View Full Version : Don’t take your anti-terrorist shirt to school son…
Good Grief!!!!
Family Sues School District After Son Gets Detention for Wearing T-Shirt With Gun Image
A 14-year-old Pennsylvania schoolboy is fighting back after being sent to detention for wearing a T-shirt bearing the image of a gun in honor of his uncle fighting in Iraq.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336793,00.html
The school has a policy prohibiting clothing items that have pictures of firearms on them.... the kid wore the shirt anyway. When asked to turn it inside out, he refused.
The kid violated a policy, refused to comply with a request from his teacher, and got detention as a result.
Seems ok to me.
If the parents didn't like the policy, then they should have gone to a board meetings and made their views known. Seems like a better way to handle it to me.... but instead, we file federal lawsuits.
I’m all for compliance with the rules…but...
That you can’t wear a shirt with a picture of a firearm seems excessive.
What if my kid is an avid deer hunter and wears a shirt with a deer rifle on it?
I think there are some today that are attempting to demonize a tool rather that the actual demons themselves!
The Reaper
03-11-2008, 14:36
Well, heaven forbid that we should offend a hoplophobe, a terrorist or a liberal.:rolleyes:
Bet he could have worn a shirt with a derogatory statement about the POTUS, or a picture of a real terrorist on it, like Che and been GTG. That would be a First Amendment issue involving protected speech.
I hate PC.
TR
I’m all for compliance with the rules…but...
That you can’t wear a shirt with a picture of a firearm seems excessive.
What if my kid is an avid deer hunter and wears a shirt with a deer rifle on it?
I think there are some today that are attempting to demonize a tool rather that the actual demons themselves!
Maybe. Or maybe it is just easier and more easily justifiable to make a blanket rule (no firearm images on clothing) than it is to go on a case by case basis.
You want little Johnny to be able to wear a shirt with a 30.06 on it.... now little Raymond's mom gets mad because he wasn't allowed to wear his shirt that had a Glock on it, which leads to another complaint, complaint, etc..... it's easier just to ban everything and not worry about it.
This is why I am for school uniforms.... the point of going to school is to learn, not to model clothes.
Well, heaven forbid that we should offemd a hoplophobe, a terrorist or a liberal.:rolleyes:
Bet he could have worn a shirt with a derogatory statement about the POTUS, or a picture of a real terrorist on it, like Che and been GTG. That would be a First Amendment issue involving protected speech.
I hate PC.
TR
It isn't PC... it is a liability issue. Think along the lines of school shootings and lawsuits by parents who want to know why teachers and admins "didn't see it coming and do something."
And when the POTUS came to a nearby school a couple of years ago, kids who wore any type of anti-Bush, anti-war, pro-Kerry shirts were forced to turn them inside out or leave the campus, so it works both ways.
The Reaper
03-11-2008, 14:50
It isn't PC... it is a liability issue. Think along the lines of school shootings and lawsuits by parents who want to know why teachers and admins "didn't see it coming and do something."
And when the POTUS came to a nearby school a couple of years ago, kids who wore any type of anti-Bush, anti-war, pro-Kerry shirts were forced to turn them inside out or leave the campus, so it works both ways.
I disagree. Gun haters are always pushing their agenda. How many teen mass murderers have we seen wearing a t-shirt with a gun on it?
Well, maybe if a terrorist comes to the school, he will turn his shirt inside out in order to accomodate them.:rolleyes:
TR
It doesn't seem to be PC but a dress code. I would ask, why did they put this in the dress code? Maybe because some kid was wearing a t shirt with a picture we would all detest. I am with MDB23, put them all in uniform. It takes care of issues like this, takes a lot of pressure off kids and studies show they learn more.
Reaper,
I don't think that all school boards are made up of "anti-gunners" though.... especially in rural areas, so what would their motive be?
I still say it is liability, or the concern thereof. I know that was the case when my father was on the school board. My dad was a shotgun collector, so I know his motives weren't "anti-gun" in nature. They were worried about being sued.
"Students who come to school enjoy limited First Amendment rights," French told the Sunday News. "But the school district has the right to enforce policies that protect students."
Just because the shirt had the terms "Homeland Security" and promoted the US Military does not make the kid in the right. Nor does the reason he wore it make it right. The rules are in place for a reason. He could have shown a way to support his Uncle without wearing a banned item to school.
All my kids go to schools that have "Uniform" requirements.
Not a hard "uniform" to get, pull over three button polo shirt in the required colors and the proper color slacks.
When I pick my kids up its interesting to see how far the other kids can streeeeeeeetccchhhhhh the rules while in school.
At the bell coming out the door the pants sag, shirts come untucked, girls bellys pop out, shoes untied - it would be funny if it was not so sad.
This reminds me of..
Probably at around the 3rd grade, the boys had to switch over with the girls in the shop work for a short while.
The girls had to carve out something from wood and we got to know the sewing machines.
Well, we had to make bags for our swimming classes for towels and like.
Some guys might have sewn an outline of a motorcycle or something like that on their bags..
Mine had an outline of a chainsaw and an UZI submachinegun.
At that time, just got a roll of the eyes from the teacher and nothing else.
I disagree. Gun haters are always pushing their agenda. How many teen mass murderers have we seen wearing a t-shirt with a gun on it?
Well, maybe if a terrorist comes to the school, he will turn his shirt inside out in order to accomodate them.:rolleyes:
TR
TR Sir, Your thinking holds water, IMHO.
How far have "we" as a soceity gone to ensure political correctness, all in the guise of "liability?"
When my sis was a senior in high-school in '92, she was nominated for FCA female athlete of the year, (Fellowship of Christian Athletes.) She was honored, and chose to have FCA tee-shirts made up for the whole org.,IIRC depicting the bible, a nice sharp sword and a shield.
And what retribution did she endure? Nothing, nada, zip. Back then, it was a non-issue.
IMHO, this is the same. The kid was showing respect for his Uncle, who is fighting the WAR, for cryin' out loud!
What are those "educators" doing to boost morale, besides parade this poor kid as an example of "What we do not support...the War."
Give the kid a pat on the back, and leave him the hell alone.
Just my .02.
Holly
TR Sir, Your thinking holds water, IMHO.
How far have "we" as a soceity gone to ensure political correctness, all in the guise of "liability?"
When my sis was a senior in high-school in '92, she was nominated for FCA female athlete of the year, (Fellowship of Christian Athletes.) She was honored, and chose to have FCA tee-shirts made up for the whole org.,IIRC depicting the bible, a nice sharp sword and a shield.
And what retribution did she endure? Nothing, nada, zip. Back then, it was a non-issue.
IMHO, this is the same. The kid was showing respect for his Uncle, who is fighting the WAR, for cryin' out loud!
What are those "educators" doing to boost morale, besides parade this poor kid as an example of "What we do not support...the War."
Give the kid a pat on the back, and leave him the hell alone.
Just my .02.
Holly
Once again, the school had a "no firearm on clothing" policy, the kid violated it, and refused to turn the shirt inside out. The shield, sword, and Bible are accepted symbols for the FCA, and are still allowed on every campus in the country. That has not changed.
The fact that the kid has an uncle in the war does not mean that he gets to violate school policies. What is he wanted to wear a "the only good hadji is a dead hadji" t shirt? Does his uncle's participation in the GWOT give him that right as well?
Once again, the school had a "no firearm on clothing" policy, the kid violated it, and refused to turn the shirt inside out. The shield, sword, and Bible are accepted symbols for the FCA, and are still allowed on every campus in the country. That has not changed.
The fact that the kid has an uncle in the war does not mean that he gets to violate school policies. What is he wanted to wear a "the only good hadji is a dead hadji" t shirt? Does his uncle's participation in the GWOT give him that right as well?
My beef IS the school policy. To me, it speaks of, "AGENDA" and "LIABLE." Two very closely linked terms, again, IMHO.
And if the Sword, (last I checked, a still utilized battle implement, is permitted, why not this tee-shirt?)
I can guess why...Agenda. In THIS case, plain as day IMHO.
And, also, we still have "I Am the NRA" stickers posted on our home doors 'round here. And yes, I live in "rural" America.
The anit-gun folks can kiss it, for all I care. This is America.
Holly
Issue remains the kid actively chose to violate posted regulations.
Like'em or not.
He's a dickhead who made himself a target.
There was a maroon here that showedup in traffic court weaing a "Shit Happens" t-shirt.
The judge used this example of disregard for his court for significant heaping of consequences.
Guys,
I'm a high school principal. Shirts with guns, profanity, hate speech, sexual content, drug or alcohol messages and the like are verboten. I have replacement clothing which is acceptable--although not likeable to students--and they are given said clothing to wear when violating our reasonable rules vice being sent home to change...and receiving zeroes and unexcused absences for wilfully disobeying the rules. The issued clothing must be laundered and returned the next day or there are follow-on consequences--Saturday detention 0800-1200 working on the school's on-going grounds beautification projects. The rules are approved by the Board, agreed to by our families, understood by all...and I have had few problems with them being violated.
IMO the kid was a dumbass.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Guys,
I'm a high school principal. Shirts with guns, profanity, hate speech, sexual content, drug or alcohol messages and the like are verboten. I have replacement clothing which is acceptable--although not likeable to students--and they are given said clothing to wear when violating our reasonable rules vice being sent home to change...and receiving zeroes and unexcused absences for wilfully disobeying the rules. The issued clothing must be laundered and returned the next day or there are follow-on consequences--Saturday detention 0800-1200 working on the school's on-going grounds beautification projects. The rules are approved by the Board, agreed to by our families, understood by all...and I have had few problems with them being violated.
IMO the kid was a dumbass.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Sir,
I respect all of the QP's thoughts and opinions on this subject.
I guess times have changed since I was in school. :(
Holly
Guys,
I'm a high school principal. Shirts with guns, profanity, hate speech, sexual content, drug or alcohol messages and the like are verboten. I have replacement clothing which is acceptable--although not likeable to students--and they are given said clothing to wear when violating our reasonable rules vice being sent home to change...and receiving zeroes and unexcused absences for wilfully disobeying the rules. The issued clothing must be laundered and returned the next day or there are follow-on consequences--Saturday detention 0800-1200 working on the school's on-going grounds beautification projects. The rules are approved by the Board, agreed to by our families, understood by all...and I have had few problems with them being violated.
IMO the kid was a dumbass.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
\
You are the kind of man I want around my kid. Ever think of moving to North Harris County?
Blakeslee
03-11-2008, 19:18
Issue remains the kid actively chose to violate posted regulations.
Agreed.
Policy and agendas are two totally different arguements. We can back and forth all day about left-sided agendas. Some agree with the school's policy - while others disagree. But, all of us should agree that this kid knew the policy and ignored it; even when given an opportunty to correct the "violation," he still ignored it. The end result is black and white. The policy itself, very grey.
