Group items tagged

i think blocking it was 50/50, good for the kids that are addicted to changing their status, but bad for people who are on it during free time or lunch.

I agree with Andrew because there are a lot of people that abuse he privilege, but then there are the ones that only get on when told that they can or in free time.

I think that our school system is going way Wacko with this, with Facebook, yeah block it, but you should block it on the school's wifi not the chromes. you should be able to get on at you house. What is the harm there...? Its not like you are getting distracted from a teacher talking..... With the cell phones. Yeah, thats whatever... I understand that you aren't supposed to have them out during class, but only being aloud to have them during lunch and before or after school, it makes me feel like we are back in Jr. High, that was their policy. I even remember i went to work Kirn's show and i forgot that there was that rule and so i was walking down the hallway texting, i looked right at the teacher and said that i was in high school, she laughed and said sorry and gave it back. But i think with this rule the students will feel like that are being treated as jr high students again and i know that would make me frustrated. But not having a relaxed rule on cell phones students will just get super mad and well, teacher's and Administrators,, You're gonna have a bad time...

I agree with Eric, it should just be blocked on the wifi, not the Chromes themselves because now the people who brought their own computers can get on facebook, or the people with internet on their phones can access it that way. So the school didn't block the students %100, they just made an obstacle for the students to get through, because I think we all know someone is going to find a way around it soon, like they did last year.

I agree with Eric and Alex as well, just block it on their wifi during the school day.

It does feel like we are still in Junior High. but how do most Students? certainly not like they are in high school. If people would act their age then you could use this statement. take a look around the hallways and you know what i am talking about. And when you are on facebook or any other website it is a distraction because you are zoned out of everything that is going on around you and ten minutes can easily turn into an hour or a couple of hours

a good 3/4 of the conversations during class periods... maybe not everyone's but at least mine has been about getting around the the Facebook block. They say Facebook is distracting well it is for certain people that get on it constantly but what really is distracting is people constantly talking about how they are trying to get back on Facebook through the chromes. That's not distracting a select few it's distracting us all.

I feel like if the school has such a big problem with Facebook they need to realize that although blocking Facebook from chromes will stop many students from getting on it the majority of us do have smart phones. Meaning we can still get on Facebook. I think that if a student doesn't know how to control their use on facebook during school they will have to deal with the consequences and that it wasn't necessary to block the site, it's called responsibility and if someone doesn't know how to be responsible then that's their problem. Also I don't understand why students aren't able to get on Facebook outside of school?

I don't feel like blocking Facebook was very beneficial. High school is supposed to be preparing us for college or a career, in which we will have access to anything we want. How are we supposed to know how to limit distractions if we don't have the opportunity to do so now? On another note, the students who aren't doing their work now with Facebook unblocked still aren't generally going to do it even without that particular distraction.

I agree with Rainie, Jaidlyn, and Olivia. The school board and the administrators don't know what we are thinking in class, yes they might see that a good portion of our students are on Facebook, but also, a good majority is paying attention and actually learning, I personally find Facebook a good tool for school, because there has been multiple times where I have no clue what so ever on what is going on so I go and ask some of my friends that are in college and ask them, and also my friends explain it so much better than Teacher's do, I feel as though most of the times teacher's just speak it so they can get paid, they don't go in depth to it. So I feel also that if they were teaching more hands on there would be less Facebook usage, well, at least there would be if it was unblocked.

Sorry.. I realized that I didn't finish.. With what Rainie said, that is so true you can't sit through a whole class period with out hearing, "This is peeveing me off!" or "There has to be a way around it, that will be my project this weekend, to figure out what how to get around this dumb thing!"

Personally, if the schools are trying to prepare us for the future, then why limit what we can do, and not do with the chromes? How does limiting us teach us good decision making skills? I mean, in the future, if you are at work and spend 4 hours of your time at work on facebook, you are gonna get fired. We should have it just to learn that we do not need it. Plus, students are just going to move onto the next thing. Like there are not a billion other things we are going to get on?

I completely agree with Payton. There are so many things that aren't blocked and we can move right on to the next thing.

I totally agree with both Eric and Payton, also what about using our phones, Ipods, and personal computers to get on FB at school. An I know most of the people on FB use it to waste time, what about the students using it during free time for good things like making a FB page for a club or a FB event for a soccer game?

I understand why Trump wants to build a wall but why does he expect Mexico to pay for it when it's clear they don't want the wall to be built in the first place.

Why does he think building a wall is going to accomplish anything? If they are determined to get the US than it will happen whether we want it or not. We just have to find a way to know if they are here to harm us or are at peace with us and just want a better life.

I agree with Kim ^ the wall isn't going to do anything because if someone wants to come to America they're going to anyways

Mexico shouldn't have to help pay for the wall to be built. Donald Trump wants the wall to be built so I think that he should pay for it.

I agree with Mallori and Kim. Its his ideas to keep the Mexicans out of the U.S. Why would he even think their president would help build it?

I get what Trump is doing, he does not what people to just come over to America from Mexico but making them pay, I don't think that will happen. The people in Mexico will find other whys to get in still, we just have to make hard for them to get in just like Canada is hard to get in.

I think trump's idea of having a wall built is dumb because people from mexico will still try to get over that wall. And its not fail to all the people who got deported and there's still people here living illegally. I mean they aren't really doing anything wrong, or hurting anybody.

I understand that Mexico should help pay for the wall it wants and proposes to do President Trump because that way it would help a lot in the control of immigrant people

i agree with mallori, i dont think the wall will stop much

Mexico's president has every right to deny this wall, and Trump insisting that he pay for something against his wants is absurd.

