the teacher is doing at helping students get feedback and help, some teachers are not doing their part when students ask for help. Both students and teachers have to be working hard to communicate effectively and if one falls out it could cause students to flop more

Learning at home is not fun at all. Some teachers try and incorporate students at home, but then the students do not comply, but then some teachers don't even involve the students at home. It is extremely hard to stay focused at home when there are many distractions at home. I am not surprised at all by this statistic because we need to be in school. They need to shut down bars and restaurants before they even consider shutting down schools.

Learning online is much more difficult than in person. It's harder to stay focused. It's harder to keep up when most teachers focus only on the students who are in the classroom. Although I still think we should continue to keep A-F grades because some colleges aren't accepting pass/fail, and pass/fail affects your GPA.

I dont think we should change the A-F grading system, but I do think we should change either the curriculum or be more understanding and lax on the grading scale

i dont think we should change the a-f grades but i do think that we should change how are curriculum is or we should start being more flexible both teacher and students towards assignments i think we should be more open because this is all knew to us

I have noticed that online school is much more difficult than in person. Its hard to stay motivated and get all of your work get done. I feel like the teachers should try to include the online students a little bit more than they do. It will help keep everyone engaged and learning the things that they need too. I think there should still be an A-F format but maybe make it a little bit easier to take some stress of of students.

I think that the way that grades are being made is becoming more unfair, The way people get grades is based off of assignments instead of actually knowing the stuff, it is based on memorizing instead of learning. There shouldn't be an A-F, there should be a pass or fail based on knowledge, not assignments.

I think that doing work online is much harder than in person because I think I lose motivation to really do anything because some teachers feel like we are not really there and ignore us. I think we should still have A-F's because they are good but I wish the grades were curved a little because of these hard times.

Online school has its setbacks, but I feel like it's manageable. School has been relatively the same despite the setbacks, and I appreciate our teachers not giving us an overabundance of work to do. And the work they do give us helps with class. I feared that this year would be hard because everyone said the junior year is the hardest, but this has been like any other year.

I agree, with Michael, I thought this year was going to be really hard too, but I think the teachers have done a good job helping students when they need it, and have layed off on homework. Although it is hard to do online work, it is managable like Michael said.

I believe in our grading system, but for the pandemic there need to be some changes. This year has been a crazy rollercoaster and because of that, I think we need to slow down and take a step back. The school needs to lighten up on assignments and focus more on if everyone is understanding the material.

I never have F's but this year was my first year failing a class and I feel like online school is definitely one reason why, I don't even know what I'm doing in that class tbh. some teachers just don't do good enough to help us learn at home.

I think that this year just hasn't been great for school and I hope that colleges understand this year and the grades that come along with it.

I have learned that online school can be quite difficult for some people. The grading system should at least be altered to help students keep up.

I definitely think that this year has been hard, especially with school and the stress of being virtual. But I think teachers have done a really good job of trying to help students and try to be interactive with the online students (In my case at least,). We should keep our grading system, and maybe we could improve on being more flexible with grading.

I think that we should still have A-Fs. I do think that because of the pandemic there should be some changes, but I think that we need to have A-Fs especially for the kids who worked hard to get good grades it wouldn't be fair to them for trying hard and not getting credit.

I think that having A-Fs are still a good idea, but we need to be adaptable in what it means to earn these grades. Stress and anxiety have been really hard this year and it wears on not only students but teachers as well. Teachers have been really trying to help their students and we should appreciate that.

I think we should still have A-Fs. The pandemic doesn't need to change every aspect of our life. Personally, I had no issue learning at home and most people are simply using it as an excuse to slack off.

Its harder for students to ask questions when online making it harder to understand questions

i think that we should continue with the A-F grading scale. the pandemic doesn't really give you a whole lot of excuses. i mean i had some trouble doing some assignments because it was a little bit harder to do things at home without being able to freely ask questions

I think that we should still have A-Fs still. Teachers just need to be more considerate of things going on at home for students and how much students are struggling this year.

I think that from the physiological stand point this court case makes seance. How ever I think that our tax dollars should not be used to make this medical procedure happen.

This is a very odd case to say the least. This prison inmate is at 13x the risk of a sexual assault as the average inmate. So, the question is, is the protection of a near-insane murder worth tax payer dollars? I don't think so, but something has to be done about the inmates safety, perhaps being placed alone, or with people of the preferred gender of the inmate? In the event of tax payers paying, is it really that much? The government comes up with about $2,650 billion yearly from income tax alone. To add on, it is really not that often that this expensive of a situation arises. Is it really that big of a deal for something that almost never happens, but may help someone in the near future?