The law suit is absurd. To the parents: salute the flag and consume your time and tax dollars with something worthwhile.
Guys,
I'm a high school principal. Shirts with guns, profanity, hate speech, sexual content, drug or alcohol messages and the like are verboten.
Richard :munchin
Honest question: Why are firearms included with this bunch? I'm either old school or very dumb. Which is it?:munchin
Honest question: Why are firearms included with this bunch? I'm either old school or very dumb. Which is it?:munchin
Old school it is.
Times change. Half the vehicles--pickups--in my high school had gun racks with a rifle or shotgun, fishing pole, hotshot, pickaxe handle, and the like. Nobody ever bothered anyone else's weapon and nobody ever pointed a weapon at anyone else. We left school to go work on our ranches and dairies, and a rifle or shotgun often came in handy out there.
But that was the 60s...and after Columbine and the rest of the school shootings over the past several decades, such images are viewed as being unwelcome on school campuses which, BTW, are declared to be gun free and drug free and alcohol free safe zones for kids.
Can't have it both ways, guys.
Richard :munchin
I agree the kid brought all this down upon himself. However, the preponderance of zero-tolerance against this and that-free zones is, IMO, the result of weak leadership. When in charge, take charge. Weigh each case on its merits or lack thereof, make a decision based on them, then tell those that disagree to feel free to pound sand.
I agree with the Razor and the Reaper and would like to add.
Part of our constitutional right is civil disobedience. If a law is wrong, you can protest and try to change it. IMHO, the school went over board on the rules. Just like a women in the early 50's who just refused to set in the back of the bus. Rules can be right, can be wrong and the wrong ones needs to be changed.
I don't gamble, but I bet on what the Reaper stated, if the shirt had Che', nothing would have happened.
I wish the kid success.
I was "fortunate enough" to go to middle and high school in the People's Republic of California. The last year of middle school they instituted uniforms. In high school they had a very strict dress code that included tucking our T-shirts in, no unusual hair color, and a few other wastes of time and energy. It didn't make me feel more or less safe, nor did I learn more because of it; it only made me look at the people enforcing and making the policy with less respect and made their opinion in general carry less weight.
I still followed the policy, for the most part, because it certainly didn't hurt me. In fact it taught me to consider where and from whom advice and policies came from. I think of it as a healthy skepticism of authority.
With that, the whole "no t-shirts with guns on them" reminds me of a Petty Officer 2nd Class Danny P. Dietz. He was a Navy Seal that was killed in Afghanistan defending his team and himself against a large militia force. For his actions, he was awarded the Navy Cross. Since he was from here in Littleton, Colorado, Littleton decided to erect a memorial for him in a park. Unfortunately, as soon as the picture they were going to use was released, the protests began. Not because he fought in an unpopular war, or that the memorial was to be placed in a park, but because he held an M4.
Frankly I find the demonizing of a tool used to protect life and liberty to be offensive. To group guns with profanity, hate speech, sexual nature, and drugs and alcohol is nonsense. Danny's widow said it best when she said, "It’s a parent’s job, including these parents who are protesting, to teach their children the difference between two thugs who murder their classmates and a soldier who died fighting for their freedom. Danny represents every soldier and sailor who has fallen, and for them to take this stand, well, that’s offensive to me.”
Sparky
P.S. Here is a link showing the dedication and some great pictures of the memorial.
(http://www.littletongov.org/history/dietz/default.asp)
:munchin
Civil non-violent disobedience is a form of protest and challenge of policy acceptable in the United States. It's a freedom most of us have protected. What ever the outcome is the kid and his family have the right to challenge the policy as visual expression is freedom of speech.
A picture of a gun is not a gun while an obscenity and hate speech is what it is in any form. If a school wants to silence free speech it probably should go the uniform route.
It smacks of the useless stupidity of punishing a kid for having a pen with a Glock logo, or drawing a picture of a gun, or playing cops and robbers.
Guys,
Here are our rules. The intent is to keep it neat, clean, allow variety, and simply reduce the distractability outlandish clothing, jewelry, or hair styles brings to the learning environment. Many companies have much stricter rules than these. We are a 1-12 grade school and that affects both our student and parent bodies.
• Revealing, sagging, or overly tight clothing is unacceptable.
• Shirts and blouses are to be neat and not outlandish in style or fit.
• Colored (non-white) T-shirts, without logos, pictures, or messages, may be worn and must meet the same criteria as shirts/blouses.
• Tennis shoes and/or leather shoes/sandals may be worn. For safety reasons, neither heels nor soles over 2 inches high are acceptable. No shower shoes or cheap “flip-flops” are allowed. Quality flip-flops (e.g., Reefs or the like) may be worn.
• No camouflage attire is to be worn.
• Students will wear appropriately fitted jeans, slacks, khakis, corduroys, dress pants, skirts, dresses, or tailored shorts. Skirts, dresses, and shorts are to be no shorter than 4 inches above the top of the kneecap.
• No sweats, warm-ups, or wind pants are to be worn.
• Hair must be neat, clean, well groomed, and out of the face. Outlandish hair styles (e.g., spiking) and/or unnatural coloring are unacceptable.
• Jangling or heavy jewelry, and facial and tongue piercing are unacceptable.
• Boys must be clean shaven.
• Bulky outside coats/raincoats may not be worn in class; light jackets and sweaters are acceptable.
• Approved "school logo wear" may be worn at any time (unless otherwise specified). Athletic and physical education clothing is not considered "school logo wear."
• No hats or caps are to be worn on campus.
• Tattered, frayed, dirty, or torn clothing is unacceptable.
FWIW, we seldom have issues with these rules and they are viewed by our faculty, student and parent bodies as being reasonable and acceptable.
Richard :munchin
Frankly I find the demonizing of a tool used to protect life and liberty to be offensive. To group guns with profanity, hate speech, sexual nature, and drugs and alcohol is nonsense. Danny's widow said it best when she said, "It’s a parent’s job, including these parents who are protesting, to teach their children the difference between two thugs who murder their classmates and a soldier who died fighting for their freedom. Danny represents every soldier and sailor who has fallen, and for them to take this stand, well, that’s offensive to me.”
Sparky
WELL SAID SPARKY!
The Reaper
03-13-2008, 07:06
We have fallen into the hands of the anti-gun culture.
A firearm is a tool, and last time I checked, the only one of the forbidden images with its own amendment to the Constitution.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a gun, or a picture thereof. It cannot, on its own, injure or kill. In fact, Fords and Chevy's kill more people each year in this country than firearms do, and we do not see schools banning their images. Yet auto accidents kill many more students than firearms do. Should we ban clothing with vehicle logos, toy cars, and car magazines from our schools as well? It is the actions of the user that can be proper, or improper, and the failure to assign (and accept) responsibility for our actions as individuals is endemic in our society.
I still consider this action PC, by hoplophobes, and wish we spent more time teaching the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the writings of the Founding Fathers than on any of the feelgood holidays, recognition months, multi-cuturalism, or COO classes.
My kids have attended schools with dress codes, and they complied, but I think there is a larger issue here in this case that needs to be addressed.
When did an image of an inanimate object become so contentious, and why?
TR
I am glad I live in Rural Oregon. My daughter has on her note book, also gave one to her teachers a sticker from that is like the ones on military vehicles in OIF,
"Stay back 100 Meters or you will be shot" in English and Arabic.
It is cool at her school, hunting is a acceptable past time there too!
I understand and agree with reasonable dress codes. I believe children should adhere to them. I do oppose unreasonable petty bureaucratic rules/PC rules.
GratefulCitizen
03-13-2008, 09:14
He should have just put an orange sticker over the muzzle.
Then he could argue that it wasn't a gun anymore. :D
Guys,
When I was a kid in school we had a dress code that was put into place by our principal.
When I was a tree trimmer we had a reasonable dress code we followed that was put into place by our boss.
When I was in the Army we had a dress code we followed that was put into place by our boss.
When I was at the Embassy we had a dress code we followed that was put into place by our boss.
Businesses, organizations, and schools today use dress codes which are put into place by their bosses.
Since I am a high school principal in a large urban area and think that I am the only one who personally has a "dog in this hunt" as this discussion has gone, I don't quite understand what the "beef" is here. In my experiences with all these "dress codes"...reasonably acceptable dress and enforcement always wins out. The problems are usually when someone gets a "burr under their saddle" and goes overboard with it all.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I have 4, count 'em...4 sons. They all get the speil from me about the way they dress, T-shirts to shorts (we weren't authorized to wear short when I was in, unless it was a special day in Spring mandated by the Principal), and they know to keep it simple and keep it strict and keep it sharp, to a degree...no grunge shirts, no weapons, no saggy pants or shorts, and definitley no bling or shirts that represent that crap. They answer to ME, not some school policy. I don't receive emails or calls from my exwife or my new bride about any of my kids because of that fearful respect issue we older guys grew up with. I've instilled a healthy dose of it in each one of them. I believe most of these problems begin at home.
I'm all for wearing clothes that state your likes, dislikes, hobbies and such, but there is, as with everything else in life, a time and a place for that sort of thing. School should not be one of them. Kids shouldn't be in school to make fashion statements, they should be there to learn, period.
This kind of stuff is the reason I had a dress code when I went to school...Button down or golf type shirts only, must be tucked in, hair cut off the collar, no earrings, noserings, lip rings, eyebrow rings, tongue rings, etc., and the females weren't allowed to wear provocative jeans--meaning the tight ones with no pockets on the back. They had to be looser fitting, not skin tight.
My father let me know I would follow the rules, or else. And 'or else' was not a happy place to be. :D
My .02.
Mick
Guys,
When I was a kid in school we had a dress code that was put into place by our principal.
When I was a tree trimmer we had a reasonable dress code we followed that was put into place by our boss.
When I was in the Army we had a dress code we followed that was put into place by our boss.
When I was at the Embassy we had a dress code we followed that was put into place by our boss.
Businesses, organizations, and schools today use dress codes which are put into place by their bosses.
Since I am a high school principal in a large urban area and think that I am the only one who personally has a "dog in this hunt" as this discussion has gone, I don't quite understand what the "beef" is here. In my experiences with all these "dress codes"...reasonably acceptable dress and enforcement always wins out. The problems are usually when someone gets a "burr under their saddle" and goes overboard with it all.
Richard's $.02 :munchinNow we have kids dictating standards of dress?:confused:
Stay safe.
The Reaper
03-13-2008, 11:31
Richard, I hear what you are saying, but students are not employees or troops, schools are taxpayer funded, and school boards are generally publicly elected positions.
If the rules state that a student cannot wear a shirt with a gun on it, you should not be able to wear a shirt with a flower, or an alligator, or words/letters either. Fair is fair.
TR
Guys,
Here are our rules.
• Colored (non-white) T-shirts, without logos, pictures, or messages,
Richard, does this mean my son couldn't wear a t-shirt with a logo of his Boy Scout troop, or the t-shirt he received for earning the Presidential Fitness gold award, or a t-shirt his team earned for winning their league soccer championship tournament (not a school team)? If so, it seems rather sad to punish "winners" due to potential complaints from "losers".
FWIW, my kids go to a private school, and have a uniform they must wear at all times. However, the difference is I choose to send my kids there, and therefore I have chosen to live under the rules and standards set by the school, whether I agree with them or not (and there are several with which I don't agree). As TR said, if the school is public, and attendance is mandatory (all states still have truancy laws up to a certain age still, right?), then reasonable dress codes enforcing the neat wear of acceptable (as dictated by the local school board) clothes that don't cause significant distraction makes sense, but there's a limit to that, too.
Blakeslee
03-13-2008, 12:19
IMHO, comparing an image of a gun is not the same as an image of a company logo, or truck, or .... Unfortunately, it's guns in schools (killing children) that are making the headlines. Yes, owning firearms is a consitutional right. But, it's not appropiate for children in grades K-12. Wearing clothing with images of drugs is promoting drug use. Wearing clothing with guns is promoting gun use. While gun use is more than acceptable to most of us here, gun use is not acceptable for my children. I just think that certain rights that I have do not always apply to my children.
This rule is not much to ask of our children. To me, this issue is not worth getting wrapped around the axel about. Now, when they start banning the right to own firearms, then it's time to take notice (e.g. in San Francisco, I was unable to purchase, much less own a firearm. This is also the only city that has banned ROTC from its high schools).
Our current social trend is responsible. The kids who decided they'd start killing people in their school are responsible. While 90% of gun owning Americans are responsible - it's the other 10% that caused this whole debacle to begin with
I own a firearm and I'm proud to know that the constitution, that I do my part to defend, allows me to do so.
The Reaper
03-13-2008, 12:39
IMHO, comparing an image of a gun is not the same as an image of a company logo, or truck, or .... Unfortunately, it's guns in schools (killing children) that are making the headlines. Yes, owning firearms is a consitutional right. But, it's not appropiate for children in grades K-12. Wearing clothing with images of drugs is promoting drug use. Wearing clothing with guns is promoting gun use. While gun use is more than acceptable to most of us here, gun use is not acceptable for my children. I just think that certain rights that I have do not always apply to my children.
This rule is not much to ask of our children. To me, this issue is not worth getting wrapped around the axel about. Now, when they start banning the right to own firearms, then it's time to take notice (e.g. in San Francisco, I was unable to purchase, much less own a firearm. This is also the only city that has banned ROTC from its high schools).
Our current social trend is responsible. The kids who decided they'd start killing people in their school are responsible. While 90% of gun owning Americans are responsible - it's the other 10% that caused this whole debacle to begin with
I own a firearm and I'm proud to know that the constitution, that I do my part to defend, allows me to do so.
My kids have been shooting since they were six years old, and I do not see a problem with it. Why do you? They understand the rules of safe firearms handling, and practice them.
I refuse to be treated like a leper, or to have to be be an apologist because I enjoy firearms and shooting, and my children do. Lumping images of guns with those of racism, porn, and drugs is complete and utter BS. You are well on the slippery slope to the end of private firearms ownership with your attitude. My inalienable Second Amendment rights are not subject to compromise, nor are they about duck hunting. Do some historical reading about the amendment in question and why it is in the Bill of Rights.
Your broad brush statement that 10% of firearms owners are causing trouble strikes me a a gross generalization. Would you make that statement about people of another race or ethnicity?
Tell me this. How many children (not teenagers) were killed in firearms accidents last year?
How many died in motor vehicle accidents?
What is the leading cause of death for children?
I think there would be a lot fewer public shootings if more places allowed CCW, and the little bastards who prey on the innocent were buried in unmarked graves without any mention of their names, sight of their faces, or any media coverage whatsoever.
Finally, I find your uninformed comments disappointing.
TR
IMHO, comparing an image of a gun is not the same as an image of a company logo, or truck..
So how about the logos of Glock, Remington, Winchester and Benneli. Is anyone going to jump on the bandwagon of banning recruiters or ROTC as inappropriate images for high school students?
Reasonable school policies actually accomplish safety, teach respect and build character. Ridiculous policies to make people feel comfortable while accomplishing nothing breed contempt for all rules.
Imagine suspending an honors student, stripping him of his title of class vice president and banning him from an honors dinner, for buying a bag of skittles on school grounds. But it was policy, it's a rule. Meanwhile a news article claims 1 in 4 teen age girls has an STD.
A gun as has been said is a tool. Better to teach respect for what it can do and it's use than vilify it. Unless of course the intent is to breed more helpless sheep while the wolves multiply. If todays kids are taught only to be frightened, and frightened of guns especially there will only come more "policies" and bans. Myself I don't have much doubt how that would lead to some significant loss of rights and freedoms.
Start small end big. Isn't that Schumer and Fienstiens method.
Richard, I hear what you are saying, but students are not employees or troops, schools are taxpayer funded, and school boards are generally publicly elected positions.
If the rules state that a student cannot wear a shirt with a gun on it, you should not be able to wear a shirt with a flower, or an alligator, or words/letters either. Fair is fair.
TR
Guys,
Students are operating in an environment which demands they do work and reasonable dress codes aid in the perception of that concept. Also, if you look at our dress code, it states "plain" -- no writing, no pictures, no logos.
Richard
. Yes, owning firearms is a consitutional right. But, it's not appropiate for children in grades K-12.
To echo The Reaper on kids shooting: I took elective classes in hunting and fishing while in High School. I still have the firearm safety card issued upon completion of the course. It was / is required to get a hunting license. I guess the texts we used back then would be contraband now. :mad:
Our current social trend is responsible
Really? Let’s see now…
Then: parents and grandparents along with the schools taught firearm safety and responsibility with how many school shootings?????
Now: firearms courses are no longer taught (checked locally here to verify), more and more parents fail to spend time with kids and transfer needed lessons on responsibility, morals etc ...and we have what we have…:(
Guys,
Students are operating in an environment which demands they do work and reasonable dress codes aid in the perception of that concept. Also, if you look at our dress code, it states "plain" -- no writing, no pictures, no logos.
Richard
Indeed, Richard Sir, times have changed.;)
FWIW,
When I was in public HS, way back in the '88-'92 timeframe, things were different. The rich wore designer clothes, the poor did not care, and us athletes had to wear our uniforms, (and our Cheer skirts were short!)
I remember clearly though, that for my grad class photo, we all had to walk through a metal detector, and that was bizzare to me.
I just wonder now where "they" are drawing the line? Though TR's comments made sense to me, I proposed the question to my Dad, who is a million times smarter than me. He agreed the "rule" at the local school level was what should be addressed.
Indeed where are "we" as a soceity today? Both sides of this issue have valid points, IMVHO. I would say folks should rally, and make new rules.:o
Just my .02, and Thank You!
Holly
EDIT: To add, I was raised in a home that hunted and fished. I shot my first round when I was 8 years old, out on my Grandpa's farm.
Shotguns were a part of my upbringing, and though I currently do not own one, I respect them for their purposes. :)
This hits me that there are two discussions going on. I am for dress codes and might even support school uniforms if there was a need here.
I think The Reaper point is; if they allow T-shirts with designs, then why bar one with a picture of a gun and allow one of, let say, a flower?
I don't think anyone is saying, NO to dress codes. My kids know if they break the rules, they will pay the fine. If the rule needs to challenge, we will do that too. I would not have taken the approach this kid did. Here I know the principal, we can talk. He can explain his view, I can explain mine and hopefully a understanding is made.
My wife is a retired school teacher, a friend is a retired superintendent of schools, and the other list of friends who are in the education business. When looking at the other problems schools have to deal with, this issue is not a problem. It was made a problem and, IMHO, should have been resolved better.
PC-ism is just another form or controlling the people, it is a bases of an oppressed society. Schools are also there to educate and to teach people how to make decissions on their own. I just don't support mindless obedience.
Here I know the principal, we can talk. He can explain his view, I can explain mine and hopefully a understanding is made.
Agree with this, Hollis.
I have to wonder about the realtionship of the School Principal and this family. It indeed seems odd that "they" could not have a sit-down...instead, it seems this particular kid was just punished.
Where is the due-dilligence on the part of the adults in this scenario? I do feel sorry for this kid, whatever the outcome.
Just my humble .02,
Holly
Parents are NOT raising/discipling kids today; our public schools are!
If people think that---kids can do no wrong? You are sadly mistaken.:eek:
Stay safe.
Well, it seems this thread has been steered way off course. The base issue is what can kids wear in school, or rather not wear?
If a school is going to ban T-shirts with any kind of weapon on it, especially guns, then they will eventually come across someone who will be offended by the grungehead's Hubastank, Nickleback, or Godsmack T, and will file a complaint and that will be next on the chopping block, if it isn't already.
It's just like the whole Pledge of Allegience thing. Some people got offended because the had to say God instead of Allah, or Buddha, or whatever their belief system is based on. We live in the most free nation on earth, and that means putting up with those who will exercise their freedoms to gripe about the kinds of clothes our kids wear in school.
In the end, it's truly not worth "getting wrapped around the axle" over, as was stated elsewhere here, because as I stated previously, for my situation I am the one who ultimately dictates what MY kids wear to school, not the school. This way they are tought to be responsible young men instead of little punks running around talking back to teachers and their elders, while wearing clothes that hang off their behinds and hats that just can't seem to stay on straight, among the other things mentioned in this thread.
Mick
sofmed,
I've had 20-30-40-50y/o men dress that way on a construction site.:confused:
I've even had a 19y/o kid that owed his dad thousands of $$$$$! The dad told me his son could NOT work over-time!:(:confused:
Stay safe.
Blakeslee
03-13-2008, 18:22
My kids have been shooting since they were six years old, and I do not see a problem with it. Why do you? They understand the rules of safe firearms handling, and practice them.
We can't hold the country to a higher standard simply because it's easy for us. Not everyone has that aptitude.
Lumping images of guns with those of racism, porn, and drugs is complete and utter BS. You are well on the slippery slope to the end of private firearms ownership with your attitude.
I made that comparision with regard to "promotion" only. I should have said, if you wear a Spurs Jersey, you're promoting the Spurs. I could be alone in this thought process (and I realize this) but, when you wear an article of clothing that has any image on it, you're promoting that image in one form or fashion. That's all I meant by that statement.
My inalienable Second Amendment rights are not subject to compromise, nor are they about duck hunting.
I concur. Seriously, I do. But, why aren't we up in arms about being able to carry weapons on us at all times? That was the intent. Leave me and my firearms alone. But, now we have age limits as to who can buy weapons, who can carry them and where you can use them. Times have evolved and we have to adapt. We don't have to change nor do we have to give up our rights. We just have to protect our rights by placing laws for them.
