Boy punished for T-shirt with gun image

[Ellsworth]

Originally Posted by TexasT

It probably looked like this



Looks pretty tame to me.

If that was the shirt, I think the larger issue here is the message, young people do not understand the difference between Muslim and Terrorist when swamped by the media that "Iraqis are bad, we are good". I can soundly attest to the fact that many, many, many (can't stress this enough) many adults can't either. When they think terrorist (unfortunately) more often then not they picture anyone from Indian to eastern European decent.

Education is the answer, equal and practical education that not only tells both sides of the story but educates individuals to the reality of life.

Along with education there has to be an active effort of inclusion for many individuals, to many are outcasted because they are different, this makes people rebel, and sometimes those people are nut jobs.

This debate will range forever and a day, the right to bare arms and protect oneself intrudes on others will to live without fear (ignorantly but true).

It's like debating on banning smoking, its the classical (I do what I want but other people don't like it).

My 2 cents,

Ellsworth

[JOEGUN94]

my daughter came home from basic and had a few of them,
why can't people realize that the military is out to protect them, and protect the constitution,

[LarryO1970]

... because right now, society is assaulting our rights, assaulting the Constitution, the Amendments and the Bill of Rights. Why should they stop there?

Hell, Clinton wants the Govt. (her Govt) to teach you how to raise your kids. Read some excerpts to her book "It Takes a Village" if you can stomach it. Simply, it is not the place of the Govt. to tell you how to raise your kids, period.

An Analysis of Hillary Clinton's Book

At its face, there is nothing controversial about the idea that it takes more than parents to raise a child. Grandparents, friends, pastors, teachers, boy scout leaders, and many others in the community all have a role in the lives of our children. In her book, Mrs. Clinton does acknowledge that "parents bear the first and primary responsibility for their sons and daughters." Unfortunately, the rest of the book contradicts that early statement. The First Lady essentially extends her notion of the village far beyond the family to include various organizations, especially the federal government. By the end of the book, it appears that Mrs. Clinton has never met a government program she didn't like.
She says that those who hold to an anti-government position are the "noisiest" position and getting all the attention from the media. But she goes on to say that "despite the resurgence of anti- government extremism, it is becoming clear that most Americans do not favor a radical dismantling of government. Instead of rollback, they want real reform. And when a strong case can be made, they still favor government action, as they have demonstrated recently in their support for measures like the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Brady Bill, and the new Direct Student Loan program."
By the end of the book Mrs. Clinton has endorsed nearly every government program of the last thirty years including those mentioned above and others like Goals 2000, Parents as Teachers, and AmeriCorps. The village, in Mrs. Clinton's book, is much more than the communities in which we live--it is a metaphor for the continued expansion of government into every aspect of our lives.



Although not a fan of hers by any stretch of the imagination, this is not about bashing Hillary Clinton, this is to show that society is being inundated by a Federal Govt. that is taking the role of the parent away and replacing them with "their" parenting.

[.22hustler]

A few years back I wore a t-shirt with a picture of "Buck-wheat" emblazened on the front of it. If any of you are old enough to remember the little rascals, you know who I mean. I dearly loved the little rascals, and Buckwheat was one of my favorites. The same thing with the three stooges. Anyway, a co-worker accused me of being a racist, and went to the boss and turned me in. I had to remove the t-shirt.. Several days went by and this same co-worker wore a t-shirt with "God's perfect creation, the black woman". While I did not like the shirt, I kept my mouth shut, but another co-worker said something. They were told they weren't being diverse in their thinking.

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by .22hustler

A few years back I wore a t-shirt with a picture of "Buck-wheat" emblazened on the front of it. If any of you are old enough to remember the little rascals, you know who I mean. I dearly loved the little rascals, and Buckwheat was one of my favorites. The same thing with the three stooges. Anyway, a co-worker accused me of being a racist, and went to the boss and turned me in. I had to remove the t-shirt.. Several days went by and this same co-worker wore a t-shirt with "God's perfect creation, the black woman". While I did not like the shirt, I kept my mouth shut, but another co-worker said something. They were told they weren't being diverse in their thinking.