This may be what's "best" for the inmate, but he/she (no offense intended, I just don't know what to call them) murdered someone. Don't you think that a murderer should in some way "pay" for what they've done. They don't deserve the best, but they also don't deserve to be sexually assaulted. Also, tax payer dollars should not go towards things like this, that money is for the betterment of the community and/or the country. To fix the sexual harassment problem, the inmate should be put somewhere alone. Yet, another question rises, what about all the other inmates (male or female) who are sexually assaulted? We can't worry about them all, plus they're in there for a reason, they don't deserve tax money to go towards protecting them whenever they put others in danger that led them to be in prison. So, the answer is no, it's not worth it. It's not tax payer's problem.

if this person wanted to become a women then wouldn't they prefer men? which means that if they are 13 times the risk, wouldn't that be a good thing since they like guys? well if it was a rape then i understand but there are sometimes in prison when it isn't a rape or sexual assault, both want to do it. in that case that person should consider themselves lucky to be around guys all the time.

haha what if this dude was just really straight and thought that if he gets a sex change that he will be placed with da lady's so he wouldn't be around all da dudes n stuff .

I agree with Payton just place her alone if its for her safety. If its for her mental condition send her to a prison mental health facility.

I just don't understand how a PRISON INMATE is allowed that luxury of sex change surgery. Especially considering the price and how much it really is causing taxpayers

i am so glad biden is looking into and wanting to clean energy, carbon neutrality by the middle of the century, and massive federal investment to drive these changes. i think that is great and we need change is this environment

I think that it is a good thing Biden is going to rejoin the Paris climate agreement again. It will only help this country become cleaner.

I know it is their culture to where a hijab but the woman should get freedom. They shouldn't be forced to wear the hijab all the time in public. It's a disgrace towards women. What she did was her belief and I think other women in Saudi Arabia don't want to wear their hijab all the time but they are too afraid of what will happen to them. Now that she has done it maybe other women will follow in her footsteps.

I understand that wearing the hijab is important to this religion and this country, but isn't it going a little far by arresting her? What they are trying to prove is that the country has a power of fear over it's citizens, mostly it's women citizens. This shows the importance of how religion and state should be separate because if it was, she wouldn't have gotten arrested.

I agree with Landon now that she took off her hijab maybe other women will follow in her footsteps

I agree with Landon because, the woman shouldn't have to wear something they don't want to wear all the time.

Nobody should be told what to believe or how to dress. This woman was simply expressing herself but was arrested for moral disagreements.

Landon got it right by saying she should get the freedom to wear whatever. And no woman or man should be disgraced by what they wear

I agree with Lauren on that people should have the freedom to dress how they want

I agree with Lauren. The women should express herself in anyway she wants.

This seems nuts. Like a spoof of middle eastern living on youtube. Does not seem real that a lady would be threatened with death and imprisoned for wearing a dress and coat. this is very different from my reality. I obviously think she should wear what she wants, it think the real issue is understanding that there is a large number of people that do not feel the same way.

She should have the freedom to dress how she wants and maybe others will follow her by dressing how they want.

I think she is brave to stand up for what she believes in, many women there are too scared to throw out the head scarfs and put on something that they feel nice in. I think she should be let free and allowed to wear whatever. There is no legal dress code there it's just considered taboo which is wrong.

I agree with Landon because this woman is now facing death all because she wanted to make a statement for women.

Unfortunately for the Arabic culture this is illegal and is shamed. With our culture this would be welcomed because people are allowed to show their skin, but with them its shamed and its not going to change.

I think it is unfair, sexist, and probably uncomfortable for the women. (Besides the constant torture, rape, imprisonment, etc etc that happens in saudi) they are being punished for wanting to be equal and expressing themselves.

I think that the woman is trying to promote change however she did not do it in the right way. Her actions were wrong because if its just her doing it than it won't have as much of an impact as it would if 20 or more did it. However if she really wanted to not wear them than can she just move to a different place so she can. I will admit arresting her is silly and doesn't solve anything, it could promote not wearing them by arresting her if you think about it.

I agree with Kim that she's trying to promote change, but I also understand that there are morals that the country believes women should follow. Instead of just her breaking the moral she should have gotten other women to join so there would have been more of an impact and something could have changed.

I think that even though it does not seem right, that is what the country believes and she knew that something was going to happen.