Your broad brush statement that 10% of firearms owners are causing trouble strikes me a a gross generalization. Would you make that statement about people of another race or ethnicity?
While that statement wasn't to scale, it backed up my point. According to the New York Times, in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, 81 people died from gunfire (in the US) each day. 29,569 people died from firearms. So, this simply shows me that not all 100% of gun owners are responsible. My point was that: irresponsible gun owners makes it harder, for those of us who are responsible, to enjoy our 2nd Amendment right. We have these controversial rules today because of that. IMHO, that's a fair statement.
Also, I would not make that statement about another race or ethnicity; because, I don't lump guns with racism. That's not a fair comparison.
Tell me this. How many children (not teenagers) were killed in firearms accidents last year?
I'm not debating accidents. I'm talking the cold-blooded murders of children in school...any school. It's those school shootings over the past years 10 years that has forced educators to take steps (regardless of how petty they may seem to you and me) to make their schools safer; even if they fail. What was the number one cause of deaths in schools last year?
I think there would be a lot fewer public shootings if more places allowed CCW, and the little bastards who prey on the innocent were buried in unmarked graves without any mention of their names, sight of their faces, or any media coverage whatsoever.
I second that! The media coverage of these school shootings - along with the irresponsible gun owners - are the reason we're reading some crazy story about some school, some kid and some shirt.
Finally, I find your uninformed comments disappointing.
Fair enough. But, I wasn't defending that the all school rules and guidelines are reasonable. I was pointing out events that brought us to where we are today. Cause and effect.
Lastly, Joseph Story (19th century legal scholar,)wrote that the Constitution has "a fixed, uniform, permanent construction. It should be ... not dependent upon the passions or parties of particular times, but the same yesterday, today and forever."
I whole-heartily agree. I'm just forced to think about how to best protect my rights. Sometimes, that includes regulations must be set into place so we don't give the gun-haters ammo to take away those rights. (pardon the pun)
:)
sofmed,
I've had 20-30-40-50y/o men dress that way on a construction site.:confused:
I've even had a 19y/o kid that owed his dad thousands of $$$$$! The dad told me his son could NOT work over-time!:(:confused:
Stay safe.
I know, Guy. I've seen it across the age spectrum too. I guess the older I become the more conservative I've grown. I've realised that I have a greater responsibility as a parent to ensure that my sons grow to be decent, honorable, trustworthy, respectful and respectable men, not what we see so much of out there these days. But now I digress and I'll try to stay on track here.
Great thread, everyone. Thanks for sharing your opinions. It truly gives me new perspectives from which to view and scrutinize my own beliefs by, in order to become a better man.
Cheers!
Mick
aricbcool
03-13-2008, 21:21
I'm taking Richard's side on this one. Here's why... Rather than look at this as schools squashing 2nd ammendment rights, I see this more as schools trying to regulate the walking billboard that is The T-Shirt, specifically in regards to promoting and glorifying senseless violence.
Ultimately T-Shirts are a form of personal expression. A way for a student to make a statement.
As far as firearms shirts and making statements go, I've attached 4 images of t-shirts you can buy today on the internet. Two of them are probably the reason for the no guns on T-Shirts ban in the first place. They blatantly espouse the "gangsta" lifestyle. It's a no brainer that these shirts are counteractive to the education of well adjusted contributing members of society. One of the other shirts depicts a firearm and a machete and at the bottoms says "Zombie Hunter". To those of the more geek persuasion, they'd recognize this shirt as promotion of a cultish love of zombie films, books and games and leave it at that. Harmless right? We'll come back to that in a minute.
The final shirt is a plain T with a simple picture of a handgun. No caption gives meaning to the image. Worn by the valedictorian who everyone knows practices competitive marksmanship in the Boy Scouts, this shirt could be considered appropriate and understandable. However, if worn by the rebellious bully kid, it's most likely a statement espousing his love of brutality and senseless violence. If worn by the quiet kid who doesn't talk much, and has no friends, it's probably a cryptic warning that someday soon he's going to shoot the place up. Or not. That's the problem. With a vague shirt like that, who knows. But the kid knows.
And then there's the secret meaning angle. Take the zombie hunter shirt for instance. Worn by the geeky kid, and it's a cute promotion of his favorite resident evil movie. However, a street gang could pick it up and add special meaning to it, especially if say their rival gang is called the zombies. So, in many ways, shirts with firearms and or other weapons, have a flexibility that flower t-shirts do not. They can be used to threaten and intimidate just as easily as to harmlessly express opinion and belief. And the kid wearing it isn't just going to come out and tell you which angle he's promoting.
And yes, firearms are a tool. But specifically a tool for violence. Whether the violence is towards animals or people, justifiable or not, protected by our ammendments or not, it's still the same thing: People use guns to kill things. And that gets into the realm of personal belief and individual family values. And the use of violence is not a belief or value that you can standardize and teach to all children. You can teach the history of, the current laws towards, and how it relates to the constitution (and I certainly believe schools should), but when it comes down to it, the teaching of values in regards to the use of violence (with or without firearms) is the realm of the parent.
Regards,
Aric
The statements of the school officials point to the image of a gun, "military weapon" as the offense. They state the image is contrary to a "safe" school environment.
"Students who come to school enjoy limited First Amendment rights," French told the Sunday News. "But the school district has the right to enforce policies that protect students."
I wonder the physical protection that elimination of an image provides.
There's more to the story.
The incident happened Dec. 4, according to the federal complaint. But the story actually begins last spring.
That's when Miller's uncle, Brian Souders, shipped out to Iraq. He had been stationed at Fort Benning, Ga., and bought the shirt at the base post exchange, or PX, and gave it to Donald as a gift.
With his uncle on the front lines of the "War on Terror," Donald said he wanted to show his support. And so one day toward the end of eighth grade, he wore the shirt to school — and was admonished by Penn Manor Middle School officials. Donald didn't want to get in trouble, so he turned the shirt inside out.
But he didn't think that was right. In early December, he wore the shirt to Penn Manor High School. No one said a word about it all day, he said, until his final period, when a classmate complained to the teacher.
The teacher asked him to turn the shirt inside out, but he refused. Miller was sent to the principal's office. Once there, he said he was again told to turn the shirt inside out.
"I told them to call my parents," said Miller. And his refusal to comply resulted in detention.
Three days later attorney Brown sent a letter to Penn Manor Superintendent Donald Stewart asserting that the "strong-arm censorship by school officials amounts to content discrimination and is unconstitutional."
But, wrote Brown, the Millers wished to "resolve this issue amicably" and "avoid unnecessary litigation and media attention." Brown asked that the district rescind the detention, allow Miller to wear the shirt, provide training to district employees on the subject of students' constitutional rights — and pay attorney fees, about $2,500.
Initially, the district decided to make a concession: It agreed to drop a line from its "student expression policy" that prohibited speech seeking "to establish the supremacy of a particular religious denomination, sect or point of view." And in a Jan. 8 letter to Brown, district solicitor Robert J. Frankhouser, of the Lancaster law firm of Hartman Underhill & Brubaker, said Penn Manor might be willing to consider tinkering with other, similar policies.
But on the issue of guns, and the advocating of violence, the district vowed to "vigorously defend its policy and the application of policy in this instance," wrote Frankhouser. Students, he wrote, "may not wear clothing to school that advocates the use of force or urges the violation of law or school regulations.
"The shirt in question contains the image of a firearm and clearly advocates illegal behavior," he wrote.
That, he concluded, should be the end of the matter.
http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/217898
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57953
Bracholi
03-14-2008, 06:44
First I'd like to say I graduated high school rather recently and never violated the rules mainly because as I minor I really didn't have the full freedom of speech I do now. I did however wear camo to school often. Why? One reason is because at the time I thought it looked cool. The bigger reason was because I had attended a military academy for awhile and was comfortable in BDUs and knew someday soon I'd enlist. Which I am yet to do. Weight loss takes some time. It never was a distraction and never made me the next school shooter so I guess what I wore to school was no major issue. I think we just need to switch to school uniforms now and get it over with. You give a kid an inch and they'll take their pants down 3 inches.
I concur. Seriously, I do. But, why aren't we up in arms about being able to carry weapons on us at all times? That was the intent. Leave me and my firearms alone. But, now we have age limits as to who can buy weapons, who can carry them and where you can use them. Times have evolved and we have to adapt. We don't have to change nor do we have to give up our rights. We just have to protect our rights by placing laws for them.
:)
That last part... "We don't have to change nor do we have to give up our rights. We just have to protect our rights by placing laws for them." irks me.
I'm sorry but laws only take away freedoms, they never protect them. The constitution already gives me the right to bear arms. Yes even I at 20 according to the constitution have the right to own firearms. That would apply to handguns but someone decided to pass a law making me wait until 21 to own one. Tell me the difference now between a mature 18 year old and immature 21 year old. Why 21?
I will just say it again once. Laws don't protect rights, they take away rights.
GratefulCitizen
03-14-2008, 07:59
I'm curious if the 2nd amendment is taught in this school.
Other parts of the Constitution are probably taught...
Blakeslee
03-14-2008, 08:43
You give a kid an inch and they'll take their pants down 3 inches.
I love this! :)
That last part... "We don't have to change nor do we have to give up our rights. We just have to protect our rights by placing laws for them." irks me. I'm sorry but laws only take away freedoms, they never protect them. The constitution already gives me the right to bear arms. Yes even I at 20 according to the constitution have the right to own firearms. That would apply to handguns but someone decided to pass a law making me wait until 21 to own one. Tell me the difference now between a mature 18 year old and immature 21 year old. Why 21?
I will just say it again once. Laws don't protect rights, they take away rights.
What about the laws against violence? Does that protect your rights at all? Your argument about the difference between 18-21 has been fought and lost though out the years. Why do you have to wait until your 21 to drink? Or 16 to drive? Or 18 to vote or join the military? You must have rules and regulations set in place. You cannot govern effectively without law.
There are laws that even protect those under 18. If every teenager was treated and punished in the same manner as an adult, that would terrible - dependant upon the crime, of course. I'm sorry, but 18 is not the same as 21. That's 3 years of being held responsible as an adult. That's 3 years of possibley being on your own, 3 years in college, 3 years of military service, 3 years being in the work force full-time, etc.
All and all (since I've beat this horse to death):
I just don't see the 2nd amendment being pulled from the Bill of Rights. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to be naive and say "it's not possible." But, IMHO, The 1st and 2nd Amendments are entirely too controversial to even be formally proposed via a 2/3rd's legislative vote. There are 2 ways to make proposed amendments (only 1 ever being used). That's just allow a proposal to go before Congress; much, less get approved. I don't see it even getting this far.
