Huge Student Walkouts Push for Action on Gun Violence

UPDATE #2: It’s getting a bit crowded at the State Capitol:

Image via Denver7

—–

UPDATE:


—–

As Colorado Public Radio reports:

Students are taking up the call in a variety of ways. Some planned roadside rallies to honor shooting victims and protest violence. Others were to hold demonstrations in school gyms or on football fields. In Denver, at East High School students there will meet up with students from the nearby Denver School of the Arts to honor the 17 lives lost in Florida. Many students will then march to the state Capitol, while others return to class or participate in events at the school.

There will be a 17-minute “sit in” at Denver’s Merrill Middle School and a “sit out,” where students will ring the perimeter of the Denver Center of International Studies Baker School. At Westminster High School, students have been encouraged to wear silver and burgundy, the colors of Stoneman Douglas HS, for a group photo that will be sent to the school. JeffCo students will hold a county wide rally in the evening so as to not disrupt classes.

 

 

Here’s video from an Alabama television station of a walkout in Denver (we couldn’t possibly make this up):


9News has video of walkouts in the Denver metro area, and many national news outlets — including the New York Times, are covering a walkout at Columbine High School:

0 Shares

42 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. PseudonymousPseudonymous says:

    Arm teachers who are willing and comfortable around firearms.

    Teacher accidentally fires gun and injures student during safety lesson

    Dennis Alexander, who is Seaside City's mayor pro tem and a reserve officer with the Sand City Police Department, was teaching a lesson at Seaside High School in Seaside, California when he pointed his gun into the ceiling and accidentally fired it, said Abdul Pridgen, the city's police chief.

    A 17-year-old student was injured by a bullet fragment or by debris that fell off the ceiling, Pridgen said.

    • unnamed says:

      Seriously.  What could go wrong? More like what couldn't?

      • kwtreemamajama55 says:

        Exactly, O nameless one. Let's take people in one of the highest-stress positions anywhere, and tell them to carry a lethal weapon around, probably loaded, in a situation in which student success depends on "relationships" and "connections" with adults.

        Teachers don't have time to go to the bathroom, let alone remember to do a  safety check on their weapon twice a day.

        I am proud of the students from my alma mater. Go Angels!

    • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

      I'm sure it will become a memorable part of the mayor/officer/teacher's lesson in "public safety" in an Administration of Justice class.

      You can't make this sort of thing up.

  2. ModeratusModeratus says:

    Encouraging delinquency so students can attack constitutional rights. I hope you’re proud!

    • unnamed says:

      Attacking students' constitutional rights.  I hope you're proud.

    • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

      Moderatus:

      What proposal are ANY of the Parkland students or other prominent voices in this student movement making that is an "attack" on constitutional rights?

      David Hogg, one of the teen speakers from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High included several points in his statement to a Congressional hearing, including

      " restoring funding for research on guns at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; universal background checks, which he called "just sensible gun reform"; and some kind of change to access to guns like the AR-15 used in the Parkland shooting, in order to "prevent these huge guns from getting into the hands of the wrong individuals." "

      Please cite appropriate statute and court case that has found any of what he is backing as ‘Unconstitutional.” Or retreat back to your Republican sites for more [meaningless] points to spew.

    • DavieDavie says:

      You should be proud Moldy — look what you and your party's malevolent incompetence have started!

      “The fact that some of the students at Stoneman Douglas high school … are showing more maturity and political action than many of our elected officials is a testament to how disgusting and broken our political system is right now in America. But we’re trying to fix that.”

      —David Hogg, Senior

       

      “The ‘children’ you pissed off will not forget this in the voting booth. Don’t doubt the power of the younger generation, because we are a force to be reckoned with.”

      —Aly Sheehy, Senior

    • unnamed says:

      Also, you weigh in twice on this thread, but not the thread about last night's special election in PA-18.  Why?  Does it bug you?  Did you make a big mess when you found out the results?

    • spaceman65 says:

      Moddy, first of all, fuck you.  Second of all, your selective trumpeting of the Constitution and the rights you believe it contains is tiresome.  Guess what? Students were exercising their First Amendment rights to complain about their governments' failures to protect them from life-threatening harm–core political speech protected by the First Amendment, which you reduce to describing as an "attack" on constitutional rights, presumably, you mean the rights you believe to be protected (as opposed to actually being protected) by the Second Amendment.  But you do neither homework, not objective analysis.  Not your thing, apparently.  Third, fuck you.

  3. ModeratusModeratus says:

    They taught the children to attack the rights of their parents in the Cultural Revolution too. Worked great for the Chinese!

    • unnamed says:

      I thought you were pro-life nutlid.  So, why do you take offense at these kids asserting their right to life?

      • RepealAndReplace says:

        They are post-birth now. They're on their own in Nutlid World.

        So Moddy, did your good friend Representative Neville have the balls to meet with them, explain how he survived Columbine and give them some tips on how to survive the next school shooting?

        Thoughts and prayers……….

    • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

      Who is this 'they' you speak of Nutter?  

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      Don’t worry, Fluffy.  Some of these kids may not be able to vote come this November . . . 

      . . . why not give ‘em detention and firearms training at the same time?  (You should maybe check with a Neville, or three, about this!?)

      . . . Maybe Grantham could have ‘Stache do some community service, and teach the kids Sensitivity classes at the same time?

      • Negev says:

        Perhaps, just maybe, if these kids are so willing to admit they are not responsible enough to purchase a firearm until the age of 21, we should reconsider whether they are mature enough to vote until that age as well.