I think it's her freedom to dress how she wants and she shouldn't be forced to wear the hijab

I think that people have the right and free from what they want to wear only that it is not inappropriate to offend people depending also if they are in a place such as black people or other people of different ideologies and have some message discriminating That is a different way but for the rest, there is always freedom of expression and of being able to dress as one always wants and when one does not in a bad way.

Well then, If it started that way, why would we change it? That's like changing McDonald's from fast food to a fancy italian resturant

It is interesting that the pledge has been changed before... the "under God" part wasnt added until the 1950's http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

I don't think its discrimination. Because it's saying that God doesn't love gay people but that's quite opposite. Well that's what I believe anyway. I think we should leave the pledge the way it is because of tradition.

america isn't all forced religion country so i can see why under god could upset people but it isn't that big of a deal

It shouldn't matter that is not "forcing a religion" on to someone. Kids don't really think about the meaning of words that they repeat everyday.

i think its unnecessary to change it because its a free counrty you dont even have to say the pledge, also it doesnt say a certain god, just gid so that can mean any god you believe in

I personally think that arming teacher would be a huge risk but yet could be a life-saving moment. Just think about it if a student would happen to go crazy in our school they would know that every teacher is armed with a gun so they'll do anything to get a gun from a teacher but yet if they tried anything a teacher could end up saving kids lives. I'm kind of in the middle. Also not selling guns to teenagers I mean that's crazy look what happened in Florida!!! I wouldn't want that to happen in our school. Checking their background and mental state I agree on, I just don't understand why this world and this generation needs to be holding guns to protect themselves I mean that's sad.

I think that arming teachers would be a great idea, but schools shouldn't feel this unsafe. I believe that this outrage has kind of became yesterdays news the first couple of weeks there were a lot of controversy but has died down for the past 2 weeks. Solutions are hard to reach because not everyone agrees on one solution so whatever the government decides to do not everyone will be happy with the end result. I think that everyone should just be happy that the government is trying to solve this problem and they shouldn't freak out until they see a change.

I believe there needs to be more limitations to those that obtain guns. Guns have become an unnecessary evil that many have taken advantage of greatly. The outrage has not yet become "yesterday's news" because many are still fighting and protesting for more effective gun laws. Many survivors from the Parkland shooting are coming forward and sharing their stories about the actions that took place inside their school and how horrifying the event was. They are still coming forward and still fighting to show everyone what it is like from their perspective. The politics of this issue make solutions difficult to reach because they many times propose an idea to prevent conflict in the future, but they do not follow through with the potential idea.

I think that even if we try to have teachers have guns in school it will be a major problem. I think some teachers will be against it and students will be scared to come to school knowing their teachers have guns. I think the only thing schools can do to prevent this from happening is better security like more officers at the schools. The Parkland shooting won't be yesterdays news because many people are affected by this.

Its very easy to get a gun. Guns should be legal just stricter tests and background checks.

I feel that increasing the minimum age to buy firearms isn't really gonna make a change in what is happening because I feel that people are still going to find a way to get this firearm. i feel that politics are making this difficult because everyone has there own opinion on what to do and how it should be done. but this isn't something that should become "yesterday's news" we should be figuring out ways to make the school the safest it can be

Honestly, I don't think we need teachers with guns, that is taking it a little too far, like that if they hit the wrong person or get angry at a kid and lose it and kill or injure a kid. I think we just need to have better protection in schools, and also we need to be aware of signs before things happen. Most times when there is a shooter they end up posting about it before it happens or will show signs that they might do it, and we just brush it off when we should be focused and do investigations if someone is on facebook bragging saying they are going to do it. We also need to have better plans for when a shooter does come, instead of sitting in a corner and hoping they don't come to you, we should figure out how to get out or something else instead of being sitting ducks.

I don't really have a side that I'm 100% for I think no matter what happens there is always going to be someone who isn't happy which is going to lead to more conflicts.

I think there should be some way to check mental health before buying a gun and stronger background checks. Maybe arm a few teachers that are capable that way its almost as if you have another cop in the school. I belive they need to find a compromise to make everyone happy and stay safe.

I do think that students and their families shouldn't feel unsafe while going to school so I think that schools should either have more armed security or teachers should have guns. I do think this is kind of dying down and it isn't being talked about as much as it was 2 weeks ago.

So... solve the problems of gun violence... with more guns? This is the White House's big plan. Because we have a Conservative cabinet, they do not support putting more restrictions on guns. This is why there is such a big debate. Others want more restrictions so this does not happen.

