Gun Discrimination

[kelel01 1]

I'm not sure what part to respond to, but I guess I don't see a distinction. Healthy hobby or not, if it's not allowed at school, I'm not going to be upset if it's not allowed in the school's yearbook. I just think it's strange that some people DO care, when having a gun at school is against the rules.

I personally would not care if they let him put it in there, but this is not about what I personally want. It's about representing the school and its rules. They probably wouldn't have a pic of a kid defying the dress code, either.

Ugh, my head hurts.

[turtlespeed 212]

Should the students be allowed to wear visible religious symbols?

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]

If they can wear them to school, yes. Why? I feel like I just walked into a trap.

[billvon 2,471]

> Should the students be allowed to wear visible religious symbols?

Up to each school.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

It's about representing the school and its rules. They probably wouldn't have a pic of a kid defying the dress code, either.

That is understandable. But I still haven't heard anything about a rule against the viewing of a gun. A dress code by it's very nature, would be the same in a picture or in person. It's the viewing of it in either way they have a rule against.

If they have a rule against pictures of guns, fine. I don't have a big problem with that. But if they have pictures of guns in their history books, then by singleing out this kid, they are pushing their political beliefs, not enforcing school rules. There's a difference.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

If they can wear them to school, yes. Why? I feel like I just walked into a trap.

Not exactly - Just sorting oput a point of view -

If you could wear a religious symbol, then one could construe that the child is praying. Is THAT allowed in school?

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]

I finally see your point, but I'm not sure I agree 100% that they should show a pic of a student with a gun in the yearbook if guns aren't allowed at school. But I'm also not convinced that my stance is 100% right either, anymore. I'm confused, and I need to lie down.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

If they can wear them to school, yes. Why? I feel like I just walked into a trap.

Not exactly - Just sorting oput a point of view -

If you could wear a religious symbol, then one could construe that the child is praying. Is THAT allowed in school?

Turn it around even further - what about a "(Gay, Black, Women's, etc)" Pride T-shirt or banner in the background. What would the school do and how would everybody react?

I agree with PK on post 120 - IMHO the school was trying to push an agenda - and regardless if they had the right to do it or not, it was likely for the wrong reasons.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I'm confused, and I need to lie down.

Me too, wanna cuddle? SC has changed me, I'm a lover not a fighter, damnit!!!!

[kelel01 1]

Quote

Me too, wanna cuddle? SC has changed me, I'm a lover not a fighter, damnit!!!!

Eh, I'm not much of a cuddler. And SC has definitely not turned me into a lover.

In response to Turtle, Rehmwa and some of PK's other posts-- I see what you're saying. Maybe the school is trying to push some sort of political agenda, but I just don't think so. I see it as more of an adherence to the ridiculously strict "zero tolerance" rules. I'm also not saying that I agree with those sorts of rules, because they remove common sense as a factor, but if they're in place, they're in place.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

I'm confused, and I need to lie down.

Me too, wanna cuddle? SC has changed me, I'm a lover not a fighter, damnit!!!!

Kel doesn't do pole dances. PK - Not even Lap Dances.

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

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm confused, and I need to lie down.

Me too, wanna cuddle? SC has changed me, I'm a lover not a fighter, damnit!!!!

Kel doesn't do pole dances. PK - Not even Lap Dances.

I know...I'm trying to stay out of jail these days.

[juanesky 0]

Well quade, it does not surprises me that you are just flipping a little when the situation does not fit your coin. Having minors in nude pics, is against the law, you know? the pedophilia thing and all that...

Why would they not allow him to pose in something that is legal, and best portrays him as to what he currently likes to do most? Particularly when it is not illegal?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[quade 3]

Perhaps you should take the time to read the entire thread before jumping into the fray.

I specifically said in this thread;

Quote

Lemme ask you this . . . do you think nude photos (of legal age students) would be appropriate submittals for a high school yearbook? Why not? The photos would be perfectly -legal-, but clearly inappropriate. Would keeping them out of the yearbook be a violation of the First Amendment? No, just appropriate editing.

Believe it or not, some high-school students are 18.

No flip-flops here. Just a reasonable application of my beliefs.

If you're looking for flip-flops, you might want to do a search of all the folks that whine, piss and moan about tort reform and frivolous lawsuits as they apply to guns. Maybe you should start with a search of posts written by . . . JohnRich.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ron 7]

Quote

Perhaps you should take the time to read the entire thread before jumping into the fray.

I specifically said in this thread;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lemme ask you this . . . do you think nude photos (of legal age students) would be appropriate submittals for a high school yearbook? Why not? The photos would be perfectly -legal-, but clearly inappropriate. Would keeping them out of the yearbook be a violation of the First Amendment? No, just appropriate editing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Believe it or not, some high-school students are 18.

No flip-flops here. Just a reasonable application of my beliefs.

But you ignored my FACT that some are under 18 and since they are also the audience for the yearbook, a nude photo would not be allowed. Now, if you could tell me that no one under the age of 18 would see the yearbook I would not care.

Quote

If you're looking for flip-flops, you might want to do a search of all the folks that whine, piss and moan about tort reform and frivolous lawsuits as they apply to guns. Maybe you should start with a search of posts written by . . . JohnRich.

If you want to talk about frivolous lawsuits...read up on John Edwards.

Anyone else find it funny that Kerry/Edwards have tort reform as part of the "fix" for the health care problems?

I mean Edwards is one of the bastards that caused tort reform to be needed.