I do, however, see cities passing their own laws making waves for us and that disturbs me.
The Reaper
03-14-2008, 09:05
We can't hold the country to a higher standard simply because it's easy for us. Not everyone has that aptitude.
I disagree. I can teach virtually anyone to shoot, and to do so safely.
How do you reconcile the following statements, advocating the Constitution as a binding legal contract with the American people, yet you seem to simultaneously claim that is needs to evolve (with additional restrictions), and also claim that we need laws to restrict our inalienable rights. Please explain to me what you think inalienable means, and why the Bill of Rights exists.
I concur. Seriously, I do. But, why aren't we up in arms about being able to carry weapons on us at all times? That was the intent. Leave me and my firearms alone. But, now we have age limits as to who can buy weapons, who can carry them and where you can use them. Times have evolved and we have to adapt. We don't have to change nor do we have to give up our rights. We just have to protect our rights by placing laws for them.
I whole-heartily agree. I'm just forced to think about how to best protect my rights. Sometimes, that includes regulations must be set into place so we don't give the gun-haters ammo to take away those rights. (pardon the pun)
Lastly, Joseph Story (19th century legal scholar,)wrote that the Constitution has "a fixed, uniform, permanent construction. It should be ... not dependent upon the passions or parties of particular times, but the same yesterday, today and forever."
According to the New York Times, in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, 81 people died from gunfire (in the US) each day. 29,569 people died from firearms. So, this simply shows me that not all 100% of gun owners are responsible. My point was that: irresponsible gun owners makes it harder, for those of us who are responsible, to enjoy our 2nd Amendment right. We have these controversial rules today because of that. IMHO, that's a fair statement.
Frankly, I am beginning to wonder if you have the intelligence to participate in this discussion. The NYT is hardly a credible source for anything, especially regarding firearms. Your numbers from the NYT appear to be from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence or some such advocacy organization, and IIRC, include "children" up to the age of 25, those shot by LEOs, homicides, suicides, gang hits, and probably combat fatalities as well. The real number of children under age 15 killed by firearms accidents is less than 500 per year, according to impartial statistics. School shootings injured fewer people than football, basketball, baseball, or track and field. Read the following stats from a credible source, and compare them to your NYT "fact" of 81 people killed by firearms per day or 29,569 per year.
National Safety Council
In the past 10 years, firearm-related accidents in the home have dropped by more than 44 percent
Over the past 9 years, the number of unintentional firearm-related fatalities for children 14 and under has decreased by 69 percent
Firearms are involved in fewer than 1.2 percent of accidental fatalities among children 14 and under
The number of unintentional firearm-related deaths has decreased by 40 percent – from 1,225 accidental deaths in 1995 to just 730 in 2005
Children Killed by Guns
How many children are killed by guns is a complicated question. The answer depends on a number of factors, including age range, and whether homicide, suicide, and/or unintentional-injuries are included in the figure. If the age range is 0-19 years, and homicide, suicide, and unintentional injuries are included, then the total firearms-related deaths for 1999 is 3,385 . This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists. The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 breaks down to 214 unintentional, 1,078 suicides, 1,990 homicides, 83 for which the intent could not be determined, and 20 due to legal intervention. Viewed by age group, 73 of the total firearms-related deaths were of children under 5 years old, 416 were children 5-14 years old, and 2,896 were 15-19 years old. See page 127 of the 2002 edition of Injury Facts ®."
Accidental fatality rates involving firearms are at the lowest levels in history at 0.2% per 100,000 population
Since 1903, the rate per 100,000 population of accidental fatality rates has declined by 94 percent
Of firearms, fires, flames, smoke, motor vehicles, and ingestion of food or objects, unintentional fatalities in the USA from firearms had the largest rate of decrease in the past decade
More people died from natural heat or cold in 2005 (the final year in the study) than by firearms
The record-high year of firearm-related accidents was in 1930 where America experienced 3,220 incidents. In 2005 this number had dropped to only 730 in spite of the fact that the population grew considerably and the number of firearms present in America skyrocketed
If you really want a safe sport, go hunting! In 2005, there were 808 non-fatal shooting accidents and 95 fatal shooting accidents out of 20.9 million active hunters (those who hunt more than once each year aged 7 and older). Cheerleading, Archery, Baseball, Boxing, Football, Hockey, Martial Arts, Mountain Biking, Mountain Climbing, Skateboarding, Snowboarding, Soccer, Softball, Tennis, Volleyball, Water Skiing, and Wrestling each had fewer participants and more injuries than hunting
Measure 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
By Type of Event
Falls 15,019 16,257 17,229 17,500 17,700
Deaths per 100,000
population 5.3 5.6 5.9 6.0 6.0
Poisoning 14,078 17,550 19,457 20,000 20,900
Deaths per 100,000
population 4.9 6.4 6.7 6.8 7.1
Choking** 4,185 4,128 4,272 4,500 4,600
Deaths per 100,000
population 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6
Drowning 3,281 3,447 3,306 3,600 3,600
Deaths per 100,000
population 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2
Fires, flames, smoke 3,309 3,159 3,369 3,600 3,100
Deaths per 100,000
population 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.0
Mechanical suffocation 1,370 1,389 1,309 1,400 1,400
Deaths per 100,000
population 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5
Firearms 802 762 730 750 730
Deaths per 100,000
population 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2
Also, I would not make that statement about another race or ethnicity; because, I don't lump guns with racism. That's not a fair comparison.
It is if you are making gross generalizations about firearms owners. Haters are haters, regardless of their targets. Show me how 15 million firearms owners (10%, right?) are giving the rest of us firearms owners a bad name.
I'm not debating accidents. I'm talking the cold-blooded murders of children in school...any school. It's those school shootings over the past years 10 years that has forced educators to take steps (regardless of how petty they may seem to you and me) to make their schools safer; even if they fail. What was the number one cause of deaths in schools last year?
Motor Vehicle accidents, Disease, Fires, Poisonings, Choking, and Drowning would all seem to be by published statistics. Personally, I think you are caught up in some sort of media hysteria.
You might want to do some more research before wading into arguments here with a bias, some strongly held opinions, and some very dubious data.
TR
Blakeslee, The way I look at this situation is that we live between two abyss'. One is totalitarianism, the other is anarchy, both are equally deadly. When rules become all encompassing, we fall into totalitarianism. When rules are removed, we fall into anarchy. Somewhere between the two we can live as relative free people. There are changes with time and laws/rules need to reflect those change and serve the people.
I would say, if the laws/rules serve the people then there are not too many. If the laws/rules do not serve the people, then there are too many laws/rules. I think that is what our founding fathers were trying to do, create a reasonable and workable balance that will offer a society with the greatest amount of freedom for it's citizens. I really don't see it as a black and white situation.
I agree the kid brought all this down upon himself. However, the preponderance of zero-tolerance against this and that-free zones is, IMO, the result of weak leadership. When in charge, take charge. Weigh each case on its merits or lack thereof, make a decision based on them, then tell those that disagree to feel free to pound sand.
Unfortunately, you can't base a disciplinary system on a "you know it when you see it" or "case by case" basis. That is a formula for lawsuits and claims of discrimination. You have to be uniform, and you have to back it up with a written policy.
As I said before, I do not in any way see this as an organized attack by some radical anti-gun organiztion. These policies are being made by people such as Richard, my father, and many people that I know who are anything but "anti-gun."
They have their reasons for making these policies, and they are sound. I think we can all agree that many of the t-shirts that feature firearms do so in a negative manner that promotes everything from vigilantism to gang violence to you name it. Rather than fighting the unwinnable fight of trying to differentiate between a "positive" firearm shirt and a "negative" one, it is much easier to just prohibit them all. It also protects the admin from claims that they are picking on one student vice another.
People keep saying that a "picture of a gun never hurt anyone." Neither has a picture of a vagina, but see how much learning gets accomplished if you allow a middle schooler to wear a shirt with a picture of one to class. It was be totally disruptive, and counterproductive to learning. The same goes for a t shirt that has an AK47 on it with a "kill 'em all" logo....
Once again, there is a liability issue. Imagine that little Johnnie wears a different firearm shirt every single day...... "Gun control means using both hands, etc." Then, out of the blue, he shoots up the school. I guarantee you that the parents of the injured kids are going to look for any reason to blame the school...and are going to ask "why didn't you see the signs?" They are going to interpret the shirts as a "sign" that the school should have seen, and are going to sue, sue, sue, sue......
And a sympathetic jury will give them money.
Don't blame the schools for protecting themselves from us (the citizenry).
Once again, there is a liability issue. Imagine that little Johnnie wears a different firearm shirt every single day...... "Gun control means using both hands, etc." Then, out of the blue, he shoots up the school. I guarantee you that the parents of the injured kids are going to look for any reason to blame the school.
People keep saying that a "picture of a gun never hurt anyone." Neither has a picture of a vagina, but see how much learning gets accomplished if you allow a middle schooler to wear a shirt with a picture of one to class.
...
Do not know if you saw TR's reference to the actual fatalities of those underage folks by handguns?
Your second argument holds no water, IMHO. There is a VERY distict difference in a picture of a gun, or sword on a tee-shirt with "fighting terrorits " on it, and Porn. And if you will read the fox article, you will see the attributes of this particular shirt, and its very clear language.:lifter
Just my .02.
Holly
Do not know if you saw TR's reference to the actual fatalities of those underage folks by handguns?
Your second argument holds no water, IMHO. There is a VERY distict difference in a picture of a gun, or sword on a tee-shirt with "fighting terrorits " on it, and Porn. And if you will read the fox article, you will see the attributes of this particular shirt, and its very clear language.:lifter
Just my .02.
Holly
I am sure TR can speak for himself, but yes, I saw it.
There are not many school shootings, can you show me where I said that there was? However, when they occur, people look for someone to blame... and the school is an easy target.
I never compared a gun to porn, I only said that some firerarm shirts can be highly disruptive (much like a shirt with a vagina). Having taught for a year prior to going into LE, and having a wife who is a former teacher, I have some insight and experience with the issue.
I do not care how you view my argument. However, I personally -know- that the fear of being sued is a consideration that school boards take when making decisions such as this, and that (as infrequent as they may be) the school shooting incidents are a prime reason for firearm related clothing being banned in schools. Schools are covering their asses at every turn.
Blakeslee
03-14-2008, 12:45
I disagree. I can teach virtually anyone to shoot, and to do so safely.
Again, you're speaking about yourself and not the rest of citizens in the country. I say we can't hold the rest of the country to a higher standard because not all people have that aptitude and you tell me, “I can teach virtually anyone...” We’re not talking about what you’re able to do and your level of responsibility. I’m referring to everyone besides you. I have no doubt that you can teach anyone how to use a handgun. I do, however, doubt others in our society. Do we expect every firearm owner to be at the level of expertise that you are at? If this were true, there would be no discussion.
