With some kids. My daughter's 3 keep things clean. The oldest, my grandson is 17, He is in his second year of working 40 hour weeks at DQ and just graduated. He is saving his money for welding school. The other 2 are home schooled. Both are doing school work 2 years ahead of where they should be.That and if you didn’t you got your ass beat. Can’t do that anymore.
Yes it was, but why is there a reluctance to answer the question? Fear based teaching or encouragement based teaching. Close your eyes, imagine little Rusty in 1969, how would he want to be taught ?Different philosophies. When I was a kid, you kept your room clean because it was your job.
I like the concept of public education in Mexico where you go to 8 years or so instead of 12 so they're not wasting public monies with frivolous educational philosophies. Reading, Writing and Arithmetic and then let the kids/families find their own way to the library/internet/private schools/higher education. I dont want public teachers to do ANYTHING more than teach the three Rs. Kids cleaning their room? Why is that something to be even mentioned in school?I ‘m talking about style of teaching, not the subject. Teach from a place of fear or what you don’t want to happen or from a place of encouragement and what you do want to happen. The sex education topic is mainly irrelevant to the point. Hey Susan, Do clean your room, rather than I don’t want to see a messy room. Do ! Will keep us encouraged and don’t won’t? Agree or disagree and why ?
Thanks Incognito for engaging, only through honest conversation can we understand each other and I’m hard to understand.I like the concept of public education in Mexico where you go to 8 years or so instead of 12 so they're not wasting public monies with frivolous educational philosophies. Reading, Writing and Arithmetic and then let the kids/families find their own way to the library/internet/private schools/higher education. I dont want public teachers to do ANYTHING more than teach the three Rs. Kids cleaning their room? Why is that something to be even mentioned in school?
|In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of|
the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent
think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.
What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?
The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?
The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1
The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. See post, at 3. And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.
Isn’t there a video of Our Previous President floating around using both elbows to get into the center of attention at a press conference ?What a b+tch
Enter your email address to join:
Register today and take advantage of membership benefits.
Enter your email address to join: