Gun Discrimination

[kelel01 1]

No, I'm not. I'm labeling it as NOT ALLOWED IN SCHOOL. That's all. I have no problem with guns, as long as they're not being fired at me. If they had a trapshooting class there, as they do at "other schools", then I would definitely consider not printing the pic as inappropriate, but THEY DON'T, and GUNS ARE NOT ALLOWED AT THEIR SCHOOL. Many people participate in outside activities that are not school-affiliated, and if that activity is not permitted by (well, at) the school, then I believe they also are under no obligation to put it in the yearbook.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

No, I'm not. I'm labeling it as NOT ALLOWED IN SCHOOL. That's all. I have no problem with guns, as long as they're not being fired at me. If they had a trapshooting class there, as they do at "other schools", then I would definitely consider not printing the pic as inappropriate, but THEY DON'T, and GUNS ARE NOT ALLOWED AT THEIR SCHOOL. Many people participate in outside activities that are not school-affiliated, and if that activity is not permitted by (well, at) the school, then I believe they also are under no obligation to put it in the yearbook.

They have no pond at the school - so fishing poles wouldn't be allowed either, right?

Cricket probably isn't played there either, I'll bet a guy walking around with a cricket bat would be relieved of the bat VERY soon, but I seriously doubt that it would be dis allowed in the yearbook. I'd also assume that curling isn't played at the school either, but would you decline a curling broom in the picture?

Face it, there is a political agenda being played by the scool officials because of their personal beliefs. THAT IS WRONG!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelel01 1]

PERMITTED, NOT PARTICIPATED IN. Please pay attention to what I'm saying. If some kid wanted to go out to the baseball field and play cricket, I think it would be allowed, as long as the field wasn't in use at the time.

Think about it this way-- if you have a fishing pole in the back of your truck in the parking lot, you're not gonna get in trouble. Put a gun back there, and you will. That's just the way it is. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE be rational and do not compare it to cricket.

[billvon 3,058]

>so fishing poles wouldn't be allowed either, right?

Entirely up to the people who run the school.

>but I seriously doubt that it would be dis allowed in the yearbook.

Up to the people who run the yearbook.

>Face it, there is a political agenda being played by the scool officials
>because of their personal beliefs.

Nonsense. A yearbook adviser didn't like a picture so he/she didn't include it. It happens thousands of times in hundreds of schools throughout the US. Often the rejected pictures are of women; doesn't mean they are anti-women. Often the rejected pictures are of black kids; doesn't mean they are anti-black. Often the rejected pictures are of sports; doesn't mean they are anti-sport. Are we to believe that of all the thousands of pictures that were rejected, only this one was rejected because of a nefarious political plot intended to brainwash children? Please.

[turtlespeed 226]

Come on! Please! They had an opinion that is formed from beliefs, beliefs are what drive politics and agendas. The opinion is that a gun in a picture is hearmfuil in some way. If the person did NOT believe that then the picture would have been no problem.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

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

For those who think that there is something wrong with children participating in gun sports, please read this news story:

Newszap.com

Casey Lynch, 13, placed third in the sub-junior division of the 2004 National Sporting Clays Championship, the largest clay shooting competition in the world.

The competition was Sept. 8-12 in San Antonio, with more than 1,600 participants.

Casey started the sport last March and has already received more than a dozen trophies, cash awards and prizes including a .22 rifle and a duck decoy. The cash awards are in a savings account for his future...

So what's wrong with this kid and his shooting sport? When he gets to be a senior in high school, should he be prohibited from posing with his sporting clays shotgun in his yearbook photo?

[christoofar 0]

I still see Jr ROTC rifle drills in the public school parking lots when I drive home from work every day.

But, this is Texas, after all, where even the screaming liberals have guns...

____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.

[quade 4]

Quote

Standing up for what is right, is never a "flip-flop".

Don't you mean, "Standing up for what is favored by the right, is never a "flip-flop" (in the minds of those on the right)"?

Geeze John, you're making this too easy.

Seriously, what is "right" or "the right thing to do" is pretty ambigous language. Virtually every evil person you can think of thought that what they were doing at the time was "the right thing to do" from their perspective. Even, dare I say it, Hitler. He said what he meant and meant what he said, but to say he was "right" is hardly correct by most other people's standards.

I think this is an important thing to remember when talking to and about a lot of folks.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

what is "right" or "the right thing to do" is pretty ambigous language. Virtually every evil person you can think of thought that what they were doing at the time was "the right thing to do" from their perspective. Even, dare I say it, Hitler. He said what he meant and meant what he said, but to say he was "right" is hardly correct by most other people's standards.

