Gun Discrimination

[wmw999 2,514]

The school has the right to exclude anything they darn well want to from the pictures, I suppose. In this case, they're going too far for my liking, but dang -- there is not a real good middle ground that doesn't end up with some half-wit suing because they can't be shown with their toy machine gun and something that can later be seen to be inappropriate. Kids love getting away with stuff.

If they were to say up front that no pictures of guns are allowed, no matter how legal, that would at least make it clear. Letting him discover is worse.

He enjoys a legal sport; from the picture, he appears to enjoy it in a structured, safe manner. It's a pity that the school feels threatened by it.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[PhillyKev 0]

So now you're comparing it to an addictive substance that is neither healthy nor respected.

[Jib 0]

Quote

The school has the right to exclude anything they darn well want to from the pictures, I suppose.

Sure, they can have a year book with only team or club photos and school pictures. No pictures of anything else. No cats -- people don't all like cats, no cars -- not everyone can afford a car, no fish -- PITA (not Steves), no bathing suits -- violates the dress code, no hats -- can't wear them in school, no sunglasses -- can't wear them either, no bats or sticks for the teams -- you could hit someone with one and one student was injured playing, no playing tage -- that's a battery, no ...

Oh, you mean it only applies to guns?

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

[AggieDave 6]

You know, some would think Football to be a violent game, depicting an entrenched land war in Europe, supporing wars, violence, hatred and a few other things, yet the football team is in the year book I'd guess.




(I'm still laughing that none of the liberals are making much sense in this thread, trying to use outrageous examples to prove their point).

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

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

(I'm still laughing that none of the liberals are making much sense in this thread, trying to use outrageous examples to prove their point).

What about me?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

You know, some would think Football to be a violent game, depicting an entrenched land war in Europe, supporing wars, violence, hatred and a few other things, yet the football team is in the year book I'd guess.

Wanna hear something sick? My boss was talking about her kid playing t-ball at school. I knew she goes to a private "rich kids" school. I asked her if it was one of those pansy places where everyone gets a turn and there aren't any strikes or outs. Of course in t-ball it's like that for the real little kids, but no, the older kids actually play to win.

The sick part is.....they renamed Tug of War to Pull for Peace!!!!! [puking smiley]

[Douva 0]

Quote

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.

Would you agree that the same standard should be applied to a fencing champion pictured in his uniform, holding his sword, and wearing a gold medal?

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

What about me?

You're weird and probably shunned by your fellow lefties...atleast you picked a good issue to cross over on.

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

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

And was the team canned all together, or did the school pony up the cash for vans and transportation, the way it does for other clubs and teams?

It was taken over by ROTC, and uses their facilities. Thus the Feds assume the liability (which was a major headache and expense).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[crozby 0]

Quote

Would you agree that the same standard should be applied to a fencing champion pictured in his uniform, holding his sword, and wearing a gold medal?

That would depend on whether the school had a ban on fencing foils or not.

In my view it is reasonable for the school to ban from the shool yearbook *anything* that is banned from the grounds of the school.

If the guy was in the school skeet shooting team then I don't doubt for a minute that they would allow the picture. But there isn't such a team.

That said, I bet if the guy had just won the Olympic skeet shooting gold medal in Athens this year then it would get into the yearbook and a whole load of other school publications besides.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

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.

No, what is absurd is to discriminate against someone participating in lawful shooting sports, because of something some criminal did.

If there is gang violence in the spectator stands at a football game, should the school then ban all pictures of students in football uniforms? It's the same thing, and according to the principle you are advocating, such a policy would be justified.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

So now you're comparing it to an addictive substance that is neither healthy nor respected.

It's also illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to purchase or possess tobacco.

-
Jim

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

> 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.

The totality of your statements like this are really starting to pile up, and it adds up to something rancid.

You seem to be saying that the adults who run schools should be allowed to discriminate against anybody they want, for any reason, and that such behavior is perfectly okay.

Rancid.

[billvon 3,058]

>No, what is absurd is to discriminate against someone participating
>in lawful shooting sports, because of something some criminal did.

I agree. If they banned the kid from school because he was off shooting things, he'd have a good court case. But if they simply decide to not put a picture of him in the yearbook with a gun (or with a "fuck bush" Tshirt on, or drinking a Jolt cola, or driving a firetruck, or climbing the school flagpole) he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. It says nothing about guaranteeing your right to have a school (or students, or their parents) pay for distributing pictures of them. If you feel strongly about it, publish your own yearbook with pictures of guns. Better yet, volunteer to become a yearbook advisor and do the work - then you can put any tint on it you want. If you would rather someone else spend their money or time to promote your agenda - sorry.

[billvon 3,058]

>You seem to be saying that the adults who run schools should be
>allowed to discriminate against anybody they want, for any reason,
>and that such behavior is perfectly okay.

Ding ding! We have a winner! Yes. Teachers can decide that students cannot speak their minds in class. They can require them to wear collared shirts, or white shirts in gym class. (In your terms, they can discriminate against free expression of clothing.) They can PHYSICALLY DETAIN kids after school, using the threat of denying them education! Horrors! They can prohibit them from joining certain activities. They can require them to sit in the back of the class if they are bad. They can punish them for doing things that are 100% legal, like carrying cans of spraypaint into schools - even though they say they simply wish to express their constitutional right to free speech by painting JOEY RULES on trees in a local forest where there are no regulations against it.

