Gun Discrimination

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If some school objected to a tandem photo and the USPA brought a lawsuit to get it included . . . what would you think of the USPA lawyers? Would you think that was a good or frivolous use of your dues?

The resulting publicity would probably be worth the expense.

But this is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison: the NRA is over 100 times bigger than the USPA, and has more resources to pursue such symbolic lawsuits. The USPA is limited to more practical expenses, due to its smaller size.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

There is no must to show pics with armed children. That is ill.

That statement is exactly the kind of bigotry that must be fought against. Your statement presumes that any young adult with a gun represents something "wrong". That view is invalid.

"A Strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks".
- Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson, 318, Foley Ed. reissued 1967

[ahegeman 0]

How about if they rejected the shirt because he was wearing a Che Guevara shirt? Or a peace sign? Would that be OK with you?

Part of the whole anti-gun campaign is to get every person to mindlessly think "guns are bad, mmmkay?". Here you have a bunch of school administrators thinking that exact thing. Mission accomplished. The school district, a GOVERNMENT entitiy, is forcing a political viewpoint on a student's self expression. Any -real- liberal should be appalled. Yeah, the NRA is going to kick their asses. Good.

I just went through my high school yearbook from '93. One of the seniors posed with his shotgun. Nice guy, as I remember.

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[billvon 2,989]

> How about if they rejected the shirt because he was wearing a Che
> Guevara shirt? Or a peace sign? Would that be OK with you?

Or a "Fuck Bush" shirt? Or a "Fuck Kerry" shirt? Or a picture of the kid exercising his god-given right as a teenager to give the whole world the finger? Would it have been horrible if the staff said they couldn't use those pictures?

Not at all. None of that is discrimination. It's adults deciding what children can or can't put in their yearbook. It happens in every school.

>One of the seniors posed with his shotgun. Nice guy, as I remember.

No problem there. They can put whatever they want in their yearbooks - and can reject any picture they want. In my old high school, they would have likely put in a picture of a kid with a rifle if it was appropriate, but would never have put in a picture of a train coming up on a crossing, because the year before I got there six kids were killed at a train crossing. It would have been in bad taste. Likewise, at the high school my father was principal of, they never would have put a picture of a kid with a gun in it, since there were shootings there. It would have been in bad taste. To claim that's "gun discrimination" is absurd.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

That statement is exactly the kind of bigotry that must be fought against. Your statement presumes that any young adult with a gun represents something "wrong". That view is invalid.

Perhaps for your side of the pond, JohnRich. Not for ours (it was never in question here).

Quote

A Strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks".
- Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson, 318, Foley Ed. reissued 1967

I do not believe my eyes... Who wrote this at first, Darwins enemy?

Quote

"....games played with a ball...."

Must have been written in a cave somewhere in Tasmanien (that's German!), before the wheel was discovered...

JohnRich, I never had any doubt about your intellect. And I do not doubt that honorful T.J. said this (even I did not know).

But to use that in our present times as an argument is BS.

Playing ball is too violent? What are the baseballers/basketballers/football players etc. doing, playing with an egg?

Children playing with a ball anyhow will grow up much more in good health in body and mind than ... no need to go on. You will not understand/accept.

Guns give moderate exercises to the body?? At first, they decorate the body (the shoulders, the cheeks etc.) with many blue marks

THAT is never an argument, JohnRich! Even T. J.'s words were reissued in 1967!
That was ****

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[ahegeman 0]

Weak comparison. "Fuck" and the finger are offensives words/gestures, and are intended to be so. But singling out pictures of guns as "inappropriate" is not quality control, its exercising a political agenda. That's not what they're being paid to do. Teachers and school administrators are supposed to broaden kids' minds, now force their viewpoints on them. The kid's parents pay the taxes that pay those administrators, and I think they have a stake in making sure that those administrators don't abuse their power to try and convince their kids that guns are somehow "wrong", or "offensive", or "inappropriate".

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

For the NRA to get involved is like using a sledge hammer on dog shit. It's probably going to be effective, but messy. Also, like I said, it's going to be expensive for the school to defend itself over something that is clearly just frivolous. Holy crap, it's a freekin' yearbook photo and the kid wasn't allowed to use a photo of him posing with his gun?!? -- get over it.

Maybe the ACLU will take the defense?

I don't think it's going to be that expensive for the school or the NRA. The latter is doing it because the most successful method of gun control has been the attempt to keep all forms of legitimate gun use in the closet.

[billvon 2,989]

>"Fuck" and the finger are offensives words/gestures, and are intended
>to be so. But singling out pictures of guns as "inappropriate" is not
>quality control, its exercising a political agenda.

Nonsense. In a school or community where there have been gun incidents, and students have been harmed by them, showing guns in the yearbook would be extremely inappropriate.

>and I think they have a stake in making sure that those administrators
> don't abuse their power to try and convince their kids that guns are
> somehow "wrong", or "offensive", or "inappropriate".