Geez, I don't where the leap in logic to Hitler came from.

Where are all those liberals who always claim that any time someone interjects a reference to "Hitler" in a debate, that it is a sign that they have lost the argument?

The examples I offered as what is "right", in the message to which you responded, were; not blaming gun manufacturers for the actions of criminals, and not discriminating against lawful gun sports. I don't see how any reasonable person could not agree with those statements.

That's a long way from Hitler.

Do you agree with me on those two items? Do you think gun manufacturers should be held responsible for the actions of criminals? Do you think it is socially acceptable for people to discriminate against those who participate in lawful shooting sports?

[wmw999 2,514]

Quote

Where are all those liberals who always claim that any time someone interjects a reference to "Hitler" in a debate, that it is a sign that they have lost the argument?

That's Godwin's Law. Kind of related to dead-horse beating. Not everything is a liberal conspiracy, John.

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)

[billvon 3,058]

>Where are all those liberals who always claim that any time someone
> interjects a reference to "Hitler" in a debate, that it is a sign that they
> have lost the argument?

That would be Godwin; I don't think he was a liberal. But in any case, his law states that once someone invokes Hitler, the person who did it has admitted defeat, and (this is the important part) no one replies to him since he admitted defeat and the discussion is over. It's a way to prevent degeneration of threads. If you try to use Godwin to 'win the argument' it sort of defeats the purpose of invoking his law.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Where are all those liberals who always claim that any time someone interjects a reference to "Hitler" in a debate, that it is a sign that they have lost the argument?

That's Godwin's Law. Kind of related to dead-horse beating. Not everything is a liberal conspiracy, John.

I never said "everything" was.

I've sure had a few liberals here in this forum throw that so-called "law" at me, when using Hitler as a valid comparison in a debate.

But for some reason, when the same "Hitler" technique is used in favor of a liberal argument, those usual critics fall mysteriously silent...

What's good for the goose, isn't good for the gander.

[quade 4]

For the record, you can search my entire history here and I don't think you'll find me complaining about using Hitler as an analogy especially when I make this argument (which I've made on several occasions) that you can be a lead, say what you mean, mean what you say and still be very, very wrong.

Quote

Do you agree with me on those two items? Do you think gun manufacturers should be held responsible for the actions of criminals? Do you think it is socially acceptable for people to discriminate against those who participate in lawful shooting sports?

Different can of worms and I don't think you'd like the answer I'd give you to one of the questions, but essentially, I see this thread as hypocritical of your position.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

essentially, I see this thread as hypocritical of your position.

If defending someone from unjust discrimination makes me a "hypocrit" in your mind, so be it. I'd rather that, than ignore injustice.

[JohnRich 4]

News update: Union Leader

Quote: people might think, ‘Londonderry, they allow a gun...’” “They might have thoughts that we might not like.”

There's the new publishing standard: If anyone can think something that you don't like, then you can't publish it!

Um, what about that saxophone school photo? The saxaphone used to symbolize loose sex. And since I just thought that, and they wouldn't like it, they should immediately remove the yearbook photo of the student with the saxophone.

[JohnRich 4]

News update:

(The school) suggested a photo for the senior head shot section in which Douglass, an avid sports shooter, wears his shooting vest, holds a clay pigeon and is surrounded by trophies — but has no gun. "He is also free to submit written text to appear next to his photo indicating his love of the sport trap shooting."

Had he approved the compromise, Douglass' submitted photo — which included a broke-open shotgun slung over his shoulder — would not have been discarded. The editorial staff proposed including the submitted photo within the yearbook's "Community Sports," a separate section laid out in a collage format.

When informed of the terms last night, Dean responded: "Guess what? I'll see them in U.S. District Court. Why should (Douglass) be treated differently than anyone else?

* * *

Full Story: Union Leader

[wmw999 2,514]

They're trying what they think is a compromise.
His take is "my way or the highway." I realize that some things shouldn't be compromised over, but this is a fucking picture in a yearbook; they're encouraging him to make it clear that he is an avid gun sportsman, they just don't want the picture of the gun.

I still think it's kind of a silly distinction, but, well, now they're less likely to compromise with someone the next time, aren't they. Who will that help?

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)

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

They're trying what they think is a compromise... now they're less likely to compromise with someone the next time, aren't they. Who will that help?

They may seem to be a little hard-headed for not accepting the compromise. However, if they push the issue to the limit in court, and get the "gun" restriction removed completely, then there won't even be a need for compromise - because everyone's hobby will be treated equally.

Although I fully recognize that this isn't an earth-shattering major issue at stake here.