Can you say "reverse discrimination" ? God help ya if you ever brought that up, Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton would be beating down your door to sue you.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by Deersniper

Those communist mind laundries turn kids into defenseless cowards. Funny after all that correctness at school, they go home and watch the Terminator on TV. How ironic.

What exactly is the communist mind? I am not seeing your point here? Since they want to be socialists?

Cyrano,

I can see where you are going, but to me I would leave guns completely out of it. I would perhaps replace your idea with martial arts. Discipline, and skill building and self defense. I can tell you right now parents and school boards won't sponsor anything with guns. Putting the fear of God in them, is not that good either, and it is pressing the moral of God onto people which I am against. However, I do see where your idea could be used constructively in like a martial arts or boxing program. Builds self esteem, discipline, physical and mental attributes, etc.


This issue has nothing to do with the right to bear arms, it has to do with politics and policy of the public school systems. It is not anti-gun either, it is anti-violence there is a difference. Guns represent violence plain and simple.

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

What exactly is the communist mind? I am not seeing your point here? Since they want to be socialists?

Cyrano,

I can see where you are going, but to me I would leave guns completely out of it. I would perhaps replace your idea with martial arts. Discipline, and skill building and self defense. I can tell you right now parents and school boards won't sponsor anything with guns. Putting the fear of God in them, is not that good either, and it is pressing the moral of God onto people which I am against. However, I do see where your idea could be used constructively in like a martial arts or boxing program. Builds self esteem, discipline, physical and mental attributes, etc.


This issue has nothing to do with the right to bear arms, it has to do with politics and policy of the public school systems. It is not anti-gun either, it is anti-violence there is a difference. Guns represent violence plain and simple.

Guns do not represent violence... people represent violence. A gun is a tool... much like a hammer. They are no more than a paperweight unless used.

As far as I am concerned... guns represent power in many different shapes, not inherent violence. Hey... I see guns as representing deterrence.

[Windwalker]

Tlarkin, I think Cyrano's ideas have merit. I would gladly send my grandchildren to a school supporting these policies. No Tolerance is not fair to the students. Do you really believe that a 2nd grader drawing a picture of a gun should receive the same punishment as a teenager bringing a real gun to school? I also dispute your statement that guns are made to kill. Guns are made to shoot. It is people who decide what they shoot. You decide that yours shoot targets. Some people decide to use theirs for hunting. Then there are those people who use guns to hurt or kill people. The gun is an inanimate object. The people decide how they are going to use it. If you want to control what students wear then adopt school uniforms even if the uniform is plain white T shirts and jeans.Then everyone would be dressed alike. People who would give up their rights for protection are likely to loose both.

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

By the end of the book Mrs. Clinton has endorsed nearly every government program of the last thirty years including those mentioned above and others like Goals 2000, Parents as Teachers, and AmeriCorps. The village, in Mrs. Clinton's book, is much more than the communities in which we live--it is a metaphor for the continued expansion of government into every aspect of our lives.

There used to be a society that was as pervasively invasive of the family role as what Slick Hillary espouses. It was called Nazi Germany. The logical extension of the state's preemption of the family's role in child-rearing led to the Lebensborn project, a eugenic breeding program conceived by Henrich Himmler to breed up Aryan supermen that would be carefully trained in Nazi and SS academies to become the supreme rulers of the Nazi state - and eventually the world.

Carefully selected SS men, and equally carefully selected German and Nordic women, were encouraged to go to Lebensborn resorts, meet, screw and breed. When a woman conceived, she was sent to a clinic where her pregnancy was monitored and the best treatments and foods were given to her. She would have her baby, which would be taken from her and raised in a State creche. (The concept of bastardy was outlawed in Nazi Germany. One may wonder how much Hitler's father being a bastard had to do with that, and how much with expedience in breeding the next generation of cannon-fodder.)

Had the Nazis won the war, the next steps would have been to send the children off to Nazi leadership schools and when they were adults, put to work for the Reich if positions of responsibility in the Party, the Army and particularly the SS. Eventually, one presumes, they would be encouraged to breed more 'supermen' with carefully selected Aryan women and the cycle would begin again.