Why? Because kids, not adults, are in charge at schools. If it's egregious, and other adults (like the school board) agree that it's serious, then they can take action. A teacher who refused to teach black students, for example, would likely be fired or placed in a non-teaching role. Most school boards, however, recognize the wisdom of letting teachers rather than students run the schools.

[Ron 10]

John Liberals are against guns in every way...

They will even trash the right to free speech to trash and limit a persons right to weapons.

This kid did nothing wrong and nothing illegal. Some pasty-faced, liberal, tree-hugger used a postion of power to impose his or her personal beliefs that guns are bad.

Then the same type of tree-huggers defend the schools right to limit legal, free speech.

These same tree-huggers would be up in arms if it was a liberal message that was censored.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Most school boards, however, recognize the wisdom of letting teachers rather than students run the schools.

And teachers and administrators always do the right thing, and their decisions should never, ever be questioned?

In the news:

A Bronx school employee forced four fourth-grade boys, accused of stealing a teacher's ring, to strip to their underwear and jump up and down... the boys were pulled from a gym class... taken to a private room... intimidated the boys about going to jail if they didn't cooperate with the search.

Source: Newsday.com

These kids have no rights? They must always do as their teachers say, without question, and without recourse?

[kelel01 1]

If a kid wore a shirt that said "Legalize marijuana" in the picture, that would not be allowed. You can wear it in public all you want, but schools make their own rules. He's just expressing his first amendment right to free speech, but I don't think any of "us liberals" would get up in arms about that. PICK YOUR BATTLES, GENTLEMEN. Not allowing a kid to take a picture with a gun is not discrimination.

Kelly

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Not allowing a kid to take a picture with a gun is not discrimination.

If the picture was not in compliance with the yearbook's stated guideline, its not discrimination... If the picture is in compliance with the guidlines, and the decision was arbitrary, it is...

What we do not have is the guidelines...

One way to avoid all this is to not let students submit their own pictures at all, and only use the typical school photos.

J

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If a kid wore a shirt that said "Legalize marijuana" in the picture, that would not be allowed. You can wear it in public all you want, but schools make their own rules. He's just expressing his first amendment right to free speech, but I don't think any of "us liberals" would get up in arms about that. PICK YOUR BATTLES, GENTLEMEN. Not allowing a kid to take a picture with a gun is not discrimination.

Your comparison is invalid. The photo in question was doing nothing to advocate a political position about guns. It was simply showing him with something he liked to do - skeet shooting, just as many other kids show their own sports and hobbies. This issue is not about political speech. It's about discrimination against lawful gun sports enthusiasts.

If the school refused to publish photos of students who wear a cross on a necklace, would that be okay? I think not.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If the picture was not in compliance with the yearbook's stated guideline, its not discrimination... If the picture is in compliance with the guidlines, and the decision was arbitrary, it is...

The guideline itself could be arbitrary and discriminatory. Just because a guideline says something, doesn't make it proper. If it's in the guideline, then the guideline needs to be challenged also. So it really doesn't matter whether this decision is supported by the guideline, or if it is an on-the-spot decision by just one individual. Either way, it's wrong, and it should be changed.

[Jib 0]

Quote

If a kid wore a shirt that said "Legalize marijuana" in the picture, that would not be allowed. You can wear it in public all you want, but schools make their own rules. He's just expressing his first amendment right to free speech, but I don't think any of "us liberals" would get up in arms about that. PICK YOUR BATTLES, GENTLEMEN. Not allowing a kid to take a picture with a gun is not discrimination.

No, it's censorship. For a political purpose, you are refusing to allow someone tastefully depicted related to not only a lawful activity but also one that is Constitutionally protected. By contrast, your pot smoker's picture is a statement that I engage in unlawful conduct.

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

[kelel01 1]

Quote

By contrast, your pot smoker's picture is a statement that I engage in unlawful conduct.

No, it's not. It's a lawful expression of one's rights. Not all people who condone legalization of marijuana smoke it.

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

John Liberals are against guns in every way...



.

You need to stop these silly generalizations. You consider me a liberal, but I have belonged to a shooting club and I have no particular objection to guns in the hands of law abiding adults, or children with appropriate supervision.

Has the "offending" picture been published anywhere? I can think of photos with guns that would be quite offensive, and photos with guns that would be quite appropriate.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

If a kid wore a shirt that said "Legalize marijuana" in the picture, that would not be allowed

Right, but Marijuana is ILLEGAL. And that shirt would be making a stance on a political issue.

PLUS, not one school I know of does not have a polocy about clothes.

I have never seen a policy that says you can't have a picture of a gun in school....If there was then we would have to remove all the history textbooks.

Quote

Not allowing a kid to take a picture with a gun is not discrimination.

Yes it is...You just aprove of the choice the school made...It is STILL discrimination.

A picture of a gun is not illegal.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334