Kid suspended from school for wearing an NRA shirt

Status
Not open for further replies.
OVERKILL

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
58,050
Location
Ontario, Canada
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/12/nra-shirt-gets-ny-high-school-student-suspended/

Quote:
A New York high school student was recently suspended for refusing to take off an NRA shirt that said “The Second Amendment shall not be infringed.”
Shane Kinney, 16, of Grand Island High School was suspended for one day for an NRA shirt that his parents say he has worn before with no problems, a local station reported.


Seriously folks???

I wore Metallica shirts to school which were a heck of a lot worse, IMHO. Apparently a Guns & Roses shirt would be a no-fly currently in a New York high school.

Guess putting some Mossberg, Savage, Remington and Winchester stickers on my kid's lunchboxes would turn them into serial killers, LMAO!!
smirk.gif
 
So is he going back in there with a new shirt about the first amendment not being infringed with a picture of an attorney serving papers?
 
I don't think his rights were violated and agree with the suspension if he was first asked to not do it again rather than it being automatic.
 
Schools and the products that come out of it are a basket case this day and age IMPO .
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
So is he going back in there with a new shirt about the first amendment not being infringed with a picture of an attorney serving papers?


That's what I would do....

The people on that side will stop at nothing to suppress anything expressed that they don't agree with.

...But they will express anything they believe in and shove it in the face of others and demand we accept it or else!
 
The kid is a MINOR . He has no rights. He violated school policies twice.
Its about time that we made school about education.

NRA shirt gets N.Y. high school student suspended


A New York high school student was recently suspended for refusing to take off an NRA shirt that said “The Second Amendment shall not be infringed.”

Shane Kinney, 16, of Grand Island High School was suspended for one day for an NRA shirt that his parents say he has worn before with no problems, a local station reported.



“It’s the same shirt he’s worn before, but this time they said something about it,” Shane’s father, Wayne, told the station. All family members belong to the gun rights organization, and their son considers himself an outdoorsman.

“They said it was the guns,” Mr. Kinney said. Adorned on the shirt are two crossed rifles.

Shane’s mother believes that simply having the image of a gun on a shirt doesn’t mean that the owner should be suspected of desiring wanton death and destruction.

“Yes it has guns on it, but it doesn’t mean you are for any kind of violence,” Kim Kinney told the station.

The local station reported that while the school code notes that attire is not meant to “disrupt or interfere with the educational process,” it does not specifically address political statements or images of firearms.

Regardless, the young man also violated another part of the school code when he refused to obey a teacher’s request to turn the shirt inside out.

“Shane will probably not wear shirts like this to school anymore,” Mrs. Kinney told the station. “He can hold firmly to his beliefs but for those 7 hours a day, five days a week he’s in school, you have to kind of follow their rules like it or not. But he’ll move on, he’ll graduate, and probably serve our country and wear lots of shirts like that.”

The schools superintendent was told she was unavailable for comment, the station reported.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014.../#ixzz2vmUy1S8b
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
 
It's no worse than the Maryland kid that was suspended for biting his toast into the shape of a pistol.

Our "educators" need educated and the ones that can't grasp reality need to be unemployed. "Gun" is NOT a bad word and educating children about firearms would probably lead to less firearms-related accidents.

In Shane's case, the Principal should be the one disciplined and if the School Board agrees with the Principal, then they should all be ousted. Common sense needs to move back to the United States.
 
Last edited:
All of our rights being taken away, daily.

And there is this misconception that we must protect children from EVERYTHING.

When they learn more [censored] from TV than anything else.
But having those is okay because there is parental control and everything else right?
 
Last edited:
How about freedom of expression?

So, kids cannot wear shirts about our Constitution, but they can wear shirts of hard rock/rap bands that sing about you-know-what and you-know-what.
 
Originally Posted By: chad8
The kid is a MINOR . He has no rights. He violated school policies twice.
Its about time that we made school about education.


A child has no rights? WHAT? So anyone can put a bullet into his head anytime? Oh, so he has SOME rights? Who decides which rights the kid has? At what age does he acquire more rights & which rights are acquired?
 
Originally Posted By: chad8
The kid is a MINOR . He has no rights. He violated school policies twice.
Its about time that we made school about education.




He's a kid, do you honestly think he knew it was school policy until they said something about it (the 2nd time he wore the shirt)? Obviously he didn't comply but I don't think he "violated the policy twice" knowingly. I think he only knew he violated it when it was pointed out to him and at that point subsequently refused to comply with it. I don't blame him, it is utterly ridiculous.