How do you reconcile the following statements, advocating the Constitution as a binding legal contract with the American people, yet you seem to simultaneously claim that is needs to evolve (with additional restrictions), and also claim that we need laws to restrict our inalienable rights. Please explain to me what you think inalienable means, and why the Bill of Rights exists.
Easy – we should maintain the constitutional right to own handguns. BUT, we still have additional laws when it comes to who, what, when and where. There are regulations in place now that were instilled to adapt to the changing society. These additional rules and regulations were not there from the start.
Frankly, I am beginning to wonder if you have the intelligence to participate in this discussion.
Personal insults aside, simply because I share a different point view from others doesn’t mean I lack the intelligence to participate in a debate that’s clearly not black and white. There is no clear, concise answer to this debate.
It is if you are making gross generalizations about firearms owners. Haters are haters, regardless of their targets. Show me how 15 million firearms owners (10%, right?) are giving the rest of us firearms owners a bad name.
I stated that percentage wasn’t to scale and was merely to stress my point. Better yet, let's say .02% then. That number is irrelevant. How can we say that there are not a small percentage of irresponsible firearms owners? The shootings of 2007 didn’t generate a positive outlook on handguns. Truth be told, the mass murders in the schools, malls, etc, didn’t make it any easier to possess a handgun. Those shootings made it easier for the “haters” to cry out for banning gun ownership. BTW, I wasn’t one of those people. But, I’m not going to pretend like all those events didn’t happen and that they didn’t hurt our cause.
Personally, I think you are caught up in some sort of media hysteria.
Negative. I’m not here preaching to ban handguns and strip the amendment from the Constitution. I’m also not the only one in this thread who thinks the way I do.
You might want to do some more research before wading into arguments here with a bias, some strongly held opinions, and some very dubious data.
How about: data identified by the National School Safety and Security Services?
http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/school_violence06-07.html
Everyone in here is bias on this subject. All statistical data is dubious to some degree. I agree with you there. It does not matter what source you pull statistical data from, it’s all skewed, biased and not 100%. But, there is data on the subject; therefore, the situation exists.
We’re getting too focused on numbers and that’s a waste of time. The only fact that is truly indubitable is: not all gun-related accidents and deaths are legally sound or responsible in nature. We cannot simply ignore the gun-related violence that has recently taken hold of schools over the past few years. Instead of saying, “...oh well and the media is blowing it out of proportion...” I’d rather we do something to better prevent it. Apparently, it’s gotten out of control and the measures in place today aren’t doing the job.
It’s sad that when I read the news and hear of another school shooting, it no longer shocks me – this has become a social trend. To me, that’s unacceptable.
Blakeslee
03-14-2008, 12:55
Blakeslee, The way I look at this situation is that we live between two abyss'. One is totalitarianism, the other is anarchy, both are equally deadly. When rules become all encompassing, we fall into totalitarianism. When rules are removed, we fall into anarchy. Somewhere between the two we can live as relative free people. There are changes with time and laws/rules need to reflect those change and serve the people.
I would say, if the laws/rules serve the people then there are not too many. If the laws/rules do not serve the people, then there are too many laws/rules. I think that is what our founding fathers were trying to do, create a reasonable and workable balance that will offer a society with the greatest amount of freedom for it's citizens. I really don't see it as a black and white situation.
I definately agree with you there. We must find that middle ground that protects us as a society. We find ourselves concerned about "my" rights and sometimes, what's best for "me" is not best for the team/society.
Even our 1st Amendment right has additional rule and regulations. At what point do we place crititical limits on our rights to keep those who abuse these rights at bay?
---
Simply because my children are not allowed to wear shirts with guns on them does not affect their inevitible, future right to own a gun.
Blakeslee
03-14-2008, 13:12
There are not many school shootings, can you show me where I said that there was?
There were 26 resulting in death in the past 2 years stated by the National School Safety and Security Services. There were a total of 64 non-death shooting incidents listed as well. To me, that's many and we know that's not all of them. Those are the only ones documented.
I am sure TR can speak for himself, but yes, I saw it.
I do not care how you view my argument.
mdb, I was just asking...nothing personal, just curious.
And yep, any QP on this Board can clean house for himself, and of this I am sure.
My Dad and step-mom were both HS teachers. My Dad went on to another carrer, and my step-mom taught 25 yrs, until she retired. I have been around it, but not in this current generation.
To me, this whole episode is just a reflection on our soceity and it's anti-gun agenda. That's all. :rolleyes:
Holly
The Reaper
03-14-2008, 13:38
Easy – we should maintain the constitutional right to own handguns. BUT, we still have additional laws when it comes to who, what, when and where. There are regulations in place now that were instilled to adapt to the changing society. These additional rules and regulations were not there from the start.
What is a reasonable compromise?
Age limits to buy firearms or ammunition? Citizen classes not permitted to own firearms? Additional taxes on guns and ammunition? Registration of gun owners? Registration of all guns? Ballistic fingerprinting? Serialized ammo? Banning "Saturday Night Specials?" Banning "Cop Killer Ammunition"? Banning "Assault Weapons"? Banning "High Cap" magazines? Banning small, concealable weapons? Banning "High Cap" shotguns? Banning large powerful weapons? Banning military caliber weapons? Restrictions on areas to posess a firearm? Bans on the sale of certain types of ammunition? Restrictions on locking firearms up? Denial of CCWs? Class III weapons bans? Limits on zoning for businesses engaged in firearms or ammunition sales?
All of those are in effect in various communities in the US. All of them are broken regularly by criminals. How many more "reasonable" infringements on my inalienable rights are enough?
You have yet to define inalienable for me. Do you understand the concept, as laid out by John Locke and the Founding Fathers?
What are the above, if not alienation?
If my community thinks slavery (or banning of free speech) should still be legal, and passes a law permitting it, should we be able to practice it?
Why not?
I think you are missing the point. More laws will not solve the problem, and are an affront to the Constitution. Maybe we will find out next Tuesday.
There were 26 resulting in death in the past 2 years stated by the National School Safety and Security Services. There were a total of 64 non-death shooting incidents listed as well. To me, that's many and we know that's not all of them. Those are the only ones documented.
So you would trade the rights of 300,000,000 citizens for an attempt to prevent a crime that could be just as easily committed by running over the fellow students with a pickup truck, making a bomb, starting a fire, etc. Hmm. I would wager that bees killed more than 26 school students last year. Should we legislate against them as well?
How do you propose that we protect these students?
You are beginning to strike me as a man who would trade his liberty and freedom for a little more security. Do you know where that leads?
TR
Blakeslee
03-14-2008, 14:56
What is a reasonable compromise?
Age limits to buy firearms or ammunition? Citizen classes not permitted to own firearms? Additional taxes on guns and ammunition? Registration of gun owners? Registration of all guns? Ballistic fingerprinting? Serialized ammo? Banning "Saturday Night Specials?" Banning "Cop Killer Ammunition"? Banning "Assault Weapons"? Banning "High Cap" magazines? Banning small, concealable weapons? Banning "High Cap" shotguns? Banning large powerful weapons? Banning military caliber weapons? Restrictions on areas to posess a firearm? Bans on the sale of certain types of ammunition? Restrictions on locking firearms up? Denial of CCWs? Class III weapons bans? Limits on zoning for businesses engaged in firearms or ammunition sales?
All of those are in effect in various communities in the US. All of them are broken regularly by criminals. How many more "reasonable" infringements on my inalienable rights are enough?
I won't pretend to have the answers. I honestly don't know.
I'm not proposing we impliment more laws. I can see how I may have come across as such. I was merely defending the school's "reasoning" for the gun-on-t-shirt rule. This was a rule already established. If this was a proposed law at the federal level - my tune would be different. I say let the schools have their rules. We have the ability to choose different schools - albeit it takes drastic measures to do so. I just don't believe that the banning clothing in schools is worth this debacle. We all know some schools have one uniform. Others don't.
You have yet to define inalienable for me. Do you understand the concept, as laid out by John Locke and the Founding Fathers?
What are the above, if not alienation?
Not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated.
If my community thinks slavery (or banning of free speech) should still be legal, and passes a law permitting it, should we be able to practice it?
Why not?
Well, I don't think amending the constitution (specifically the Bill of Rights) is the answer - if that was your point. I'm with you there. I jsut don't think we're there yet with this particualr situation. I feel school codes are a far cry to a Constitutional Amendment.
So you would trade the rights of 300,000,000 citizens for an attempt to prevent a crime that could be just as easily committed by running over the fellow students with a pickup truck, making a bomb, starting a fire, etc. Hmm. I would wager that bees killed more than 26 school students last year. Should we legislate against them as well?
How do you propose that we protect these students?
Minors don't have the rights you and I share today. They may never. We're not discussing adult, US citizens. I'm talking about our children.
You are beginning to strike me as a man who would trade his liberty and freedom for a little more security. Do you know where that leads? TR
Yes, it leads to the Patriot Act and other legislations as such. How do we determine what's acceptable and what's not? Well, it's easy for you and I to decipher what we think is acceptable. But, where does that leads us as a society?
One could argue we didn't have terrorist attacks on our soil in the past - the PA is needed. One could pose the argument you state. Has the PA at all helped keep our nation safe? Has it impeded in our lives? Did anyone here feel the effects of the PA? It's still, Constiutionally wrong. But, those questions are relevant. Again, I think it's based on cause and effect.
I'm not saying I like where things are headed. When I was in school we could fight in the locker room, parking lot, neighborhood, etc .. and not worry about getting shot. We kick ass or get our asses kicked and that would be that. All that has changed.
dr. mabuse
03-14-2008, 16:24
IMHO, the NYT isn't good enough to line the bottom of my Mom's canary's cage and yet, some people actually pay money to read it? :confused:
Throwing too many statistics around (and WAY too many words to express a simple thought) can be an indicator of a weak argument.
TR is correct (again) and said it with a lot less verbiage than most ( as usual). :)
Blakeslee
03-14-2008, 18:53
Ok, you got me. :)
...
Unfortunately, you can't base a disciplinary system on a "you know it when you see it" or "case by case" basis. That is a formula for lawsuits and claims of discrimination. You have to be uniform, and you have to back it up with a written policy.
I certainly understand your point, and I know its easy for me to say this or that should happen when I'm not the focus of a lawsuit. However (you knew that was coming), at what point are the monkeys running the zoo? Is enacting policies out of fear of litigation/repercussions a good way to determine right and wrong?
Hell, lets put 'em all in little Mao suits and expel those that show individuality--that'll make uniform policies completely unnecessary.
