Kid suspended from school for wearing an NRA shirt

Status
Not open for further replies.
So you believe that those who wrote it imagined the world today?

The Canadians at that time may have wanted to write such a clause but today they have the good sense to prevent carrying of guns in places like malls.
 
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
So you believe that those who wrote it imagined the world today?



You didn't answer my question. Where is the "tactic" you kept saying?? You (& others on that side say that stuff), but do not back it up with facts.

Fact. There is none. Checkmate.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

Well I'm not American so that stuff doesn't apply to me. Your president is your problem
wink.gif



Yet, Here you are, front and center telling us how messed up we are. You're campaigning to take us further to the right.

Maybe you should be writing letters to your Prime Minister or even better. The Queen.
 
Originally Posted By: TrevorS

He was asked and refused.


I assume because he didn't agree with the reasoning behind the asking. Which is what is in question here. Can you tell me what makes the shirt offensive? I see a number of you siding with the school here but none of you have explained why this shirt should offend somebody.

Quote:
He knew the rule and still broke it.


No, I believe he broke the "rule" and was then made aware of it. He had worn the shirt to school on a previous occasion and nobody said anything to him.

Quote:
Ignorance is no defense in a court of law.


So, because the school selectively chooses to enforce this trumped-up "dress code", which seems to be whimsically enforced, the kid is ignorant? He wears the shirt one day, it is fine, another and it is CHANGE YOUR SHIRT!! You don't see something wrong with that approach?

Quote:
We had a bunch of people here who said a crime is a crime and felt overnight in jail was merited for a 4c electricity theft. Now they complain about a one day suspension after someone was told what they were doing was against the rules by the people who make the rules.


OK, so you are trying to compare theft, something that is CLEARLY defined as illegal, to a kid wearing a shirt that it is of SOMEBODY'S OPINION, that it is offensive, based on a rather vague "code of dress" that the school doesn't consistently enforce?

The kid's shirt wasn't ILLEGAL. It wasn't even OFFENSIVE. It wasn't a CLEAR violation of anything here, because if it was, he would have been told it was inappropriate the first time he wore it. This isn't a school that requires a uniform and the kid came dressed as an SS officer here Trevor, it is a public school with your standard "don't have your parts hanging out the bottom" dress code with some "don't wear something adorned with offensive wording or art on it" slapped on top and somebody decided his NRA shirt, on that particular day, violated the latter.

Quote:
What you want due process in schools because the kid and his parents have right? Oh you don't want to pay taxes for the higher school costs? Oh dear.


I'm not even sure what you are saying here to be honest
21.gif
 
Originally Posted By: AandPDan
Sounds like his first amendment rights were violated.


+1
 
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Parents vs teachers on guns is a great distraction and resource drain away from bigger issues, away from working together on bigger things.


That's the point, this has never been an issue in the past! This is a new "issue" fabricated because it makes somebody feel better about something that wasn't an issue to begin with.

When I was in High School the last thing I was concerned about was what the kid next to me had on his shirt. And the same went for the teachers. Maybe we should put more focus on teaching and less on censoring the wardrobes of the students
21.gif
That seemed to work out successfully in the past.
 
From:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms

The historical context shows that as a country becomes more civilized it evolves its firearm laws and no longer needs to make it a free for all. The US has imposed restrictions over time and this will continue to happen so long as we progress with our civilization. I think the US is less civilized / more violent than these other countries so having guns for personal protection makes sense. The US also has a larger rural population so that's another reason for a different gun culture.

For me, this is a good reason for state and local rights. What works in one area may not work in another.

But overall, clinging to the constitution is wrong. Such things are not set in stone as the Wikipedia entry shows:


The right to keep and bear arms (often referred as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the people's right to have their own arms for their defense as described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others.[1] In countries with an English common law tradition, a long standing common law right to keep and bear arms has long been recognized, as pre-existing in common law, prior even to the existence of written national constitutions.[2] In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is also an enumerated right specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions[3] such that people have a personal right to own arms for individual use, and a right to bear these same arms both for personal protection and for use in a militia.[4]

The concept of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is derived from the English Bill of Rights 1689 which states:

That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
This must be read in the context of the grievance being addressed, which reads:

By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.
The English Bill of Rights established that regulating the right to bear arms was one of the powers of Parliament, and did not belong to the monarch.[5] In most common law jurisdictions, this right has since the early 20th century largely been abolished by statute, for example in the United Kingdom (in 1903), Canada, and Australia. In all jurisdictions, common law or otherwise, gun laws vary widely.
 
The kid was bullied. Think about it.

...but the big anti-bullying movement won't include that...
 
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
You don't see an irony when there are whole cities having kids shot in the head while in thier home or in their front yards?


No, I don't. At issue here is a t-shirt, which never shot anyone. Equating a garment with a firearm isn't ironic, it's silly.

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Who is sensitive to their parents feelings when people want to invoke free speech on a hurtful topic? I see a lot of talk about rights but nothing about personal responsibility including responsibility and consideration to others. Sounds like an entitlement mentality to me.


So your threshold for free speech is to limit it when someone's feelings may be hurt by a t-shirt, one that references an amendment to the Constitution and displays the logo of a national organization that has been around since 1871? You set a pretty low bar for freedom. By that standard almost any speech advocating a cause or belief could be banned.

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
And who decides what rights the kids have? You're seriously asking that question? Well the kid can't vote (by law), can't drink or smoke or take drugs (all by law) and has to live under the rules of adults both at home and at school. When outside home and school, other adults can ask them for proof when buying things. So they have fewer rights everywhere they go because they are not adults.


Yes Trevor, I'm asking that question. It's a question that has been asked by society and settled in courts of law since the country was founded. Rights are never absolute, they never have been and no one is claiming that they are in this case. There are always limits, boundaries and responsibilities that come with rights.

At issue here is banning a t-shirt because of its content, presumably when t-shirts with other potentially controversial content are allowed. Others have brought up good points about dress codes. If the school had a dress code in place that banned all t-shirts with printing on them and the boy violated the code then he would be clearly in the wrong. However, that is not what happened. This shirt was singled out for censorship strictly because of its message.
 
People people... The courts have already ruled that while in school, students do not have certain rights that they would otherwise have outside of school. Freedom of speech may be limited by the school. Freedom of press is limited. The school may impose a dress code. And no, these reductions in rights of students isn't gradually happening, it's been this way for decades. If anything, things are more lenient now. Students today can wear shorts to class; in my day, they weren't allowed to.
 
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
From:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms

The historical context shows that as a country becomes more civilized it evolves its firearm laws and no longer needs to make it a free for all.

But overall, clinging to the constitution is wrong. Such things are not set in stone as the Wikipedia entry shows:



Trevor, I am asking nicely, how old are you?
smile.gif


Please... Wikipedia... anyone can write whatever, BIG mistake.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

Well I'm not American so that stuff doesn't apply to me. Your president is your problem
wink.gif



Yet, Here you are, front and center telling us how messed up we are.


No, I commented on a news article which I thought was ridiculous, particularly to see coming from my "gun crazed" neighbours to the south. I've yet to see some kid kicked out school in Canada for wearing a shirt with a gun on it.

Quote:
You're campaigning to take us further to the right.

Maybe you should be writing letters to your Prime Minister or even better. The Queen.


Why? I'm quite happy with the system we have in place up here, as I already noted. Though you certainly seem to have quite the hard-on for stereotyping and ripping on Canadians as of late. Might want to put that bad boy away or you are going to end up with some serious chaffing
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: AandPDan
Sounds like his first amendment rights were violated.


He doesn't have First Amendment rights while in school.

See Tinker vs Des Moines School District
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top