But let us take this one step further: So it is OK for the Sikh kid to bring his massive ceremonial dagger to school, but the white kid can't wear a pro-NRA shirt to school because it has some pictures of rifles on it? And this double-standard is OK with you? That's what is happening all over North America. We are giving our rights away but at the same time bending over backwards to accommodate the religious beliefs of others. We are quite literally making exceptions to our own rules so that we don't anger some religious group while at the same time, not only do we not extend those same exceptions to ourselves, but make it a point to make ridiculous spectacles out of those violations such as what we have here.

A gun is a gun. There's nothing inherently wrong with displaying an image of one. Pictures of guns don't kill people nor do they promote violence. It wasn't like the shirt had somebody's head being blown apart on it. I wore far worse to school when I was a kid and nobody said a thing because nobody cared! WE AS A SOCIETY are giving wings to these "misdoings" by even recognizing them as such. When our version of "protecting our kids" involves prohibiting the picture of a firearm being displayed yet at the same time that kid can hop on the Internet in that school's library and view T&A and play "Happy Wheels" and other violent flash games 'til his heart's content it is time for some serious self-evaluation regarding our priorities.

What is the potential benefit from kids not seeing a picture of a gun on a shirt? That they supposedly won't know what a gun looks like? Have they ever been to any place like say, a store? Oh no, those have REAL GUNS!!!! This is beyond ridiculous!
 
Originally Posted By: benjamming
Originally Posted By: chad8
The kid is a MINOR . He has no rights. He violated school policies twice.
Its about time that we made school about education.


A child has no rights? WHAT? So anyone can put a bullet into his head anytime? Oh, so he has SOME rights? Who decides which rights the kid has? At what age does he acquire more rights & which rights are acquired?


The unintended irony in this response is saddening.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
gun nuts > don't see anything wrong with it. Think they should be able to carry
normal people > are you kidding me?



Don't forget the antigun nuts. poptarts that look like a pistol?
 
Last edited:
Absolutely ridiculous. The education system seems to turn it's attention to itself and learn some rationale. If the shirt was about VIOLENCE then there's a problem. An NRA shirt is as non-violent as any.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
gun nuts > don't see anything wrong with it. Think they should be able to carry
normal people > are you kidding me?



Not quite. Let's put on our logic hats shall we?

I'm in Canada, we don't carry hand guns around, in fact you need a special license just to own one. It also isn't cool for me to carry around a rifle just because I feel like it.

I think those are some pretty reasonable rules and I abide by them.

That said, I own a number of guns. My kids have seen guns because:

A) They don't live under a rock and have a movie library that doesn't just contain "Snow White". After all, Pocahontas has guns in it
smirk.gif


B) Their dad owns guns and is big into gun safety

C) They've visited the toy aisle at *insert name of store here* and it has toy guns in it.


Last time I checked, the NRA was a group about gun ownership, not genocide, assassination or any other heinous crime. So unless you equate owning a rifle with Nazi war crimes, I fail to see the logic in reacting like this when somebody adorns a shirt with NRA and a couple of rifles on it
21.gif


Not so long ago it wasn't uncommon for rural kids to have their guns in racks in the back of their truck or bring their rifle to school to keep in their locker because they were going hunting after school. My how times have changed. We've gone from a society that embraced guns as a useful tool for obtaining food to demonizing them to the point that even displaying a picture of one is grounds for suspension. All this does is give legs to this irrationality and breeds more irrationality and less tolerance. Which is sort of funny because the liberal mindset that breeds this nonsense is also all about preaching tolerance, acceptance and equality. It seems to be speaking out both sides of its mouth on this one.

What we have done here is basically said that wearing a shirt with a picture of a gun, doing nothing other than being a gun, is as bad as wearing a shirt with a swastika, "white power", "kill whitey" or some other inflammatory statement or logo designed to incite conflict on it.

Last time I checked, my guns weren't racist, didn't fire themselves and don't represent a threat unless loaded and pointed at somebody. No different than a car with a full tank of gas and an idiot behind the wheel. Are we going to ban pictures of cars on shirts now because you can kill somebody with one, even though the car, as depicted, isn't committing atrocities? I mean it is capable of them so obviously just displaying the image of a car gets the gears rolling about vehicular genocide in the minds of young teens right?
smirk.gif
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
gun nuts > don't see anything wrong with it. Think they should be able to carry
normal people > are you kidding me?


This is a discussion about first amendment issues not second amendment issues.

p.s.
most normal people see nothing wrong with carrying.How else do you get your groceries and stuff home if you don't carry them?Unless of course you can afford for other people to carry stuff for you.
 
Right, plus every gun owner & their kids that I know are highly responsible and highly law abiding!

It's the anti-gun, anti-logical, defiant, must-shove-their-views in our face side that are more violent and destructive.

Example: Look at the mess/disaster/crime/rape that occurred with the occupy group. The opposite side pro 2nd Amendment rallies assemble peacefully and picks up every piece of trash when done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top