I believe that there are many causes of a school shooting and because there are so many aspects to it, it then becomes difficult to fix. Sure you can make the buying age older but, then they will resort to other weapons which would just put a band-aid on the problem. Maybe more security would work? In the Flordia school shooting, there was a police officer there, there was protection but, somehow it still happened. I 100% believe that something needs to be done but, it's going to need to be more than just 1 thing that changes.

Arming teachers is not a good idea, people who have witness school shootings do NOT want to see more guns in their school. Kids want to feel save in school.

I think we just need better protection in schools and we must also be aware of the signs before things happen.

I agree with limiting the ability to have guns. the parkland shooting will never be yesterdays news, its important to know about it so there can be prevention from this happening again. There are way more shootings going on around the world everyday that not as big as the mass shooting, but to just know that people are getting shot back to back because of the unnecessary presents of guns, that frightening and shows that we need a change. I also think teachers should NOT have access to guns. People may think they have the ability to carry guns, and believe that they can be smart with them, but i disagree.

I think arming teacher would be a great idea, but like most people are commenting kids and teachers should not feel this unsafe in a school building. I think more security on schools is required to make teens and children safer. Yes, raising the gun purchase would help, but there is always still a way for people to get their hands on a weapon if they wanted to do harm to others. In the end, there are too many crazy and unsafe people out there and I think if they wanted to damage they could find a way I think the ultimate solutions are taking more precautions at schools.

I agree with Taylor Nickerson, guns should be more restricted since they have become more dangerous than they should be. Nobody should feel unsafe going to school, or anywhere really. You're supposed to feel safe at school, with others. Guns and weapons as deadly as these shouldn't be so accessible, or easy to get. They should have a higher age restriction and make sure that they're going to use them properly and not going to harm others.

i think the government shoulf take care of these things before it get out of hand and people get hurt. to them it take people dying or having a tragic thing happens for them to take initiative to do something about it. for example like sucide theres no posters up right now it there but then a week later someone commitis and then thats what is covering the walls poster after poster about bullying can lead to death. sucied pervention. stop things early

I honestly think it would be a huge risk to arm teachers with guns but it could also be a good thing. The reason i think it would be bad is because i personally have been in a class where a teacher can't control themselves and freak out on students. Now if you armed teachers and they have a little "break down" they have easy access to and weapon and all those children in the class are in major danger. But there are positive things about arming teachers like if there was a person in the building trying to kill kids, the teacher could easily go and kill the shooter before he kills innocent kids. So there are good things and bad things about but i still don't know if i personally would feel safe knowing teachers have guns and easy access to them.

i belive that what trump is saying "That we should arm teachers with gums and have them trained" evan if it's for the selfish reson of wanting to protect your self, is something good that could happen to all the schools in the US and it would stop school shooters a lot quicker

I believe that It could be a good or bad thing because student can fear going to school knowing teachers have them but it can also be good if someone is in the school and protect students.

I agree with Noah Lybarger with what he's saying that people will still find a way to get them. I personally believe that politics are making it hard because everyone has their own opinion and there are a lot of ideas on how to fix it, some that might work and some that won't, but they are completely different from each other. I feel they should raise the age and do a more thorough background check before the sale of firearms. Also a good idea to protect schools themselves is raising the security and maybe having more police officers around, making it a place where everyone feels safe. On the other side if it was made illegal to have a weapon, but just likes drugs and even all the way back to when alcohol was illegal, people that want to do harm like that they would find a gun somehow (just like people find drugs) would be able to find it and making it illegal to get a weapon would make the person that found one even more dangerous because people would be more defenseless than we are now.

I do not believe that teachers should have guns because I think that that would just cause more problems and violence. I think that we need to add more restrictions for guns and I think we need to ban semi automatics to the public because there is no reason for it. I believe that honestly there would be more violence and deaths if teachers were to have firearms in school.

I don't think that arming teachers would be a good idea, because I don't think there is a single teacher I have had that would have the willpower to shoot a person. Many school shootings are done by young people, and it would take a lot out of someone to shoot them, is this really what we want to do to our teachers?

I believe that teachers having guns isn't going to improve safety for a school by much. What happens when a kid doesn't listen in class so the teacher pulls the gun on the student threatening them? Or worse, what if a student got a hold of one of these guns? We need to add more restrictions to guns and when they can be solicited to you because getting a hold of weapons at the mere age of 19 only seems to more endangering. There would be so much less violence if there were more restrictions to guns.

I believe that arming teachers with a gun,would be a good idea. Because that could make the school much safer.

Students will continue to fight to have stronger gun control laws.

nothing is going to be changed until there are more fatalities