The plan sounds surreal; and even some of those who participated in it looked askance at it. I read a memoir of a boy who was brought up Nazi (can't cite the author and title; my wife keeps vanishing any book I don't actually have my hands on to the storage shed, where literally thousands of books are in Rubbermaid boxes, totally randomed), who was earmarked as a future leader early, went through the Anat der SS-Staadt process and finished up a Waffen-SS infantry captain on the Eastern Front. While he was an officer cadet, he was ordered to one of these Lebensborn resorts, where he met a girl and knocked her up. He tried to maintain contact with her, and was firmly discouraged by his superiors. It does make me wonder whether human nature would have eventually trumped societal conditioning or not.

I can't say that I think much of Himmler's ideal state. Nor do I think much of Slick Hillary's more insidious, less overwhelming version of it. The most I am prepared to concede in her case is an attempt to raise the underclass onto an equal footing with the middle class by these programs; and an attempt to equate service in AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps with service to the nation in the Armed Forces; which it in my opinion it is not and will never be until and unless a law is passed requiring all citizens regardless of health, gender, or class to give two years of service to the nation at the same grades of pay the military gets.

And continuing in this cynical vein, knowing a little of Slick Hillary's origins, an argument can be made that with the exception of the Lebensborn breeding centers, the situation Himmler wanted to create in Germany, of a selectively-bred class of people running the country, already exists in America and the United Kingdom. Think about it for a minute.

The monied class sends its kids to private school, not public school. When they reach the 9th grade, they are sent off to exclusive private schools like Phillips Exeter, Eton, Rugby, Andover, Gordonstoun and Choate. From there they go off to Oxford, Cambridge, the military academies, the Ivy League and the Seven Sisters universities, which automatically gives them access to the old-boy network. This in turn gives them social access to others of the monied class, and they are encouraged to find mates among others of their kind; although bringing in an outside overachiever is also (barely) acceptable. A degree from one of these exclusive universities is a passport to the corridors of economic, financial and political power.

Here's your proof. Look at the Presidents of the past 50 years. Eisenhower was a West Pointer, the military equivalent to Harvard. Kennedy was Harvard. Nixon was accepted by Harvard by couldn't afford to go there. Ford took his law degree at Yale. Carter graduated from Annapolis, equivalent to Yale in the scheme of things. George H.W. Bush is a Yalie. Slick Willy Clinton took his law degree at Yale. Curious George Bush is a Yalie with a Harvard MBA. The only President with no Ivy League or equal connection in the last fifty years is Ronald Reagan, although I'll accept the argument that Nixon's connection doesn't count.

Now look at the candidates who want to succeed Curious George. McCain is Annapolis and a graduate of the National War College. Obama is Columbia and Harvard Law. Slick Hillary has a law degree from Yale. I think I've proved my point.

The intrusion of govenrment into the family arena is anathema to me. I do not approve of idiotic programs like No Child Left Behind, which only teaches kids how to pass a specific test, not how to think and learn. (We got along fine with just the Iowa Tests for decades. What's so different now? That the Iowa Tests show kids are not being taught fundamental skills they need and probelm-solving abilities?) I do not approve of things like English as a Second Language programs, that have been proven not to work and which actually handicap students. I do approve of the government making funding available for deserving students, to let them attend college. I do not approve of mediocrities gaining access to the levers of power when their intellects aren't up to the job of working them, simply on the basis of their having gone to the 'correct' schools.

We emphatically do not the need the modern, not-so-labeled SS-Staadt invading our personal, private lives that Slick Hillary finds so appealing. If you want another reason for voting for somebody else come November, here is a good reason for you. Government already intrudes too far into our lives. We don't need more of their telling us how to live in accordance with their ideas of what is good for us!

[Ellsworth]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

Guns do not represent violence... people represent violence. A gun is a tool... much like a hammer. They are no more than a paperweight unless used.