If you are building a fence for your house, does your neighbor pay it? I don't think so and neither should Mexico. If he wants a wall so badly, then he can take it out of the taxes of all the people who voted for him in the first place.

I agree with Ayin, Trump can't force Mexico to pay for something he wants.

This is ridiculous. It's so disrespectful not only to the students but to any community that's suffered discrimination. Who's to say they won't start being sexist or discriminate against African Americans?

I don't think it is necessary to put something in a school yearbook about being gay, because there is nothing about being straight. Yes, people may think being gay is OK, but there is no reason for that to be in a high school yearbook, that has nothing to do with the school. If no one is allowed to talk about their religion or God in school, then we also shouldn't be able to talk about being gay. I've never seen a section in a yearbook titled "Its OK to be Christian." Yes, people should be allowed to be gay, but it doesn't need to be flaunted like that.

I had read about this story before, and as a teacher I am impressed that Mr. Yoakley had the courage to let his students have a voice. Putting myself in his position, would make for a hard decision when faced with losing a job you love but I hope I would do the same.

I understand them not having to have something in the book but maybe it was for their LGBT Club and they wanted to do a story on it just like they would for some other club or student council. I don't think it was right for them to fire the teacher for it. And you can talk about religion in school you just can't try and force or push it on others. I know that here were have a club for christian athletes and they even pray under the flag in front of school.

In Iowa, at least, I know that it's illegal for a school to bar a student run publication from publishing a piece. Yes, there aren't sections in yearbooks with titles like "it's OK to be Christian," but I think that's because no needs to be told that. Homosexuality is currently a big political issue. I think that if Christianity were currently an issue as large as homosexuality students would be writing about it. Besides, saying we shouldn't talk about political issues, or that gays shouldn't be allowed to "flaunt" their sexuality is, in my opinion, simply another way of condoning persecution of them.

The fact as to how they treated this teacher is outrageous. He is allowing students to express themselves, and the school is completely violating the first amendment. A student explaining there beliefs is allowable, and in no way breaking a law. Considering this is a student written newspaper, you cannot bar that students article simply because it talks about religion. They would be oppressing atheists, and showing support to those with religion, the school should not be able to bar an article like that. This is no different from a student expressing there sexuality. If you truly have a massive problem with it, think of it in the following hypothetical way: An article is written in the school newspaper about the upcoming homecoming dance. There is a little bit of advice for girls saying they should make there man pay for them. This is supporting heterosexuality, and is in no different from an article supporting homosexuality. Either the above hypothetical in the newspaper should be say, man (Or women depending on your interests,) or it should be removed if you cannot place an article about being gay in a newspaper.

As a Yearbook student myself, I would honestly be a little surprised if someone brought up the idea to place a story about homosexuality or atheism in the yearbook, but only because the Yearbook tells stories about the entire school year, and doesn't really talk about the opinions of the writers. I personally think that it would make more sense to place it in the opinion section of the school's newspaper. However, if they want to place the story in the yearbook, then they need to be allowed to place it wherever they please. Like most people pointed out, it's violating the first amendment.

It's okay for him to stick up for people that are gay or being atheist, but that shouldn't be published in a yearbook, which has nothing to do with school.

I bet Sanders wins a few Midwest States. Momentum is definitely on his side after he took Michigan over Hillary. Also I feel that both Rubio and Kasich will both be knocked out of the race. I feel that Donald Trump will keep winning. I bet Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will be the ones campaigning for president in the end.

I predict that if Rubio does not win Florida today, he will drop out and support Ted Cruz. Clinton will win Florida, but Sanders will take the other states.

I think that Sanders will close the gap in between him and Clinton. I also think like Donald Trump will win most of the votes in the other states.

I predict that ted Cruz will win Florida, and will win slightly over trump in the other states, Clinton will lose Florida and will lose the other states to sanders.

I think that sander will have the advantage in the Midwest, and Hillary and Trump will have advantages in other states. Also I think Trump and Clinton will be the last ones for election.

I predict the Trump will win and face off against Hillary

I think Donald Trump will beat Rubio and ted Cruz, if Rubio does not win the votes over in Florida. If sanders cannot make a come back and get the super delegates to vote for him then Hillary will win the race and go against Trump.

I think as of right now Trump will win for the Republicans even though Cruz is close behind, more people are still predicted to vote for Trump today. Even if Kasich thinks he can win some delegates this week he still won't gain enough to compete and will end up dropping out. When it comes to Hillary vs Sanders I think it will be a close race, I predict HIllary will win Florida because she's had a pattern of winning the southern states, but Sanders has a better chance of winning the other states left.

I think that Hillary and Sanders will split, but Hillary will stay ahead because of her lead. I also think that Trump will add onto his lead and be campaigning in the end.

i predict that if rubio does not win in Florida trump would have a easier win when the time comes. If sander can get a jump on Clinton in the other state will give him more ammunition when the voting comes.

I think that if trump wins Florida he will have a smooth road ahead and leave the other candidates behind. I think if sanders doesn't get enough votes to sway the super delegates Clinton will go on and face trump.

I believe that, nearing the middle of the race, it has begun to be more focused on stopping the "big-wig's" Trump and Hillary. Bernie Sanders' momentum in the race is picking up and if he wins Florida and Ohio it very well could end up in his favor. Also at this time I agree with Mr. Pregon's above comment, if Rubio does not win his home state he may drop out and push his fellow runner, Cruz, forward. The same goes for Kasich in Ohio.

I predict that Rubio will win Florida and it will put him closer in the race but he will still not be able to make a big enough jump to get in the head to head race.

I think Rubio will win Florida, Kasich will lose in Ohio and support Cruz. Clinton will win Florida but Sanders will win everywhere else.