I agree. However, claiming that you _must_ allow any picture that contains a gun to be published in the yearbook is absurd. Gun pictures may be removed because there was an incident at the school or in the community that would make such a picture inappropriate. They may be removed because the school wants to emphasize volleyball over the shooting club. They may be removed because that kid was a troublemaker, or because they don't like the color of his hat, or for no reason at all.

Adults run schools. Kids do not. The adults decide what is appropriate and what isn't. Want to publish pictures of guns? Graduate, get a job, start a newspaper and print nothing but pictures of guns. Then if someone tries to shut THAT down, I'd agree with you that there is a problem.

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

The morons would be those who thought that the yearbook photos had anything to do with the massacre.

After seeing that pic I say put it in. There was nothing offensive about it. But crozby has an excellent point. When the Columbine shooting occured some morons blamed Marlyn Manson and his music for school violence. Or how about the morons who picketed the NRA for holding the rally a few weeks after the shooting.

[ahegeman 0]

We're not saying they MUST include them, regardless of surrounding circumstances. If there had been a shooting at that school, then I'd probably still disagree with banning the pic, but I'd understand. But we're not talking about Columbine High. Nothing happened at Londonberry High. Would you agree that THIS PARTICULAR DECISION is nothing more than naked political bias being enforced by members of a government entity?

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

But crozby has an excellent point. When the Columbine shooting occured some morons blamed Marlyn Manson and his music for school violence. Or how about the morons who picketed the NRA for holding the rally a few weeks after the shooting

Hey, even off topic:

MM just was here in Cologne, young folks love him!
One of his drummers fell down from the stage, the poor guy suffered several broken bones... drinking too much is not that good!

I love some of his music, too....



(I wonder, how much make-up etc. he needs per night?)

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Jib 0]

Where I grew up, no one showed up for school on the first day of deer season. Not everyone lives in fear of guns.

Quote

In a school or community where there have been gun incidents, and students have been harmed by them, showing guns in the yearbook would be extremely inappropriate.

While I believe that's bullshit, I'll concede that if some psychologists thought it would be detrimental to the students, okay.

Quote

I agree. However, claiming that you _must_ allow any picture that contains a gun to be published in the yearbook is absurd. ... They may be removed because the school wants to emphasize volleyball over the shooting club. They may be removed because that kid was a troublemaker, or because they don't like the color of his hat, or for no reason at all.

They can do whatever they want except when the purpose is censor speech. Can they remove a picture because a student wears a yarmuka and they'd rather emphasize baseball caps? The circumstance here is a political statement by the school that guns are bad.

Quote

The adults decide what is appropriate and what isn't.

That's why we have laws and the Constitution; so, the government (and the liberals who seem to have affinities for schools and lawsuits) can't decide to censor speech.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[billvon 2,989]

>Would you agree that THIS PARTICULAR DECISION is nothing more than
>naked political bias being enforced by members of a government entity?

If you have any evidence that they did it for that reason, please present it. If not, then the adults supervising the yearbook have the obligation to choose (or supervise the choosing of) pictures that they deem appropriate and worthy of inclusion, and that means excluding many pictures that students submit for whatever reasons they decide to do so.

Again, it is the ADULTS, not the students, who are in charge in schools. Students do not have the right to free speech or free expression in school. If teachers think it's inappropriate to show a picture of a dead deer with a proud hunter standing over it, it's up to them. If they don't want to show a picture of a kid drinking a beer, or screaming at a politician they dislike, or fouling someone during a football game, or spilling a soda, or kissing a girl, or buying a condom - all of that is THEIR decision. It does not mean they are anti-gun, or anti-hunting, or prohibitionist, or anti-free-speech, or anti-sports, or anti-safe-sex. It means that they set the tone for the yearbook, as is their job, and they may decide that condoms (or guns) simply are inappropriate in a yearbook.

Imagine the following. You run a daycare center, and do a calendar at the end of the year. All the kids contribute "art" to it - say some kind of scribble or fingerpainting or picture. One kid comes in with a "VOTE FOR KERRY" sticker he wants to include. You don't include it and have him draw something for the calendar. Should you be sued for violating his civil rights?

[billvon 2,989]

>They can do whatever they want except when the purpose is censor
> speech.

No, they can do whatever they want PERIOD. If a kid wants to stand up in english class and recite his political manifesto, they can force him to sit down, give him detention, even suspend him if they deem his behavior a recurring and serious problem. Why? Because they are in school to learn, not to exercise their 'right to free speech.'

>Can they remove a picture because a student wears a yarmuka and
>they'd rather emphasize baseball caps?

Absolutely! If they want to do four pages on school baseball caps, and one kid wants to wear a yarmulke or a turban, then of course they can reject those pictures.

> The circumstance here is a political statement by the school that guns are bad.

And I am totally against any suggestion that a school must be forced to include guns to prove they are good. It is entirely up to them. They can like or dislike guns, or ferrets, or hunting, or women's rugby, or whatever they want.