I think what he's trying to get at is that a paperweight is designed to hold paper, a gun is a tool yes, but that which the tool is designed to do is to send a projectile at or through something. Primarily enough to incapacitate, maim, kill or disfigure. If a hammer was designed to do that, people would be banning t-shirts of construction companies.

[tlarkin]

Well we will just have to disagree then. A hammer has many uses, and sure it can also be used as a weapon. A gun is a weapon, and it has no other function. I never said guns kill people, I said people kill people, however I hold no delusion that a gun is not a tool to kill something. It is made and designed to shoot bullets which are made and designed to kill. A gun is a weapon and weapons are specifically made to kill. Killing is violent no matter how you dress it up.

No, I do not think any kid should ever be suspended or in trouble for drawing a gun. When I was a kid I was way into comic books and I drew my own heroes and villans all the time at school. They had guns, swords, laser blasters, everything you might see in a comic book. I never got in trouble nor did I ever really cause any major trouble other than being your standard kid. Every boy is a bit of a troublemaker, I think that can be agreed upon and I was no angel, but I never got caught either. I definitely never did anything violent to anyone else either growing up. I don't think someone should be persecuted for their art work.

Recently I just pissed off about 6,000 teenagers at work fixing the internet filter. It blocks them from certain webpages and such which the board feels they should not be on. The internet filtering is rather strict as well, and I think it is a bit over board personally. However, it would only take one scandal and one angry parent to bring it all down in flames. So, we take the precaution of filtering it heavily to prevent that from happening. That is why the schools have to have these zero tolerance policies. Everyone is lawsuit happy these days, and no public school system can afford to go through a major lawsuit. I am not in charge of filtering the content at all, I am just in charge of making sure the client side works, and when I fixed it, I pissed off every teenager in the school district. If someone comes in and wants me to spy on someone I do it. I don't want to do it and I don't spend my free time finding out who is abusing the internet at all, but when a boss comes in and wants it, I do it. I mean it is plain and simple, you are here to learn not to play around. If you are given free time then fine. Kids that have video games on their systems, I don't care about that either, I would want them to have a little fun with their laptop every now and then. When it comes to policies though that involve under age kids, you have to take a lot into consideration.

Like i said, this has nothing to do with the 2nd, and it has nothing to do about guns other than it represented violence, and it even said terrorist hunter, which means someone who hunts and kills terrorists, which is also violent.

[LarryO1970]

So ... did the school ban the encyclopedia or the dictionary that has images of guns?

It is no different to be printed on paper than on fabric.

It is a double standard in my opinion.

Guns were created as a deterrent for an action against those in the possession of... peace through superior firepower.

I digress... what about the family of Mary Jo Kopechne ...the girl Ted Kennedy killed? Do we ban images of Oldsmobile's since they kill too? I am sure that Kopechne family understands that like a gun, cars are tools too. More people are killed annually by cars than guns. Do we ban images of cars too?

Basically... it is about censorship and control... not about freedom of expression. That is how I see it.

[Windwalker]

Ellsworth and Tlarkin, I respectfully disagree with you both. A gun is an inanimate object. The person using it is responsible for what it does. A gun is not designed to kill or maim any more than it is designed to punch holes it paper targets. A person decides what
he/she will shoot.
In the matter of the School District using the No Tolerance Policy to try to avoid lawsuits if students are injured, this is despicable.

[Ellsworth]

Originally Posted by Windwalker

Ellsworth and Tlarkin, I respectfully disagree with you both. A gun is an inanimate object. The person using it is responsible for what it does. A gun is not designed to kill or maim any more than it is designed to punch holes it paper targets. A person decides what
he/she will shoot.
In the matter of the School District using the No Tolerance Policy to try to avoid lawsuits if students are injured, this is despicable.

Windwalker, I agree fully with the fact that a gun is an inanimate object, but I fully disagree that they are not designed to kill. The first matchlock and flints were designed for target practice? Or the AR-15, AK-47 or the like are designed to be used for target shooting? Maybe a Glock-10? Even a .300 win, these guns are not target guns, they are designed for hunting and in other cases Military uses, no matter how you slice it they kill things. If you talk to anyone that carried or still carries a 1911 they will be the first ones to tell you "Yes they have been used as target or comp guns, but these are personal side-arms, I use this to back up my primary and to subdue any threat when my primary is inaccessible."

