JohnRich 4 #26 September 27, 2004 Quote I imagine they feel that some parents wouldn't be overly comfortable sending their kid to a school that has gun toting kids featured in its year book. What about all those gun-toting people in their history books? Should history books be banned too? Should the school discriminate against people because of the uninformed, ignorant and bigoted views of others? If some white supremacist objected to the presence of black students in the school, should the school immediately expel all black students to make him happy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #27 September 27, 2004 Quote Negative. If little-boy-crys-a-lot and his NRA lawyers didn't bring the lawsuit, then the kids would have still been able to submit photos of them with tennis rackets and cars. It's the lawsuit that will stop that, not the appropriate editing of the photos. Cowboy up folks . . . you can't always get what you want. If the "cry baby anti gun twits" didn't get all pissy then it would never have been an issue. You can't claim to love free speach then restrict it if it is not illegal."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #28 September 27, 2004 My question was why YOU deem it appropriate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #29 September 27, 2004 Quote I think you probably know I'm all for the First Amendment. Your posts indicate that you're only for the 1st when it helps out fellow liberals. If it benifets republicans then you are opposed. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #30 September 27, 2004 Quote Another example of a frivolous lawsuit draining our tax money away from where it's needed. What a bunch of f'in' jackasses. The ones causing the drain of tax money, are the school administrators who are supporting this unreasonable and discriminatory policy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #31 September 27, 2004 Quote Quote I think you probably know I'm all for the First Amendment. Your posts indicate that you're only for the 1st when it helps out fellow liberals. If it benifets republicans then you are opposed. Some magic power you're using to know that kid is a republican? Or is the second only allowed to benefit republicans? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #32 September 27, 2004 Quote Or is the second only allowed to benefit republicans? finally you figured it out. we've got to have something to protect ourselves from the rabid bleeding heart liberals... --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #33 September 27, 2004 Quote Quote Or is the second only allowed to benefit republicans? finally you figured it out. we've got to have something to protect ourselves from the rabid bleeding heart liberals... That's why I try to get all my leftie friends to the range with me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #34 September 27, 2004 Quote My question was why YOU deem it appropriate. Ahhh, -personally- I don't -think- I'd give a poop. I -would- have let the photo in as long as the photo, which we haven't seen BTW, was a sporting photo and not threatening. The article JohnRich posted did say he had the gun on his shoulder, I can interpret that several ways; right shoulder rest or shouldered and aimed at the camera. Right shoulder rest and I really don't care, but it wasn't my judgement to make. Shouldered and aimed at the camera . . . I think that's totally inappropriate because of the threatening nature of the photo. Again, we haven't seen the photo, so how can we really comment on the appropriateness of the actual photo. That said, the school official that edited the photo -did- see it. I'm going to have to assume he was using his best judgement and I assume such a bru-ha-ha has been raised that the photo has been looked at by lawyers on both sides.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #35 September 27, 2004 Okay, Quade what about a cross, a menorah, Santa Claus, pledge of allegiance or some other ACLU lawsuit. Are they bullshit too? Oh, freedom of [not having any] religion is different? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #36 September 27, 2004 Quote I -would- have let the photo in as long as the photo, which we haven't seen BTW, was a sporting photo and not threatening... Again, we haven't seen the photo, so how can we really comment on the appropriateness of the actual photo. The first story link that I provided contains the student's photo which was rejected. It is a completely non-threatening photo, displaying good gun-safety practices. He is nicely dressed and groomed, wearing a shooting vest, with a gun, action open, draped over his shoulder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #37 September 27, 2004 Quote I'm working off a few basic & logical assumptions. The last set of yearbook guidlines I saw (earlier this year) outlined what was appropriate, and what was not... they said sporting equipment, whether or not school related, were appropriate (i.e. golf clubs or tennis raquets even though the school did not have such teams)... Nudity, pornography, and obscene language or gestures were the only things considered to be inappropriate... Without actually seeing this schools guidelines how can you assume that the lawsuit is frivalous, or if it is response to a purely arbritary, or worse discriminitory, decission with no basis in school or yearbook policy? It would have been easiy enough to say that you needed the guidelines before rendering a decision... but you called those involved in the suit jackasses... Quote What a bunch of f'in' jackasses. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #38 September 27, 2004 Ok. If that's the photo, me, -personally- I'd allow it. That said, once the photo was rejected . . . it's just a frivolous lawsuit on the part of the NRA to get it included. Waste of tax payer money to defend against it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #39 September 27, 2004 Quote once the photo was rejected . . . it's just a frivolous lawsuit on the part of the NRA to get it included. Waste of tax payer money to defend against it. Was it frivolous for Rosa Parks to sue her city bus system because she had to sit in the back of the bus, "where blacks belong". Was it a waste of city taxpayer money to defend against her lawsuit which demanded equality for blacks? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #40 September 27, 2004 Quote That said, once the photo was rejected . . . it's just a frivolous lawsuit on the part of the NRA to get it included. Define frivolous? Not being able to use the word God -- that's frivolous Or do you mean that defending it is a waste of time and they were wrong to ban it? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #41 September 27, 2004 I called the suit frivolous and the NRA lawyers "a bunch of f'in' jackasses" because it's a freekin' high school yearbook photo! Holy crap! I'd think the NRA membership would be outraged they'd spend money on something as trivial. This doesn't rise to the level of "the government" keeping gun control in check by stifling freedom of expression; it's a freekin' high school yearbook! A guy made an editorial decision, maybe he was right, maybe he was wrong. Is it worth all the hoopla and money? Is ya kiddin' me? The kid needs to grow up and the NRA lawyers need to take their 800 pound gorilla approach somewhere that actually matters.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #42 September 27, 2004 Quote What about all those gun-toting people in their history books? Should history books be banned too? Should the school discriminate against people because of the uninformed, ignorant and bigoted views of others? If some white supremacist objected to the presence of black students in the school, should the school immediately expel all black students to make him happy? You honestly can't see the difference between a kid with a gun in a school year book and a guy holding a gun in a history book? How about the difference between the picture of a pair of tits in a biology text book and a pair of tits in a porn mag. Are they the same too? It's all about context. Can you imagine the moral outcry if there was a gun massace at a school and it subsequently turned out there were kids with guns in the year book? The school would have to be run by fucking morons to let that happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #43 September 27, 2004 Quote Not being able to use the word God -- that's frivolous Not at all. The Pledge applies to all. The yearbook photo applies to a very small group.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #44 September 27, 2004 Quote That said, once the photo was rejected . . . it's just a frivolous lawsuit on the part of the NRA to get it included. Waste of tax payer money to defend against it. One of the NRA's primary objectives is improving the image of guns and gun ownership in America. In pursuit of that objective, standing up against a school that disallows images of guns being used for lawful sporting purposes makes sense. The school has a zero tolerance policy toward violence, drugs, and alcohol. Skeet shooting doesn't fall into any of those categories. Are archery pictures also banned? What about Tae Kwon Do?I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #45 September 27, 2004 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?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #46 September 27, 2004 *** The first story link that I provided contains the student's photo which was rejected. It is a completely non-threatening photo, displaying good gun-safety practices. He is nicely dressed and groomed, wearing a shooting vest, with a gun, action open, draped over his shoulder *** OK JohnRich. This guy is carrying a broken double shotgun over his should. Dressed perfect. Picture well made. But you are talking about a school. A yearbook Perhaps at that date, he showed a 12/70, what will it be 3 years later? AK-47 or something like that? Increasing calibre .50? (On that, my knowledge shows lacks. The strongest I ever used was H&H .500) School, children, yearbook. There is no must to show pics with armed children. That is ill. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #47 September 27, 2004 Quote Would you think that was a good or frivolous use of your dues? As a member of USPA, yes I would consider that frivolous... but it would be worth a phone call to find out why they made such a decision, and try to educate them about skydiving... As a member of the NRA, I don't see the case in question being frivolous... That picture has nothing to do with a zero tolerance policy on violence, drugs, or alcohol... It appears to be purely an anti-gun decision... IF the published policy for the yearbook said NO GUNS then I might reconsider... but it would still be in the NRA's interest to get the policy changed. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #48 September 27, 2004 Quote The Pledge applies to all. The yearbook photo applies to a very small group. No, the public school aka government is censoring... Since the individual doesn't matter, where do you get involved? One kid uses a racial slur? Only the whole class? The whole school? Oh that's different too? Oh, sorry, only certain amendments matter. Gee, if forgot to be a hypocrit. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #49 September 27, 2004 Quote You honestly can't see the difference between a kid with a gun in a school year book and a guy holding a gun in a history book? How about the difference between the picture of a pair of tits in a biology text book and a pair of tits in a porn mag. Are they the same too? It's all about context. I understand that context means something, as you point out. But these censors are talking about "zero tolerance". And zero means zero, no matter what the context. Thus, guns and tits in school textbooks should be no different from guns and tits in the school yearbook. Quote Can you imagine the moral outcry if there was a gun massace at a school and it subsequently turned out there were kids with guns in the year book? The school would have to be run by fucking morons to let that happen. The morons would be those who thought that the yearbook photos had anything to do with the massacre. This suggested approach is allowing the bigoted morons to control the content of the yearbook. Bigots and morons shouldn't be in charge of anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #50 September 27, 2004 Quote Quote Not being able to use the word God -- that's frivolous Not at all. The Pledge applies to all. The yearbook photo applies to a very small group. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