        • unnamed says:

          But, letting people obtain a high capacity firearm without a background check is totally cool. 

          Just give them shit for being engaged in a way you don't like.  That'll win them over.  These kids react to the existential threat against their lives and safety at school and your response is: "Take away their voting rights." 

           

          • Negev says:

            I did not suggest taking away their voting rights. They are suggesting however taking away my gun rights. I understand where they are coming from, and I commend them.They however appear to agree with the new law prohibiting people under the age of 21 from purchasing a long gun, a tacit acknowledgement that they are not responsible enough to handle the rather simplistic right/wrong decision making of gun ownership. How can we expect them to navigate the complex idiosyncrasies of politics when they need government intervention to stop them from mass killing in these formative years?  

            So no, do not take away their rights, just postpone them until they are able to make rational decisions on their own. It seems the consensus on that, by those most affected, is 21 years of age.   

            I assume you are on board with prohibiting the purchase of a deadly assault rifle by "kids", aren't you? Why? I bet we agree on your answer. 

            • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

              Negev — same challenge as I posted above to Moderatus.

              What proposal are ANY of the Parkland students or other prominent voices in this student movement making that is an "attack" on constitutional rights?

              David Hogg, one of the teen speakers from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High included several points in his statement to a Congressional hearing, including

              " restoring funding for research on guns at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; universal background checks, which he called "just sensible gun reform"; and some kind of change to access to guns like the AR-15 used in the Parkland shooting, in order to "prevent these huge guns from getting into the hands of the wrong individuals." "

              Please cite appropriate statute and court case that has found any of what he is backing as ‘Unconstitutional.” Or retreat back to your Republican sites for more [meaningless] points to spew.

              • kwtreemamajama55 says:

                Negev has never met a "gun-control" law that he likes.  He'll talk around it for paragraphs at a time, but you'll never be able to make him admit that he just wants 100% free access to all guns by anyone, all the time.

              • Negev says:

                I find "some kind of change to access to guns like the AR-15" doublespeak for banning them. That's just me. If you don't see it that way it's o.k. but then we go back to our prior argument that I believe we ended on agreeing that banning them would be the most effective manner in which to stop mass shootings that use them. 

                307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816 protect weapons "in common use at the time" At this point you cannot reasonably suggest an AR-15 is not in common use, can you?

                 

                 

                • unnamed says:

                  So, don't take away your AR-15.   But you are totally fine with a lot of people dying because you NEED your AR-15 no matter how high the body count.  Your sense of entitlement towards your AR-15 supercedes everybody elses right to live.

                  • Negev says:

                    Yawn. You must be new here. Nah, I don't NEED an AR-15 anymore than you NEED an abortion…. really – do you NEED free speech? Certainly not in fact I feel dumber just listening to you….I know, I must be really dumb now… 

                    You cannot restrict another persons rights in order to exercise your own – that's not the way it works. Sorry man. 

                    • unnamed says:

                      So, in short, yes.  That is what you believe.  I beg to differ.  I NEED my free speech more than you NEED your AR-15.  My free speech doesn't kill people. 

                      Your AR 15 threatens my right to live. You can't take away someone else's right to exercise your own.  Sorry man.

                    • Negev says:

                      …. and I'm the entitled one….

                    • ajb says:

                      C'mon Negev, no right is absolute. To suggest otherwise is simply disingenuous.

                      And yes, I do believe that you can restrict another persons rights in order to exercise your own. Those are the cases that get adjudicated by the Supreme Court. 

                    • Negev says:

                      ajb you are correct no right is absolute, however the DC vs Heller case clearly protects weapons "in common use at the time" and the individuals right to own them. 

                      I'm curious of an example of restricting one persons rights to exercise your own? The first thing that comes to my mind is the gay cake case but I don't think it's directly comparable. Can I deny a person free speech to pursue happiness? That would be really awesome right now if ya know what I'm sayinwink

                    • PseudonymousPseudonymous says:

                      All the time, every day.

                      As for an example?  Forced pooling of oil and gas.

            • unnamed says:

              You are effectively saying that they should not have voting rights until they are 21, thereby taking away their rights, at least until that time. 

              Tell me how they are threatening your gun rights.  Since guns are the only thing you care about.  How are these kids threatening your gun rights?  How do background checks threaten your gun rights?  Why is your "right" to have unfettered access to the deadliest gun you can get trump their right to live and go to school in safety?

              I know you will say gun laws don't work and various other platitudes that are NRA-approved.

            • Diogenesdemar says:

              Not sure why, but I probably would have guessed you were over 21?

            • Diogenesdemar says:

              Actually, I would love to see assault rifles banned for purchase by anyone under 121 years of age.  I’m not sure anyone is responsible enough to own them for personal use prior to that.

              I guess that means you think American elections will need to be conducted in depends??

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          Absolutely, raise voting age to 21.   Anybody who opposes fascism in any way must be silenced!

          • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

            I know you are making a sarcastic joke, V., but you are predicting the future.

            The purge is almost complete. John Bolton? Rick Perry? Larry Kudlow?

            Trump is scraping the crud from the bottom of the barrel to help him destroy our democracy. He is moving with determination to undermine Congress, stuff the courts, and remove anyone who opposes him. Would he dismember his uncle and feed him to dogs in order to retain power?

            What do you think?

    • spaceman65 says:

      Fuck you again, Moddy.  Remember Tiananmen square?  You're afraid of children, and not this administration, which just shows that you are neck-deep in the swamp with the other would-be autocrats. 

       

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.