Windwalker, i'm not try to start any argument or anything but to i'm going to have to agree with Tlarkin here. Unless you own and shoot a pure competition shooter, most of us own guns designed solely to kill, or forcefully prevent harm to ourselves. Even shooter's today are modified military sidearms, so the shooter debate is thrown out right there. Unless you are using a pure .22 small bore target gun like the Biathlon guns are guns.

Either way you slice it the school district's policy sucks, it is all inclusive and deters free speech, but then again it deters other people with obnoxious speech. How many in this debate would allow students to wear shirts like "I like hooters" (with a picture of an owl). Or the shirts with "I drink until you look good" in grade school? Or shirts that have suicidal lyrics on them? (I've seen shirts that flat out say, "I would like to end it all now..." WTF, I know I don't want my kids (when I have them) exposed to this freak speech, as a penalty to this some other rights are compromised.

My 4 cents.

Ellsworth

[LarryO1970]

Next is someone complaining that a Catholic cannot possibly wear a green shirt since that is the color of another religion, we must ban it!

A person is smart... people are stupid.

[tlarkin]

Samurai who trained in ancient Japan were some of the world's best warriors. They perfected their combat day and night. They knew that a sword only had one function, to kill, and their view was that in the right hands it can be used for justice and in the wrong could do harm.

Their society was violent, and they knew it, and they knew that a sword only had one function, it was designed to kill another human. You don't hunt with swords, maybe with spears or a bow and arrow sure, but a sword is made to kill another man in battle. We still use their Eastern philosophies in business and military today. Book of the 5 rings and the Art of War are just two examples.

Handguns are the modern sword. You don't hunt with them, and they are designed for killing another person. I am not against anyone owning a sword or a handgun, but I am sorry they only serve one purpose, which is to kill. I suppose you could toss target shooting in there as well since that is what I use mine for; and in the unlikely horrible case of if I ever have to defend myself for my own life.

[LarryO1970]

... but a picture is used as what? ... certainly not to kill.

Did the school ban the encyclopedia or the dictionary since they had images of guns and other violent devices?

Simple question... yes or no ?

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

... but a picture is used as what? ... certainly not to kill.

Did the school ban the encyclopedia or the dictionary since they had images of guns and other violent devices?

Simple question... yes or no ?

The image represents what it represents, and no they don't ban dictionaries and encyclopedias because those aren't things kids can wear. It has to do with the dress code, not with books or art.

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

The image represents what it represents, and no they don't ban dictionaries and encyclopedias because those aren't things kids can wear. It has to do with the dress code, not with books or art.

What is the difference if something is printed on fabric or on paper? t is still in print in both places. A spade is a spade, regardless of where it is.

If they ban a shirt with a gun, they might as well ban the books with the images as they are the same thing.

Censorship is censorship... it cannot have a double standard.

It was a simple yes or no question ... remember?

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

What is the difference if something is printed on fabric or on paper? t is still in print in both places. A spade is a spade, regardless of where it is.

If they ban a shirt with a gun, they might as well ban the books with the images as they are the same thing.

Censorship is censorship... it cannot have a double standard.

It was a simple yes or no question ... remember?

You are comparing apples to oranges though, one is in violation of the dress code, which printed literature is not subjected to. Now, schools have banned books before, but that argument can be backed with how it is a needed tool for education; where as a t-shirt which violates dress code is not needed. You can't have it black and white, yes or no, it has to be lots of shades of gray.

Like I said, you are dealing with minors here, and their parents want to blame the schools first chance they get. That is how it is, these policies are put in place to protect everyone, including the people who work in education. They are already over worked and under paid, they don't need to deal with stress from parents or law suits over ridiculous crap. So they create policies like this to avoid it all together. Like I said, no public school system can afford a multi million dollar lawsuit.

Like I said, it is a lose:lose situation but unless you can sit here and come up with a better idea (which would grant you a very nice job in education administration btw if you could pull it off) then it would have been done that way.