I predict Rubio will win Florida putting him closer to Cruz but not enough to give him the win.

Trump will likely sweep the board, or come very close to it. His numbers will more than likely convince other republican candidates to drop out and support either himself or Cruz. For the rest of the country its rather concerning deeming Trump has been instigating and promoting American Citizens inner Nazi as of late. On the democratic side of things, Hillary will likely win Florida, but given the financial situation of most of the other states, I am strongly convinced Bernie will win most of them.

I believe that when they get farther west that Bernie will be able to catch up to Hillary and there;s a good change because the article even said that she was starting to get nervous about the debate.

I predict that Trump will win the majority on the Republican side. I think he will be way ahead of Cruz by the end of the day. Rubio might stay a little longer, even though he will not win Florida. Kasich will probably drop out today, and he will support Trump. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will be pretty close. I think Clinton will win slightly more delegates than Sanders.

I think the gap will close between Bernie and Hilary. Donald Trump will probably win the republican side

I predict that Bernie Sanders may just win Florida and he could just pass up Hillary. I think if Rubio ends up not being able to even win his own state, then he may just drop out and support.

I predict that Trump will win his side and face off against Sanders.

I predict sanders will win Florida and upset Clinton like he did in Michigan. He should also be able to win all the other states except for North Carolina which favors Clinton more. If Rubio and Kasich do not win there rich delegate home states they will more then likely drop out of the race. I also believe Ted Cruz can get ahead of Donald Trump today in the race for president.

I believe that trump will win the republican nominee. Cruz has no chance in beating him. Either Rubio. FOr the democratic side Bernie has no chance. He will not beat a Clinton. She has already had her marks in politics weather bad or good. For president its said to say but Hillary will become the next president Of The United States.

I think that Trump will win for the republicans and end up being one of the candidates in the end, and if Sanders doesn't win the Midwest and get some of the super delegates Clinton will be up against Trump.

I predict that Sander's momentum will be able to make him tie with or be ahead of Clinton just barely. And judging by the super delegates being in the hands of Clinton at this moment, when Sanders gets his momentum and is able to at least tie with Clinton by the time the convention comes it will take Sanders his all to get the super delegates to favor him more than Clinton.

I think that the last two candidates from both the democrats side and republicans side will be Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

I think that Trump will win on the republican side beating Cruz closely. I think Clinton will win on the other side barely beating Sander while she takes the most votes.

I predict that trump stays in the lead for the republican side. Kasich drops out. And for the Democratic side Hillary keeps the lead but not by much as Sanders slowly is closing the gap between him and Hillary.

I think that cruz isnt going to get his home town and Kasich will get his home town and when cruz doesnt get his home town he will drop out and support donald trump. And the last 2 in the finals will be hillary clinton and donald trump

I was somwhat right he cruz didnt get his home town and he droped out but I dont know if hes going to support trump or not?

I heard something about this actually. The executive branch went to Hollywood, and asked them to come up with 50 impossible worst case scenarios. They are going to prepare for the top 10 or something. This is due to 9/11, nobody ever thought someone would be stupid enough to (and smart enough to pull it off) crash planes into 2 towers, and the pentagon. They thought it be impossible, so now the government is going to prepare for the impossible.

If you read the reasons for doing this, it actually makes sense. Although they might be preparing for "zombies," the training is really giving them experience that would let them handle terrorist attacks, mobs, etc. A doctor from the CDC said this: "If you are generally well equipped to deal with a zombie apocalypse you will be prepared for a hurricane, pandemic, earthquake, or terrorist attack." So while training our military for a zombie apocalypse might seem eccentric it really isn't. Besides, there are actually a number of theories on how humans could become zombie-like, and some of them are even backed up by science. The CDC also has a blog on how to prepare yourself for a zombie apocalypse. http://blogs.cdc.gov/publichealthmatters/2011/05/preparedness-101-zombie-apocalypse/

we are screwed...

This is ridiculous! Pigs will fly the day of an apocalypse!

This doesn't actually mean there is going to be a zombie apocalypse. People will believe anything the media puts out there. I agree with Mallory, if they are prepared for a science fiction "zombie attack" then they are prepared for almost any natural disaster or terrorist attack.

If we as a society won't allow juveniles, sixteen year olds in particular, to vote or to sign their name to a legal contract and the justification for that restriction is because they aren't "mature enough" or that they "don't/won't understand" the lasting consequences then how can we expect them to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime? If sixteen year olds are old enough and mature enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime then shouldn't they also understand the lasting consequences to the things I mentioned above?

I agree with Jermey, we need to not set a double standard. We need to rehabilitate young offenders, because if you are not a hard criminal before you go to prison for 20 years of one of the most impressionable times of your life, you will come out of it as one. These are kids that probably grew up in broken homes, and this was the only path they were going to take, because it was the only one they saw. So lets rehabilitate, and give them productive lives, not ones that are going to keep the cycle going.

I agree with you for the most part Natalie. Although if it's a really small crime and the juvenile is unarmed, then they should go to juvenile court. But for crimes bigger than that example, they need to be charged as an adult would be charged. There's actually this reality TV show (that I can't remember the name of) where, in each episode, a group of kids who are on the streets and in gangs, etc. are taken into a jail as a form of rehabilitation, and they go through a day of being in jail and they also hear stories from people who are in jail at that time, and they always say that one doesn't want to end up in jail. I think there was one particular episode where a girl went with her mother to watch her mother plan a funeral for her. It's pretty interesting, and it does seem to help a lot.