I tend to agree with the plaintiff that no discrimination at all is a better alternative than compromising to allow just a little discrimination.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

They're trying what they think is a compromise.
His take is "my way or the highway." I realize that some things shouldn't be compromised over, but this is a fucking picture in a yearbook; they're encouraging him to make it clear that he is an avid gun sportsman, they just don't want the picture of the gun.

I still think it's kind of a silly distinction, but, well, now they're less likely to compromise with someone the next time, aren't they. Who will that help?

Wendy W.

What sound reasoning can there possibly be (honest question) behind objecting to a picture of a gun?

I have heard of kids getting thrown out of schools because they had little G.I. Joe plastic accessory guns (an inch and a half long!!!!!). What possible reason can an authority figure give for banning such things? It can't possibly be a functioning gun, nor is a picture of a kid holding a gun able to hurt anyone. They seem to be objecting to IMAGERY. And that's abhorrent, and irrational, and censorship. It's not even censorship that can claim to accomplish some sort of good.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[wmw999 2,514]

It's no more or less sensible than allowing baggy pants with long pockets (which are forbidden in many places), or T-shirts with pictures of legal alcoholic beverages being worn by kids who can drink those beverages at home.

Or uniforms in public schools.

It's a rule. Arbitrary. That's what many school rules are, and they teach you to live in a world that is sometimes aribtrary.

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)

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

It's no more or less sensible than allowing baggy pants with long pockets (which are forbidden in many places), or T-shirts with pictures of legal alcoholic beverages being worn by kids who can drink those beverages at home.

Or uniforms in public schools.

It's a rule. Arbitrary. That's what many school rules are, and they teach you to live in a world that is sometimes aribtrary.

Wendy W.

Arbitrary rules are pointless and indefensible.
A REASON behind a rule -- say, for instance, No Baggy Pants because they can easily conceal a weapon -- that can make an otherwise "arbitrary" rule defensible.

There is no possible harm that can come of bringing, say, a magazine article about a gun, or a magazine photo of a gun, or a non-firing 1.5" long plastic toy gun, into a school. A rule against such things is not just arbitrary, it is offensive to reason. It is not an adequate defense of such a rule to simply say, "It's arbitrary. That's how rules are." Rules should not exist if they do not serve to perform a function such as enhancing clarity, order, safety, or something along those lines. A rule for the sake of a rule is an abomination. What if they said, for no apparent reason, that everyone who walks into a courthouse had to do so backwards while humming the theme from "Happy Days"? Would you defend it just because "it's the rule," or would you ask why in fuck's sake they felt the need to have such a rule?

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

It's a rule. Arbitrary. That's what many school rules are, and they teach you to live in a world that is sometimes aribtrary.
Wendy W.

I strongly disagree with the doctrine that schools should enact arbitrary rules whose purpose, as you state, is to do nothing more than indoctrinate children to obeying arbitrary rules.

That's absurdism at its finest.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

It's a rule. Arbitrary. That's what many school rules are, and they teach you to live in a world that is sometimes aribtrary.

Wendy W.

Since when is it the purpose of schools to be unfair, just to show you and teach you to live with the fact that life can be unfair?

There is no legitimacy to the idea that a school should fuck with you, just to get you ready to be fucked with in later life. Should schools plant drug evidence on students, because some cop may end up doing that to you at a traffic stop when you're 28, and they want you to be ready to handle it? I mean, where is the logic in your statement??

If anything, schools should be training you to FIGHT against arbitrary, nonsensical rules and encroachments on your freedom. In that, they are not just failing miserably, they are working deliberately against the cause.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[JohnRich 4]

News Update:

Londonderry High School senior Blake Douglass said he will definitely sue in federal court after the school board last night unanimously backed denying his photo submission to the yearbook featuring a broke-open shotgun slung over his shoulder.

Dean argued that there had been several previous "objectionable" photos, most of which were senior yearbook photos. One previous collage photo — not a senior portrait — depicted two teenage girls dancing together, she said. Dean said the photo could hint at homosexuality, "which some people in this society might consider objectionable."

Referring to Douglass' submitted photo, he said, "it is susceptible to different interpretations."

Source: Union Leader

So if *anyone* can interpret an innocent photo in some "bad" way, then the photo must be banned?

What about the girl with a photo of her saxophone? Maybe she was having sex with her sax? Ban it!

[JohnRich 4]

News update:

New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union attorneys yesterday concluded that the school district denied Blake Douglass his First Amendment rights by nixing the high school senior's yearbook photo, featuring a broke-open shotgun.

The group's director said it would offer Douglass pro-bono legal support if he wanted it.

New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union executive director Claire Ebel agreed with Douglass, saying that the matter was a "significant First Amendment issue."

Source: Union Leader