[Jib 0]

AGAIN:

Quote

>Would you agree that THIS PARTICULAR DECISION is nothing more than
>naked political bias being enforced by members of a government entity?

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Jib 0]

Quote

Because they are in school to learn, not to exercise their 'right to free speech.'

You mean be indoctrinated, don't you?

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[AggieDave 6]

You know, I wonder if the liberals would be upset about the discrimination if it wasn't a white kid? I think they'd trip all over themselves to prove it was unfair discrimination, since it would be one of their "pet" problems.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[ahegeman 0]

Quote

If you have any evidence that they did it for that reason, please present it.

I'll remember that line next time you're making statements about W's motivation with no direct evidence, such as "he chose to believe the pro-WMD people because that intelligence supported a course of action he wished to pursue." I think everyone posting here is qualified to draw and state their logical inferences from the facts in front of them. That's kinda the point here, isn't it? Hmmm?

Here, let me explain my reasoning:

1. The teacher predicted the picture would be rejected due to the zero-tolerance policy on violence.
2. No violence of any type is depicted in the picture, just a kid holding a sporting gun over his shoulder.
3. The administrator confirmed the teacher's opinion, based on the judgement that an image of a gun is a representation of violence. Gun=violence.

That is a school administrator forcing a political viewpoint on a student. Of course schools can restrict the rights of students to make sure the school functions. No, they can't recite manifestos in class because that interferes with others' learning. There is no practical reason for this decision. It does not affect the functioning of the school in any way. It is simply a value judgement, and I think its reasonable for parents to expect a value judgement forced on their children to meet a very high bar.

You say that "it is the ADULTS, not the students, who are in charge in schools. Students do not have the right to free speech or free expression in school." True, but the school is ultimately accountable to the parents of the students it is teaching. The kid may not have any rights in school, but the parents have a right to have their kid's education be free of political posturing by some jackass principle. They are pursuing their rights through the courts. Do you really think they should back off, and allow the schools to force whatever arbitrary prejudices the administrators might have on their children? Really?

Quote

Imagine the following. You run a daycare center ...

Nope. My business, my rules. If they don't like it, they can go to a different daycare. A business is hardly analogous to a public school, paid for with taxpayer dollars, and often the only choice a kid has to go to school. But even if it was a public school, the bumper sticker wasn't the assignment in your example. There was no "assignment" for the senior picture.

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Students do not have the right to free speech or free expression in school

Are you suggesting that the Constitution does not apply to schools, or to minors? Ooops, I hear the door bell, I think its the ACLU...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

>"Fuck" and the finger are offensives words/gestures, and are intended
>to be so. But singling out pictures of guns as "inappropriate" is not
>quality control, its exercising a political agenda.

Nonsense. In a school or community where there have been gun incidents, and students have been harmed by them, showing guns in the yearbook would be extremely inappropriate.

Why? What about it is inappropriate? I really want to understand your position here.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[quade 4]

Quote

The size of the group that is discriminated against is irrelevant. It's still discrimination. The principle is the same. No one should have to suffer it.

Suffer? You're kiddin' -- right? Suffer?

The kid is suffering? Because he couldn't have the photo of him and his gun in his yearbook he's suffering?

Get a grip.

Religious persecution is suffering.
Racial prejudice causing suffering.

This is just being a cry baby.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Students do not have the right to free speech or free expression in school

Are you suggesting that the Constitution does not apply to schools, or to minors? Ooops, I hear the door bell, I think its the ACLU...

Both sides are taking inaccurate positions.

No, minors do not enjoy full constitutional rights.

No, the adults at school do not have total power. They don't get to lead the class in prayer (anymore), for example.

[Skyrad 0]

thats pathetic

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Or a "Fuck Bush" shirt? Or a "Fuck Kerry" shirt? Or a picture of the kid exercising his god-given right as a teenager to give the whole world the finger? Would it have been horrible if the staff said they couldn't use those pictures?

I'm trying to figure out why you guys keep using comparisons of profanity and pornography. How is a legal, normal, healthy, respected, age old sport on the same level? I don't think the kid was trying to make a political message. He submitted a picture to his yearbook that expressed who he was and what his hobby is. He wasn't calling people names or giving them the finger. There's a huge difference.

They allow the kids to be in pictures with their cars. I'm trying to figure out why you consider this kids picture to not be in that category, but rather in the same category as a a FUCK BUSH tshirt or giving the finger?

[crozby 0]

Quote

I'm trying to figure out why you guys keep using comparisons of profanity and pornography. How is a legal, normal, healthy, respected, age old sport on the same level?

Ok, how about smoking. What if the school banned the kid from getting a picture with him smoking and holding a packet of Marlboros into the yearbook. Would you support Philip Morris or some pro-smoking group taking the school to court?

Basically substitute the gun with anything else that is forbidden on school premises and I think the school has a right to exclude it from the year book at their discretion.