Jared, I understand what you mean by some kids growing up in broken homes and having bad lives growing up BUT you always have the option to not go down that road. You have the option to try to better yourself and make something of yourself. Although most people don't do that, they don't always pull a gun on a cop. That is a serious offense and I feel like you guys are so focused on the fact that he's our age that you're blinded by what he did. Jeremy, I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me so if you could maybe clarify that would be great. Thanks. Kirstina, I do get what you're saying. Most kids need to see what can happen but this kid is plenty old enough to know right from wrong.

I realize that, but the people that are the most likely to pull a gun are the ones that have the most messed up life beforehand in most cases. We should try them as children, and try to rehabilitate them. Before your 18, and move, a large part of what you do, and know is influenced by your parents, and other senor figures in your life, and even friends Until you reach adulthood, its hard to be your own person, especially in the environment that generates this type of person. There is the odd person in there that is just a bad person, and it is all there fault, but we need to try to rehabilitate them as a child, not as an adult.

Jeremy, there's a major difference between crime and legal contracts. They don't have anything to do with each other. Sentencing teens like adults is important because it protects us. It's a safety issue. Plus it tells other kids, "You break the law, you get in huge trouble." And they don't allow people under 18 to sign contracts without parental consent to protect them from making stupid decisions.

Natalie I'm sorry for the confusion. I was replying more to the article then directly to your post. To clarify I disagree with your position about putting juveniles into adult court that commit violent crimes. At least with the current system we have in place. Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting. As long as our society wants to say that sixteen and seventeen year olds aren't mature enough to understand the consequences of something like voting then how can we expect them to understand these violent crimes that they commit. I'm all for placing older teens in adult court when they commit an adult crime but only if they aren't subjected to an unfounded and unreasonable double standard. Either sixteen year olds are on the same maturity level as adults or they aren't.

i think it is totally understandable because it shows that this kid is planning on doing crimes in the future.

i think that they did the right thing by arresting him if you are 16 then you are old enough to realize that shooting a cop isn't a good idea and you will have a punishment for it

Natalie i agree with your point of view on this article. If he is 16 he already knows what he is doing. We are all in high school and know well the consequences if we did that. I also agree with what you said about his background. It seems like this is a record and he already knows the consequences. So in my opinion he should be charged for adult crime.

I believe this kid should get charged as an adult because like they said in the article. He is a threat to society and to himself.

I agree with Natalie, everyone in the right mind should know shooting at someone; especially a police officer is wrong. And know their will be consequences to follow. So yes, juveniles should be charged as an adult depending on the circumstances.

I agree with charging juveniles as adults. People should know the right from wrongs at an early age and receive the consequences though an understanding of what they did wrong.

I agree with Melissa, people should know the difference from right and wrong, they definitely know the incentives for doing wrong as well.

Jeremy, I don't quite understand where you stand on the issue. You said that you realize there's a difference but then you said, and I quote, "Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting." You're contradicting yourself there and in your original comment.

Obviously there is something wrong with society if we have mere teenagers pulling out weapons and assaulting people to the point of felony. I think that the punishment is completely fair for such a sick individual. Criminal behaviors are not taught, but learned so he had to have learned this from someone he knew or a parent with a criminal record. Either way, what he did was wrong and he deserves to be behind bars.

I agree with charging minors as adults because this article is one of many where the felon was a minor. I did research over this in another class and i found many articles where they were charging a minor with adult charges because of how brutal the murders they committed where. Like i argued in my other paper "is your loved one's life any less valuable just because they got murdered by a minor"

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/sport/football/dutch-linesman-killed-football/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Here's another case of teenagers committing violent crimes. They beat this man to death. There were two 15 year-olds and a 16 year-old.

they should charge minors as adults because they will be out in the streets again and doing more crimies. its there own fault that they get charged thats why they should face charges alone.

I think if you do the crime, you pay the time whenever the government wants you to.

i say same charge for everyone no matter what

if you're willing to make the decision to break the law and commit a serious crime with the consequences of an adult then you should definitely suffer the same consequences no matter your age.

if anyone commits a crime they should be charged the same no matter what age

I agree with the idea that no matter your age, if you commit a serious crime, you should suffer the consequences. Say a teenager decides to murder someone... Just because they're a minor, should they be charged with a lesser offense than an adult would have? NO. If you are willing, capable, and have the mental capacity and audacity to commit such crimes, you deserve prison and whatever other punishment you receive.

Great discussion guys! Here is some more food for thought. People who do bad things need punishment, but there is plenty of scientific evidence that teenage brains are in a state of development that doesn't excuse bad acts, but can help explain it. http://goo.gl/MXEAd Ask yourself if you are the "same person" you were when you were 5 years old? I can tell you, you will make decisions differently when you are 25, and probably 65.

This is a good point i have to say. That's why I think we need to do our best to reform kids, not just punish them. Make it clear that their will be consequences, but try them as hardened, adult criminals is not the way to do it.

This is an extremely touchy subject. It's hard to lay out things like this without stepping on toes of other controversial subjects like voting age and military eligability

I feel like they band the flag for racism not due to religion, which I understand. But what I also understand is wanting to be able to have the freedom to your religion. And in this case their flag represents that.

I honestly believe that it is an infringement on the first amendment and these students should have the right to wear what they want.

I think that they should have been able to wear the flag because it's their freedom and they were not doing it to be racist they just wanted to be able to wear what they want because its their right.

thats so dumb they have the right to wear what ever they want as long as its appropriate to the school policy

I think the school was blowing it out of proportion. The students should have been able to wear the confederate flag. The confederate flag has historical significance. I think the school was biased. They were more concerned with the politics surrounding the flag, because it was a pretty debated subject for awhile.

I feel like they shouldn't be able to wear confederate flag apparel mainly because it makes black students feel threatened and reminds them of slavery.

Students should be able to wear the flag because they have the right of freedom of expression. Like he said in the article just because he flies the flag doesn't mean he discriminates against race.