Some relevant facts for the discussion:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15111438/
When I taught in a large urban public school in "The Grove," we even had to ban certain colors of clothing because they were used by students to identify themselves among the various gangs...and students as young as 5th graders were being actively recruited for gang membership. At the school I'm at now, the problem with clothing was with all the wannabe gangsta's emulating their hip-hop idols. All this has disappeared with our easily enforced and rational dress code which still allows them a wide range of personal choice in clothing.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
...at what point are the monkeys running the zoo? Is enacting policies out of fear of litigation/repercussions a good way to determine right and wrong?
Guys,
I run into a lot of parents who are attorneys of various ilk and the threat does exist...with the potential to cost schools a LOT of $$$ and even force them into closing. I have found that a lot of attorneys are at a loss when it comes to dealing with an argument based on the premise of "this is what a reasonable person is expected to do when faced with such a situation." However, we have found the following works for us and -- although I have been threatened to be sued a couple of times -- I have never been sued...yet.
- minimal and reasonable guidelines
- reasonable enforcement in the best interests of all concerned
- limited "no tolerance" measures (e.g., drugs on campus = expulsion; end of conversation)
- positive, open, honest, and on-going communication with families
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Back to the picture of a firearm for a minute... .....are students allowed to drive cars to and park them at school? They kill many kids each year as well. I'm just asking, why a car , that kills many is viewed in a very positive light while firearms in a negative one? They are both tools. Schools teach drivers ed classes. Why the difference?
Blakeslee
03-15-2008, 07:39
Back to the picture of a firearm for a minute... .....are students allowed to drive cars to and park them at school? They kill many kids each year as well. I'm just asking, why a car , that kills many is viewed in a very positive light while firearms in a negative one? They are both tools. Schools teach drivers ed classes. Why the difference?
Fair question. My take is that a car and a gun are contructed for two entirely different reasons. IMHO, it's apples and oranges.
Back to the picture of a firearm for a minute... .....are students allowed to drive cars to and park them at school? They kill many kids each year as well. I'm just asking, why a car , that kills many is viewed in a very positive light while firearms in a negative one? They are both tools. Schools teach drivers ed classes. Why the difference?
I think that this has been answered.... repeatedly.
The firearm isn't seen as being intrinsically "negative." However, like we have said over and over, not all firearm shirts are positive or convey a positive message. Some convey gang messages, others promote violence, etc...... These shirts are disruptive and not appropriate for school.
Now, as an administrator, you can either spend a ton of time and effort coming up with a 14 page policy that specifically outlines what types of firearm shirts are allowed, which ones aren't, etc., or you can do the simple (and practical) thing and simply say that firearm related clothing is prohibited.
The latter is much easier to enforce, protects you from claims of favoritism or discrimination, and doesn't have to be revised everytime a new shirt comes out (that isn't addressed by the old policy). You also don't have to worry about a federal civil rights lawsuit being filed because a teacher allowed one kid to wear his "Winchester" shirt while asking another to turn his "Snitches get shot like bitches" Glock t-shirt inside out.
It's simple, effective, and allows you to focus on the core mission which is learning.
GratefulCitizen
03-15-2008, 11:29
I would wager that bees killed more than 26 school students last year. Should we legislate against them as well?
TR has hit upon the root of the issue.
All of these laws are "feel good" laws.
The sheeple want an authority figure to tell them that they are safe.
Bad weather, directly or indirectly, kills countless human beings.
Maybe there should be a law against it.
Thankfully, Al Gore is on top of that one. :rolleyes:
There are no guarantees in life.
The government is not omnipotent.
Politicians who would pass laws to satiate the irrational anxieties of the masses only do so to gain or retain power.
I don't believe gun "haters" hate guns.
Rather, I believe they have a victim mentality.
Those with a victim mentality hate anyone who refuses to be a victim.
(misery loves company)
Declaring that you will take responsibility for your own safety is clear evidence that you refuse to be a victim.
patrioticgirl
03-15-2008, 13:23
....
veritasthrice
03-15-2008, 21:33
Some relevant facts for the discussion:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15111438/
When I taught in a large urban public school in "The Grove," we even had to ban certain colors of clothing because they were used by students to identify themselves among the various gangs...and students as young as 5th graders were being actively recruited for gang membership. At the school I'm at now, the problem with clothing was with all the wannabe gangsta's emulating their hip-hop idols. All this has disappeared with our easily enforced and rational dress code which still allows them a wide range of personal choice in clothing.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
While I'm new here, I believe I have an interesting frame of reference. This is due to the fact that I attended many many public schools, and even private schools, being that my Father was career Army. I graduated high school back in '03, and set to graduate University in '08 (I know 5 years, not due to stupidity or irresponsibility, I had an uncle who needed care while dealing with cancer). Being at University for 4 years doesn't make anyone an expert on anything, the only thing it does give is perspective on dealing with other peoples' diversity. I've lived among many different men from many regions and cultures.
My view of it is simple. America was founded on the idea that we should have certain inalienable freedoms. Freedoms that we cannot even sign away, should we chose to. Do I agree with how the kid addressed the situation? Sort of, honestly I don't believe school policy should be able to infringe upon Constitutional rights. I'm a proponent of all our Constitutional rights, even with good reason, if we take them away where does that leave us?
I understand there were problems with kids acting like they are in gangs at your school. I've been very close to getting into more than one altercation with people who visited friends at my school. Yes these guys were those 'wannabe gangsters' that you have at your school. If it weren't for some quick thinking there surely would've been a fight or two. Do I like the style of dress of said constitutionally protected groups of individuals and their respective attitudes, the answer is a firm "NO". But that doesn't give me or anyone else in this country the right to tell them, you can't wear those clothes, talk that way, or act that way. No one has the right to tell these kids how to represent themselves outside of their parents, and only so until they are 18, or incarcerated.
And for frame of reference, these people were from Philly. Some of them were without doubt probably part of gangs. While I don't agree with that lifestyle, or condone the actions contained within it, its constitutionally protected, so long as they are not breaking laws.
As for policy, public schools should not be able to take away the constitutional rights of individuals, period. Having a dress code that states no hate speech, materials that depict obscenity such as porn, violence, or what have you. That's fine, because those are things that are not protected by law.
One could argue all day long that certain things are disruptive, but in reality, outside of things that are drastic and blatantly corruptive, this doesn't happen at schools. The kids who wear those clothes that are representative of memberships of gangs will simply do something else. Thinking that you are stopping their recruitment or provocation of other people because they can't freely wear certain clothes is a little short sighted in my honest opinion. From the part of this culture I've been exposed to, they don't react kindly to people telling them what to do, not unlike many teenagers. Blanket policies about wearing certain clothes alienate the rights of those who are not proponents of the negative actions you are against. You can't continually take away the rights of the majority because a minority party abuses it, and vice-versa. While it was a reasonable solution to you, and I respect your authority to deem such a solution, it goes against some of the fundamental freedoms that our Nation was founded upon.
America is a free country, this freedom relies on the fact that we put up with crap that we don't like from other people. So long as said crap does not inhibit our well-being. If you tell people within a community that you have power over(your school) they can't wear articles of clothing with depictions of guns on them, where does it stop? What if a town votes that it's illegal to wear shirts or have bumper stickers that support the GWOT? It's the same basic idea. You can try to tell people what to believe; or you can deal with real problems as they come. T-shirts don't make kids shoot people, neither do video games, or books.
I got detention one time in high school (and the only time) because a teacher stopped me in the hallway, AFTER school was let out. He thought he saw me trip another student, the teacher grabbed me by the throat, I told him to take his hands off of me, and he refused, gripped tighter. The kid who he thought I tripped, yelled at the teacher that I didn't do anything and to take his hands off of me. After he didn't, I proceeded to twist his hand off of me and leave. The principal thought it was also right to give me detention, no cause, he thought I was "out of line". Needless to say, I never showed up for detention, at the direction of my parents. They tried to give me "in school suspension" didn't show up for that either. My father went in and had a talk with the principal the next day and the situation was resolved.
Now more than likely my parents could've filed a lawsuit, but that wasn't an appropriate reaction.
As a Jr. High student I see this type of BS all the time. I just follow the rules and if I accidently break any, I take the punishment quietly. Like one time I was wearing my friend's jacket in the cafateria b/c they had opened the large doors to load in the food and the weather out side had come in at 31 degrees. There is a rule about no coats in school. A teacher stopped and asked if was aware I was breaking a rule. I said, "yes ma'am." and she took my name and I got a written warning, no big deal. My friend however kept trying to make the teacher give it to him b/c it was his jacket. He wouldn't shut up. The teacher left and he took the coat and put it on in front of her. Needless to say he got a warning too.
Honestly, your friend was standing up for reason. Anyone who gives you a "warning" for putting on clothing when its unreasonably cold is ignorant. And in a public institution it might even be considered negligence if it was for a prolonged period. You should be happy there are people like your friend in this world. If there are no people to stand up for what they believe in to be right, then we all would be slaves to a few rich and powerful people. Of course until we start a revolution and move to another area of the world (rings a bell doesn't it?)
This kid broke the rules and didn't comply to orders. A simple "yes sir'' would have helped make the problem less of one. Why should be get better treatment just because he was wearing the shirt in "support of his uncle''? He could have supported his uncle by sending him a care package or raising money to help his local VA. Respect is a rare thing these days and when shown it amazes people. Respect would have gotten him a lot better result then the mullitmeida event he has to deal with now.
It's the principal of the matter. Mindlessly following rules and orders is a great way to become oppressed. Would you think the matter differently if it would've been in memory of a fallen soldier who died fighting for freedom? Who happened to be holding a rifle(read: tool)?
The point is circumstances are important, blanket rules are ignorant and cause more problems than they solve.
If schools are going to try to instate rules and regulations, they must be well thought out and flexible so that they don't infringe upon the rights of those students. Creating policy is no different than making laws; policies to protect shouldn't hinder the freedoms of those whose actions have good reason or cause.
This is the land of the free and the home of the brave, not the enslaved.
-Andrew
veritasthrice
03-15-2008, 21:49
Double post :(
Sorry, please delete.
patrioticgirl
03-16-2008, 07:03
....
Blakeslee
03-16-2008, 10:31
Remember, we're discussing minorities. As much as it might bother us, this type of restriction isn't new at all.
Concerning the rights via the Constitution.
Disabilities of minority
Certain rights are restricted, or "disabled", for minors, but the definition of who is a minor and the extent to which each of these rights are disabled for minors, is limited to the jurisdiction over which each government has general legislative authority, which for the U.S. government, is "federal ground." Minors are the only class of persons whose rights may be disabled without a need to justify the disablement as arising from the need to resolve a conflict with the rights of others, either through statute or due process. The disablement consists of the assignment of a power to supervise the exercise of the rights under the headings of "liberty" and "property" listed above to a guardian, by default the parents, who acts as agent of the State for the purpose of nurturing the minor. The disability is normally removed by statute providing for removal when a certain age, such as 18, or condition, such as marriage, is attained. The disabilities of minority can also be removed earlier by court order or, if statute allows, extended beyond the usual statutory expiration by court order in cases of incompetence. The right to vote is not included among the disabilities of minority, but is defined separately by law, so that removal of the disabilities of minority does not in itself affect having the right to vote.