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

[quade 3]

Ron --

Would think it inappropriate for a child of any age to view the works of Michael Angelo, Rubens or Gauguin?

Nude does not always mean pornographic, unless you're the sexually repressed John Ashcroft.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Jib 0]

Now, coming back to reality, since children will see the book and some students even by their senior year will not be of age to see it, let alone participate in such photographs, I do not think the comparison is valid. I also think there is a difference between a photograph of a classmate and painting or sculpture.

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

Ron --

Would think it inappropriate for a child of any age to view the works of Michael Angelo, Rubens or Gauguin?

Quade..Big difference to the works of a great artist in stone or oil and a photo of a topless drunken 18 year old.

But I see many photos of Rubens in any yearbook I ever had.

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I finally see your point, but I'm not sure I agree 100% that they should show a pic of a student with a gun in the yearbook if guns aren't allowed at school. But I'm also not convinced that my stance is 100% right either, anymore. I'm confused, and I need to lie down.

Uh-oh, a chink is appearing in your armor!

Your position is that since guns aren't allowed in school, then it's okay to ban photos of guns in the school yearbook, regardless of their context.

Likewise, due to seperation of church and state, state-led religious worship is not allowed in public schools either. Yet we allow students to bring bibles, pray by themselves on their own time, and wear religious symbols such as a cross on a necklace. And to be photographed with those items in the yearbook.

So, the reason you have a chink appearing, is because your position is being enforced inconsistently, i.e. in a discriminatory manner.

To be consistent, photos of bibles and crosses on necklaces would also have to be banned from the yearbook, as well as to have such things listed as prohibited items in the dress code

But they don't. Hence, we have unfair discrimination against guns.

There have been other similar cases where kids wearing NRA T-shirts have been sent home for being dressed "inappropriately". This is the same kind of thing.

A depiction of a lawful shooting sport, is not a symbol of violence. No more so than wearing a cross on a necklace, implies state-sponsored worship.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I see it as more of an adherence to the ridiculously strict "zero tolerance" rules. I'm also not saying that I agree with those sorts of rules, because they remove common sense as a factor, but if they're in place, they're in place.

That sounds too defeatist. If a zero-tolerance policy is ridiculous, then it should be removed, and common sense applied once again. And the NRA's lawsuit on behalf of the student may force that to happen.

Too many school bureaucrats are too cowardly to make an objective decision on their own, because they're afraid someone will criticize their personal judgement. Zero-tolerance rules save them from having to justify their decisions. But they do so at the expense of stupid judgments against innocent kids.

I would prefer school administrators with the guts to make judgement calls in favor of common sense, and to stand behind their decisions.

[kelel01 1]

Ah, but there's still a chink in your armor. Students are allowed to wear crosses at school, hence they should be able to be pictured in the yearbook. They ARE NOT allowed to have guns at school, so why should those be in the yearbook? We could go back and forth on this forever, but I still think that the way I look at it, they're justified in not printing the pic.

Kelly

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If you're looking for flip-flops, you might want to do a search of all the folks that whine, piss and moan about tort reform and frivolous lawsuits as they apply to guns. Maybe you should start with a search of posts written by . . . JohnRich.

Ohhh, do I detect a hint of anger here? Perhaps you're angry at me because my arguments are so persuasive - against the view that you prefer to hold.

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

Fighting against lawsuits which try and hold gun manufacturers responsible for the actions of criminals, is the right thing to do.

Fighting against anti-gun bigotry and discrimination, in whatever form it may occur, is the right thing to do.

I fail to see how you can call this a "flip-flop". It is entirely consistent, with proper justice being the common denominator.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Ah, but there's still a chink in your armor. Students are allowed to wear crosses at school, hence they should be able to be pictured in the yearbook. They ARE NOT allowed to have guns at school, so why should those be in the yearbook? We could go back and forth on this forever, but I still think that the way I look at it, they're justified in not printing the pic.

Kelly

As petty as it is, the picture SHOULD be allowed. What right does the school have to dictate what a student does on his own time?

If the case is that they are discriminating about the picture then they need to change the policy, and let no other photos but "State Designated and Approved Photos". In your line of thinking, this is what you are advocating. How much control do you want others to have over your life?

One more freedom squelched by the liberal way of thinking.

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]

I'm pretty sure that's close to the way it works. I was on yearbook staff in high school, and pics had to be approved by the yearbook staff sponsor (a teacher). For instance, we had a couple of pics of people flipping the bird. Did we put them in? No, because they weren't appropriate, and giving someone the bird in school would get you in trouble, just like walking down the hall with a gun would.

Conservatives are most notorious for wanting censorship, but only when it's something that offends conservatives. Some people, cons and libs are offended by guns, and schools definitely have a broader reach when it comes to censoring or squelching someone's freedoms. Why is this kid with his gun so special?

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

I'm pretty sure that's close to the way it works. I was on yearbook staff in high school, and pics had to be approved by the yearbook staff sponsor (a teacher). For instance, we had a couple of pics of people flipping the bird. Did we put them in? No, because they weren't appropriate, and giving someone the bird in school would get you in trouble, just like walking down the hall with a gun would.

Conservatives are most notorious for wanting censorship, but only when it's something that offends conservatives. Some people, cons and libs are offended by guns, and schools definitely have a broader reach when it comes to censoring or squelching someone's freedoms. Why is this kid with his gun so special?

There are basic principals being discussed here.
You would consider the "Finger" in appropriate to be included in a school publication, not because it is illegal, because it is considered insulting and immoral. You are now labeling the picture of a shotgun immoral and insulting as well.

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