I think they are wrong wearing something like that to school and they shouldn't be able too. The school is right for suspending them. Even if they have the freedom to wear what they want there is also school rules and dress codes and that is not school appropriate.

In the article the students say they are not trying to be racist but the just want to be able to wear what they want to wear, and i think they should be able to. Not every person who wears a confederate flag is racist or supports slavery or the war that was fought to keep slavery. Many people who live in the south have grown up with this flag as a part of their lives weather the true meaning was explained to them or not it was a big part in many peoples lives and you cant expect them to change how they feel about the flag because at one time not many people saw this flag as a big deal because people have a right to support what they believe in. also the flag was not just about slavery it was the symbol of the rebellion and many people who wear the flag had family members that were part of the rebellion and they support their family personally.

Very controversial, since the flag was a Representative for the south in the war, founded on hate. Though this is clothing so I guess they shouldn't have been suspended and from what the students say it's not about hate but rather than representing themselves, I suppose? Though I still think they should follow the dress code.

Discuss this case from last year...

It's so controversial, with whether it's about slavery or true pride of where you are from. As for me I see where the kids are coming from as to want to show their pride in where they're from, for example I will always have pride in the midwest. However if you are wearing the symbol to depersonalize another person, then yes the school had the right to take action.

I believe they had a right to suspend them because it can be taken offensive to certain people but it also is a freedom of speech and what they believe. I think it causes conflict so they shouldn't be allowed and the school did the right thing.

I think the school did have a right to suspend them, since the school has a history of the confederate flag causing fights between the students

The second dose really does have stronger side effects. My mom got her vaccine because she works with law enforcement and she was sick for a few days after she got hers and she said when she woke up the morning after her shot that it felt like someone hit her in the arm with a baseball bat.

yes, the second dose does have side effects, but the same thing happens with the flu vaccine. the only difference is that this vaccine doesn't actually inject you with the virus. it just sends antibodies to teach your body to fight it.

This article talks more in-depth about what coronavirus vaccines do to your body. For example, it talks about how the first vaccine teaches your body how to react to the virus. With the second vaccine, you will more than likely be getting more side effects. According to the article, no matter how many side effects people will get, the vaccine will still be working in your body. What are your guy's thoughts about the vaccine?

I think that even though the second dose of the COVID-19 had stronger effects, we should all consider taking it. At this point, it's our only hope to end the pandemic.

I think that even though it has stronger side effects people should still consider getting the vaccine. The stronger side effects may be rough, but I'm sure getting Covid is worse.

The article discusses how the second Covid shot will most likely hit harder than the first. It talks about how that's actually a good thing because these common symptoms are typically signs that the vaccine is working. While I have had friends that have suffered from the second shot, I would still get the shot because it's better than getting Covid.

I think that because the side effects are stronger we should allow the vaccine more time for development, but we should still consider getting it.

Even though the second dose of the COVID-19 had stronger effects, I think all of us should consider taking it at this point, it's our only hope to end the pandemic.

I think that even with the second shot having more side effects we should still get it because it is our only option at this point but I do also think that there needed to be more time for the vaccine to develop and for us to know if it could really effect us in the future.

I completely trust the Maderna vaccine as my dad was part of the trial for it and he had no problems with it (he didn't have the placebo, he had the actual vaccine), and that's good enough for me, if he was fine, ill most likely be fine.

I think although the second dose has stronger side effects it shouldn't stop you from not getting the vaccine at all. I think the vaccine is our only chance of getting rid of COVID and it will only work if the majority of Americans get it. At the end of the day, I think the side effects of the vaccine can't be as bad as the long-lasting effects COVID can have on you.

The COVID shot reminds me of the flu shot because when you get the flu shot it is normal to get sick afterwards or have pain but it will prevent you later from getting the flu. Even though the covid shot has side effects it is still good to get it because it will prevent you from getting COVID

Even though the second dose has strong side effects I think that it's vital that everyone gets vaccinated if we ever want to return to normal life. I got my first dose last week and besides a sore arm and being a little thirsty I was fine. It affects people in different ways so I could get no side effects when I get my second dose or I could get a ton of negative ones. It's only for 48 hours according to the article and I´m willing to endure the risk of being sick if it means making the world hopefully safe and normal again.

I think its really your choice. I personally believe I do not need to be getting a newly made vaccine that no one knows the possible future effects from it. If I get Covid I get it and I feel it's more important for older people to get the vaccine if they like, you do you. But as well as the J & J vaccine, I feel it is unneeded things being put into your body where there has already been multiple of horrible results from people getting the vaccine. You won't be seeing me vaccinated.

Personally, I would not get the vaccine because nobody knows what it is going to do to you later. If there are no long-term effects and it truly does protect you from the virus then I completely understand why you would get it. The thing is, no one 100% knows so I would be very hesitant to get it.

I think you should get the vaccine but you should not be forced to get it. If someone is worried that the vaccine is not safe then they should not have to get it if they do not want it.

Even though it has stronger effects I still think everyone should consider getting vaccinated. Of course, there should be no forcing anyone to get vaccinated, it's just important that everyone weighs their options. I was really really sick with Covid earlier this year and it was awful. If I can do my part to protect myself and everyone else I'm going to do it.

I think that it's a good thing since as the article said, it means it's working. If there is a chance for people to be able to not get the harsh effects of COVID-19 then maybe they should get the shot so they can be prepared for it. Idk.

It's still in the works so of course it's going to have different/stronger effects.

I believe that we all should take the second dose because it will help with Covid and in fact it's definitely stronger than the first one.

I think that people should be able to decide if they want the second dose or not, but I hope they do.