Here's info specifically talking about student rights:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_stud.html
On the flip side, here's a legal document of a 14 year old who was in the same situation (wearing a shirt much more controversial) and he won his appeals case. Goes to show, each state/school will differ.
I attached the shirt he wore as well.
On the flip side, here's a legal document of a 14 year old who was in the same situation (wearing a shirt much more controversial) and he won his appeals case. Goes to show, each state/school will differ.
I attached the shirt he wore as well.The state in which the legal document is from.....:munchin
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
Stay safe.
veritasthrice
03-16-2008, 15:18
Remember, we're discussing minorities. As much as it might bother us, this type of restriction isn't new at all.
Concerning the rights via the Constitution.
Disabilities of minority
Certain rights are restricted, or "disabled", for minors, but the definition of who is a minor and the extent to which each of these rights are disabled for minors, is limited to the jurisdiction over which each government has general legislative authority, which for the U.S. government, is "federal ground." Minors are the only class of persons whose rights may be disabled without a need to justify the disablement as arising from the need to resolve a conflict with the rights of others, either through statute or due process. The disablement consists of the assignment of a power to supervise the exercise of the rights under the headings of "liberty" and "property" listed above to a guardian, by default the parents, who acts as agent of the State for the purpose of nurturing the minor. The disability is normally removed by statute providing for removal when a certain age, such as 18, or condition, such as marriage, is attained. The disabilities of minority can also be removed earlier by court order or, if statute allows, extended beyond the usual statutory expiration by court order in cases of incompetence. The right to vote is not included among the disabilities of minority, but is defined separately by law, so that removal of the disabilities of minority does not in itself affect having the right to vote.
Here's info specifically talking about student rights:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_stud.html
On the flip side, here's a legal document of a 14 year old who was in the same situation (wearing a shirt much more controversial) and he won his appeals case. Goes to show, each state/school will differ.
I attached the shirt he wore as well.
I absolutely agree, the topic is about minors and you have a great find of information there on the disability of rights of minors. But if you read carefully the disabling of such rights are based upon the idea that those rights are going to interfere with the rights of others, which is the reason of this portion: the protection of peoples rights, not the disabling of them without a good reason. Wearing a T-shirt with a picture of a gun on it doesn't keep others from being safe; its a free speech matter. Also if you'll notice those rights of disability are for the best interests of nurturing, given to the government and the parents of said minor.
Teachers and school boards are at weakest a form of state government. Constitution and federal laws/regs supersede those of the state, and I would presume a school board.
Also in the article you linked, it notes that free speech is not immunized by the constitution unless it: "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech." This is the hinge upon which many cases turn when a school violates a student's free speech protections."
I don't see how the students actions would fall under this. The only foreseeable loophole for the school district to nail the kid would be that there were a lot of guns being brought into that school or there were shootings, AND that this shirt promoted that. Which well, it obviously doesn't promote inappropriate gun violence. (I say it in this manner because justified killing is still technically considered violence) In my eyes it would be the same principal of having a shirt that promotes self defense, freedom, or any of our other rights. Personal beliefs and views being banned from representation on the basis that a certain person or persons do not agree with that view is ignorant and short sighted at best. If they are trying to stop controversy they better go into the parking lot and tell everyone to pull off all the bumper stickers for presidential elections from their vehicles. Not to mention all the Chevy, GMC, Ford, and Dodge badges from all the trucks; We all know how these things can cause controversy! :)
Teaching our kids that it's alright to be oppressed, as long as it "might create safety" is appallingly to me personally; unless of course we are attempting to convey to our Nation's youth that communism is a good thing.
Funny note, I lived in Vermont while my Father was stationed there. They were anything but nice and concerned with students rights in the public school system I attended, as well as the private school systems. At least back in '90-'94!
When did the responsibility of our children's education stop being a parental responsibility? What is the child doing in a government run Dewey Camp in the first place?
Anyone who loves the liberty of our forefathers would have to be insane to put their child in a government run Dewey Camp. The agenda of the government school system is not education it is communist indoctrination. They are anti-critical thinking, anti-Christian, anti-European culture, anti-white male, and anti-anything of value the founders once brought to bare. Yet, they are for anything that would demoralise our once great nation.
I have fought too hard for what little liberty I have left to entrust my progeny to communist.
Besides, the use of arms is a fundamental requirement in a classical education.
Arwr
Guys,
Slightly off topic but...
I grew up in Elk Grove, CA, in the 50s-60s, a ranching/farming community with an excellent public high school. Many of the vehicles in our parking lot contained a gun rack with a .22, a saddle gun, or a shotgun because students left school and went immediately to their ranches/farms/dairies to work where there were varmints, snakes, etc. Nobody ever bothered anyone else's rifle or shotgun and there were never any incidents where anyone threatened anyone else with a gun.
Now, I just got back from spending some time out there on my ranch. Elk Grove's population has increased ten-fold from the community of my youth, and is now mostly suburban with 7 high schools and a mixed student population of typically urban clothing styles. However, there are still 2 high schools with large AG/FFA programs and student populations of rachers and farmers.
While out there I found out that the high schools will now suspend--and then expel if a student doesn't comply with their policy--a student for having a gun rack in their pickup; no weapon, just the gun rack. The reasoning--it shows an "intent" which "intimidates" other students and identifies someone as a "redneck." :eek:
I also found out that the city council has passed an ordinance that mandates pickups with trailer hitches must either have a trailer attached or the hitch must be removed. The reasoning--an elderly woman was trying to park at a grocery store in Elk Grove and tore up the side of her expensive car on an exposed trailer hitch on a rancher's pickup parked legally in a parking slot. It was entirely her fault, but she complained to the city council and they passed the ordinance. :mad:
I returned to Texas last night and it felt good to be home and away from the craziness that now exists out where I grew up. I am selling the ranch and staying here in the area where my great-great grandfather settled in 1838. :D
Richard - a born again Texan and 2nd Ammendment supporter :munchin
Richard - a born again Texan and 2nd Ammendment supporter :munchin
Well, Dallas isn't what it used to be, but I still prefer it to just about everyplace else! Although, once the educated imports have struck their final blow to the hippies struggling to "keep Austin weird", I may move down there for improved access to the Great Outdoors...:D
Defender968
07-25-2008, 14:00
I absolutely agree, the topic is about minors and you have a great find of information there on the disability of rights of minors. But if you read carefully the disabling of such rights are based upon the idea that those rights are going to interfere with the rights of others, which is the reason of this portion: the protection of peoples rights, not the disabling of them without a good reason. Wearing a T-shirt with a picture of a gun on it doesn't keep others from being safe; its a free speech matter. Also if you'll notice those rights of disability are for the best interests of nurturing, given to the government and the parents of said minor.
Teachers and school boards are at weakest a form of state government. Constitution and federal laws/regs supersede those of the state, and I would presume a school board.
Also in the article you linked, it notes that free speech is not immunized by the constitution unless it: "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech." This is the hinge upon which many cases turn when a school violates a student's free speech protections."
I don't see how the students actions would fall under this. The only foreseeable loophole for the school district to nail the kid would be that there were a lot of guns being brought into that school or there were shootings, AND that this shirt promoted that. Which well, it obviously doesn't promote inappropriate gun violence. (I say it in this manner because justified killing is still technically considered violence) In my eyes it would be the same principal of having a shirt that promotes self defense, freedom, or any of our other rights. Personal beliefs and views being banned from representation on the basis that a certain person or persons do not agree with that view is ignorant and short sighted at best. If they are trying to stop controversy they better go into the parking lot and tell everyone to pull off all the bumper stickers for presidential elections from their vehicles. Not to mention all the Chevy, GMC, Ford, and Dodge badges from all the trucks; We all know how these things can cause controversy! :)
Teaching our kids that it's alright to be oppressed, as long as it "might create safety" is appallingly to me personally; unless of course we are attempting to convey to our Nation's youth that communism is a good thing.
Funny note, I lived in Vermont while my Father was stationed there. They were anything but nice and concerned with students rights in the public school system I attended, as well as the private school systems. At least back in '90-'94!
Completely Concur, if the argument was not allowing children to carry a fire arm to school no problem that actually protects someone. However to my knowledge and in my experience as an LEO, no picture of a gun on a shirt has ever hurt anyone, ever, in the history of guns or shirts, maybe some idiot somewhere strangled someone with a shirt with a picture of a gun on it, but that's the only way it is even possible. :cool:
Now if the school board thinks that some kid is going to see a gun on a shirt and decide, oh well now I'm going to come in tomorrow and kill lots of other kids and teachers, then maybe they're too out of touch with reality to be in a position of authority. Let’s get real, they'd be better served to look at kids wearing all black, last time I checked several of the kids who went on shooting sprees wore all black, so by that logic they’re more likely to go about shooting people than some kid with a 911 terrorist hunting shirt, and no I'm not abdicating they ban wearing all black, what I'm saying is there are dangerous kids out there, been there, seen that, but guess what it's not like it was out of nowhere. These kids show warning signs, and those signs generally are not wearing a picture of a fire arm, maybe if the administrators spent more time worrying about those warning signs instead of worrying about inanimate objects that don't even correlate to violence their school would actually be safer.
Don't get me wrong I want teachers and administrators to keep control of their schools, and if they can logically explain why something should be banned in school and it passes the common sense test then fine, for instance the gang colors issues in a school with lots of gang problems, well that makes sense, arbitrarily saying no T-Shirts with anything on them, or no pictures of guns well that doesn't serve a purpose and to me they've lost the point and are making rules for no reason, and are probably missing the warning signs of a potential killer because they're too focused on minutia.
JustinW20
07-25-2008, 15:26
Guys,
Slightly off topic but...
I grew up in Elk Grove, CA, in the 50s-60s, a ranching/farming community with an excellent public high school....
Now, I just got back from spending some time out there on my ranch. Elk Grove's population has increased ten-fold from the community of my youth, and is now mostly suburban with 7 high schools and a mixed student population of typically urban clothing styles....
Richard:
Don’t suppose there’s any chance of talking you into moving back and taking over as principal of a small country school??
My family and I live in Elk Grove now and as Richard said, it’s become completely overdeveloped. The schools are having all sorts of issues. My wife teaches special ed. in a small farming community twenty miles south and we’ve already made arraignments for my son to attend there when he starts kindergarten. (Great FFA and 4-H programs!)
What used to be a nice, rural community has become just another Kalifornia suburb. We’re now looking for twenty acres or so out in the country so my son can, at least, ride his bike and play in the yard.
Sorry to disrupt the thread.