I think more Americans should get the vaccine despite the side effects the vaccine has on them. It's our best chance of not catching or spreading the virus meaning that we can return to our normal lives. A couple of days of the side effects the vaccine has on them outweighs the long-term effects of not getting the vaccine including the fact that if you get COVID, there's a possibility your symptoms from the virus will last even after you're free of spreading the virus.

I agree with everyone's comments, even though the second dose has worse effects i think people should try to get it because other wise we'll never "go back to normal"

I think we should stick to the vaccine that we KNOW works best

Whats wrong with that.

I think that's awful and definitely shouldn't be against the law. Providing the homeless with a meal doesn't necessarily keep them on the street, rather them starving and not having any energy to even try to turn their lives around is.

Instead of it be against the law, they should be encouraging more people to feed them. If we just let them sit there and starve they will die, I would rather have homeless people living, then a bunch of dead bodies laying around the city. Maybe all they need to get the motivation to get up and get a job, is by other people showing that care about them, and want them to live a healthy a life.

I think this is absolutely ridiculous. How could the government of Fort Lauderdale be so ignorant and selfish? Granted, some people are homeless because they've made bad decisions to get to that point but some are homeless because they honestly can't help it. Who knows? But I think it should be okay for people to feed the homeless. It should be comforting knowing that people have caring hearts and are willing to give the less-unfortunate people food. I hope the banning of giving food to the homeless never becomes illegal in the state of Iowa because I have given homeless people food countless of times and I will not stop.

I don't think it should be against the law, its just help. Just because someone fed one person doesn't mean everyones going to go and be homeless.

Reading this story upsets me because no one should be charged for feeding the homeless. That is the same as arresting and charging a man/woman for donating to charity. I do believe that some people are homeless because they got themselves there from their life decisions and choices, however others have no other way out. For example, a veteran could be very ill after coming back home and maybe having PTSD and feel helpless and lost. They do not know where to go or who to ask for help. Helping the homeless lets them know that someone cares and wants to help, and I feel this act of kindness might just be the motivation they need to get themselves together and fix their life. This helps them know they are not alone. Florida is ridiculous for charging that man. Instead of it being a bad thing, let us encourage it.

People should be able to help whoever they please. I think the man shouldn't get in trouble because he is helping them by giving them meals. This could also help them save money and eventually buy/ rent a house in the future.

Every town has some sort of poverty and not feeding the homeless isn't going to get rid of them.

Feeding the homeless should not be a crime. It is helping someone in need which is what citizens of a community should be doing is helping people in need and getting the back on there feet.

I don't believe that Abott should be arrested just because he was doing a good deed. I understand the views of the policeman and how they're just doing their job but it's not fair to Abott that he was just trying to be a good person. There is no reason why he should be arrested and think it's crazy that people are getting upset for helping the homeless. They should just leave him alone because it doesn't affect their lives in a big way.

I do think that feeding them food -may- keep them in that cycle. MAY. I highly doubt it does though, because those homeless people probably have nowhere else to go at this point. And how are they suppose to "break" the cycle if they have nowhere to go? No job? If Florida isn't letting these people feed homeless people, then how about THEY do something about it rather than just giving everyone fines and acting without thinking.

I think the city had made this a law in order to give the homeless an incentive to get a job. Which I personally believe is a terrible idea. No one likes living homeless, everyone needs a helping hand sometimes. I would think the officers of the city would have enough morals and ethics to not enforce this law. To be ignored and simply done away with in a few months. It's a sad day when helping becomes illegal.

i don't get why feeding the homeless is against the law, whats wrong with it? your helping a person maybe even saving their life.

I think the law against public food sharing is ridiculous. These kind of rules don't encourage the homeless to start getting back on their feet. Yes, they rely on the food given to them but all the law is doing is pushing the homeless out of Fort Lauderdale, to other areas. Rather then enforcing this new law they should come up with program that provide the homeless with job training and experience so they can really start off productively on their own.

To put it lightly the banning of public food sharing is a stupid, stupid law. Credit, however, to Seiler for saying, "Providing them with a meal and keeping them in that cycle on the street is not productive." He made a valid point, yes, but a homeless person is just the same as a person who owns four houses, they just don't have as much luxury. I think homeless shelters, or even what Arnold Abbot does, feeding the people in need on a beach, that's their luxury. How are you going to take away something like that, for most, it might keep them hopeful. It shouldn't be up to the law who we as people want to help.

this is a joke, how can you not feed another human being??

To me this is not just and feeding the homeless isn't against the law. My assumption is that the cop had hard feelings against the homeless guy and was enforcing illegally.

I don't think that this should be an actual law, what's the harm in feeding the poorest of the poor people? Cops are cracking down way too hard on the wrong "laws". There are criminals out there killing people, dealing drugs, stealing, and we're giving them jail time with possible probation, but feeding a homeless man is a serious crime? Think again.

I think this is ridiculous. We give our police too much power. Feeding the homeless is not a crime and it never should be. We have soup kitchens and things for them. How is it any different? The cops are pretty much taking away our rights and telling us not to be nice? Totally wrong.

I think Abbott has a right to feed the homeless. They don't have anything so we don't just want them to die in the street for starvation that's inhumane. They're just homeless people that are trying to eat the police should have their attention on things that are more important crimes. Besides feeding homeless people isn't a crime.

This sound unbelievable to me and I hope it does it to many other people too. We have to find sympathy to those people and don't think they are some other kind of thing, They are also humans with feelings.

I don't understand what is so wrong with feeding the homeless. I'd do the same exact thing if I could. Police officers are suppose to protect and that means everyone, even the homeless. If a police officer became homeless, losing his job, house, family, etc. I'm sure his friends and past co-workers would feed him too. So what makes him any different than the "random homeless guy on the street." ? I don't think Abbott should get charged.

his sound unbelievable to me and I hope it does it to many other people too. We have to find sympathy to those people and don't think they are some other kind of thing, They are also humans with feelings.

I don't see what is wrong with feeding the homeless. These people are at the lowest point in their lives and need all the help they can get and they fact that the city just want's to look the other way while these people suffer and hope that they go away is heartbreaking. People should help the homeless, help them get back on track and get their lives in order not treat them like a rat. There are actually criminals that get to go free and an old man who was helping the homeless gets put in jail? That's ridiculous.

I think that most of these students have as little or no knowledge of the flags origin and are just doing it to get attention and publicity.

I agree with zayne

I agree with zayne when he says they don't have that much knowledge about the flag because they said it wasn't about hate

I think they are trying to just get attention from the school and social media they don't really know what the flag means or stands for.

I think this whole situation is kind of blown out of proportion, Instead of expelling these students I think they should have dealt with the situation a little differently.

I don't believe that it would disrupt their school. I also don't believe that the reason that they are wearing, flying, or painting the flag is racist. Like in Hannah's case she is using the flag to support her brother who served. When it is wrongly used I believe it can be racist but in this case it's not.

I think that the school did the right thing banning the flag

This is a touchy subject, however, i think it's unjust that they were suspended for showing their opinion. I disagree with the symbolism of the confederate flag because it is a racist symbol that encourages a war to keep slavery. But the first amendment protects our opinions and the ability to share and express them in speech, clothing, or whatever else. So according to the first amendment they are allowed and cannot be punished for showing this flag no matter how much others disagree with the meaning and symbolism.

I agree with Zayne because they probably don't know much about it

In the article I wanted to hear an actual explanation of what the flag means to them if they are just ignoring the history and origin of the flag, but there was none. They just said, "Welp I say it's not racist so..." and that was it. If they want people to respect them and want to be able to wear the flag they have to at least try to explain or persuade people that it's not racist and causing a problem.

These people were not defending their right to free expression, as it was causing danger (the fights leading to the ban) so they shouldn't break the rules as they are constitutional. I agree w/ zayned

I think that if they want to wear this flag on their clothes or whatever that's fine but they should also respect their school rules.

i think anyone should be able to have the flag, wear the flag on clothing, etc, if its used for a good/right reason then i think it should not be banned.

I think this is ridiculous and they should be able to wear it or display it if they want to. They shouldn't be stopped from expressing themselves just because some people interpret it the wrong way. Being from deep Missouri I've seen plenty of them and heard a fair amount of reasoning from it (most of it coming from heritage) and whether I disagree with it or not, they should be able to do what they want with it.

They have the right to do wear what they want. school does not need to get involved with it. Its there right that is why we got the bill of rights so the GOVERNMENT or in this case the SCHOOL does not mess up with those peoples rights or anyone's right. The people who dont like it boo hoo they will have to deal with it. Its a right get over it period.

This whole incident has some students result to threats and other violent ways, I think the school had a right to ban the flag because the student's behavior got out of hand and it is a matter of others safety.

They shouldn't have banned their freedom of speech, because this sort of tells us that we don't have the right to have our own opinion.

I think that many of the students should know the real meaning but they do those things to attract the attention of others and that way they publicize what they do. But they can also be badly informed and that way they do it without any idea of what it is really.

I think that they had the right to have that flag on there shirts and cars because they are not using it for anything wrong, they are wearing it to show their family and to support people.

I do not agree with the school banning the flag.

I feel like if the kids have a legit reason to have the flag they should be able to have it. But if its just for hate they shouldn't.

Though it would be nice why they would explain why its racist, but they never did, but overall I believe these people are making this a bigger deal just for attention.

It is a women's choice to choose abortion but you have to make sure it's what you want. if you feel you made the wrong choice, you should deal with it because the doctors did what you wanted.

I think that this is stupid because the article says that it's a difficult decision for the woman, and that they should get a recourse if they have mental health issues because of the decision. It's the woman's choice to have it done so why should she get money back for her mistake, the doctor has no choice in doing the procedure so they should not get sued for doing their job.

It was the women's choice to get the abortion in the first place. Which means that they wanted the doctor to the procedure. It is NOT the doctors fault if you get an abortion and then feel bad about it. You should NOT be able to sue the doctor for emotional damage. I can understand physical damage only if the doctor did not do the procedure right and the physical damage is because of that. But emotional damage is total ..... Anyway, in the article it says "that many studies show that only a small percentage of women regret their abortions." Regret is NOT the same as emotional damage. Just because you REGRET something that YOU did does NOT mean that you can put all blame on the doctor because of a decision that YOU made. "Chelgren's emotional distress bill says a woman could sue the doctor who performed the abortion anytime during her lifetime." this means that you could have had an abortion 20 years ago and then sue the doctor. It doesn't even make sence and it is NOT the doctors fault for doing his or her job.

I agree with Kelsi because it is the women's choice to have the abortion in the first place and its the doctors job to do the procedure. The doctor did not make the choice, the women did, the doctors are just doing their job. It's like suing a dog for peeing in the wrong place. It's just ridiculous. The only thing it will accomplish is putting abortion clinics out of business causing people to try aborting the child on their own which can cause a lot more deaths.

I agree with kelsi, I don't think women should be able to sue a doctor for an abortion she choose. The doctor gives you a choose if you want an abortion. You can't blame the doctor of your mistake.Women have a choice and if they decide to have an abortion and if she regret later, then you have to deal with it.

I agree with Sydney, this is ridiculous. It was the woman's decision in the first place, the doctor is just doing his job so I think it's unjust to sue them if they later regret their decision.

I agree with Kelsi! The doctor is doing his job and I think that once a woman has made a choice to or to not to get an abortion, there should be a contract signed that before the doctor does the actual abortion the woman can not sue later in the future. Its not like the doctor is forcing you to get an abortion they are only doing it for the sake of the woman's decision.

I agree with Sydney and Lauren. It was the woman's choice to get the abortion. Not the Doctor. They shouldn't be able to sue because they had a change of heart and thought they made the wrong decision.

I think that when women choose to have an abortion they are giving the doctor permission to kill their baby. Its not the Doctors fault their just there to make sure you have the procedure done right. Everyone is aware of the emotion damage of losing a child.

Its the woman's decision not the doctors. There just doing there job and if they could be sued for it then no doctor is gonna do it.

Women should not have the right to sue the doctor for carrying out their act kill their baby, because with their body their choice saying, their choice, their consequence not the doctors.

I don't think that women should be able to sue a doctor due to emotional distress after they gave consent to the doctor to go through with the procedure. If they have emotional distress they should blame themselves because they were the one who decided to have an abortion. Now if a doctor forced it then i can see why she would sue.

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 really do personally believe this women should be jailed for murder, but legally, it would be difficult to get a conviction. Due to our legal system, we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, (about 90% chance) that she killed her baby. She gave a second story, so one of the two stories must be true. 50/50 chance, good luck actually proving it. All she has to say is, "I said that to hurt him, and I gave the baby away," and she would probably just be convicted for kidnap. Either way it is a tough case, I think I may have to follow it.

I agree with Payton she should be jailed for murder. I believe that she did kill her son, she wouldn't have told him that she killed him if it wasn't true unless she's crazy, which she probably is. None of that would have happened if she would've just gave the father custody, but instead she left for Texas with her son.

I also think that she should be put in jail. If you're gonna say you killed him, it's usually not something you're lying about, and if she just gave the baby away, someone would have seen the stories and said "Oh I have this child" or something like that, but no. Nobody said anything so it goes to show that it all comes back to her.

I agree the mother should be jailed. They even have proof that the mother killed thee baby by sending a text to her husband saying that she killed the baby and dumped the body in a dumpster somewhere in Texas.

Almost three years later, his disappearance is still a mystery. And a trial that gets underway this week may finally provide some answers to what happened.

I agree with the both of you. No sane, rational person would say anything about killing their own child, whether or not it's true. I believe that she is guilty and should be jailed and have to go under a serious psychiatric assessment. I feel so bad for the father, this must have been such a traumatic experience.

I too believe she should be jailed for murder of her child. She is not rational nor sane for making these allegations if they're untrue. Libby is right saying she needs to undergo some serious psychiatric assessments. I don't understand how a mother could do that to her own young child and blame it on the father. Just a very messed up thing to do or even imply on doing.

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.

Trump thinks he'll be able to persuade mexico to build the wall. He's crazy for thinking that. Why would they want to help fund for the wall when they don't want be even leave the United States. There's no way he'll be able to persuade them.

I doubt Mexico will at all consider paying for the wall, it's just not their problem.

I doubt that Mexico will pay for it because Trump is the one who wants it up, not them.

What will Trump do if they refuse to pay?

This is important to ensure the right to vote is extended towards everyone,and it gets more people out there to vote. These are important thing when we pick a new leader to represent the country as a whole.

Most people don't think that voting is important but it is and it is good that the president signed an executive order to see if more people will vote

In my opinion, this new executive order is amazing. According to the article, "Every eligible voter should be able to vote and have that vote counted. If you have the best ideas, you have nothing to hide. Let the people vote."(konish) I totally agree with it because it's time for new beneficial changes and reformations.

One of the peoples greatest defenses against corruption in our government is our ability to vote.

Extension of the right to vote to everyone who possibly can is the most important thing in maintaining democracy so this is a very good thing

It's good that Biden has put in place this new executive order. It's important that everyone who is eligible to vote should have the opportunity too.

i agree that if we did not have our right to vote then we would lose our best defense against corruption.

I think giving more people the ability to vote is great. Hopefully this attempt to bring the voter count up works and more people can voice their opinion on who they think is the best fit for our country.

I think this is good because, everyone should have a right to vote, if we were not able to that would not give us a choice to anything.

Biden says that if we allow everyone to vote, it will repair and also strengthen the democracy party. I think it is a pretty good idea, it would mean everyone will have more benefitions.

This is a good thing because I think that having more people experiencing the "American" life will have good input on who to vote for.

This is a good thing for Biden because congress will restore the voting rights for Americans, and I think by doing that he will have more people experiencing life, and maybe the people will have good input on him so they will vote for him for the next presidential election again.

I think this executive order is amazing for our country. All people should have the right to vote, and this executive order is making it easier for them.

this is good because they can't pull any more tricks or try to get people not to vote anymore, which equals fair elections in the future.

it's important and good that biden signed this act because it makes sure everyone votes and the voting count raises.

I think that Biden signing this bill helps ensure that Americans can exercise their right to vote and that it will help the voting count to increase.

It's really important that Biden signed this act because it makes sure everyone votes and the voting count raises.

I think it's good that Biden signed this bill because it will give more people the opportunity to vote.

I think this will be beneficial considering all the sneaky tactics that they've been using to get people not to vote, so this will help make voting fairer and give more opportunities to people.

I do believe that it does so happen to be a good thing that Mr. President Joe Biden has signed this act so that more people will have the chance to vote.

I think this is a good idea, we need more people voting if they can.

I like how voting is continuing to be a bigger issue people are bringing up because people living in America should get a say in who controls the government, regardless of who they are.