14 year old boy to get year in jail for wearing NRA T-shirt

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, because what other possible reason would convince someone that people shouldn't walk around brandishing firearms...

Did the gun magically jump out of his shirt and start killing random people on its own? Are you people stoned or something?

Interesting, if he wore a shirt with an Anti-Gun message, would it have been an issue? I doubt it. These rules are completely arbitrary. State-Run Education is a mess. This is just more proof of that.

I'm a big fan of charter schooling. You wouldn't have this nonsense. None. Home schooling if need be, but I kinda like the aspect of my child learning and competing amongst his peers.

 

[regent]

Many private schools get around this issue by requiring uniforms.

 

[Yurt]

Wrong again, Fakey. There is no category for having a picture of a gun on your shirt.

yes, you are wrong again. the rules and regs were clear. the boy defied the teacher, defied the principal, defied the police. a psychiatric hospital for teenage boys who do not get it is in his future.

CITE

you've made this assertion since day one, yet, have provided zero evidence to support your claim

gee...why does that seem familiar with you?

as usual, when jake is asked to back up his claims, he runs away

 

[Polk]

In the case of guns, NOT. Unless, of course, the "educational mission" is to teach students that the 2nd Amendment is evil.

Yes, because what other possible reason would convince someone that people shouldn't walk around brandishing firearms...

How does having a picture of a firearm on your shirt equate to "brandishing firearms?"

It's promotion thereof. Just like a picture of a crack pipe isn't smoking crack.

 

[Polk]

And Polk never did explain his definition of "lewd speech" to the rest of us. How is supporting the 2nd Amendment "lewd"? I'm still waiting for a rational answer.

You're asking to explain a claim I never made.

 

[Polk]

Yes, because what other possible reason would convince someone that people shouldn't walk around brandishing firearms...

Did the gun magically jump out of his shirt and start killing random people on its own? Are you people stoned or something?

Interesting, if he wore a shirt with an Anti-Gun message, would it have been an issue? I doubt it. These rules are completely arbitrary. State-Run Education is a mess. This is just more proof of that.

If it had a picture of a gun on it, it would have been equally problematic. The restriction is based on the imagery, not on the content of the message.

 

[Polk]

Many private schools get around this issue by requiring uniforms.

That's what we should do in general.

 

[bripat9643]

Did the gun magically jump out of his shirt and start killing random people on its own? Are you people stoned or something?

Interesting, if he wore a shirt with an Anti-Gun message, would it have been an issue? I doubt it. These rules are completely arbitrary. State-Run Education is a mess. This is just more proof of that.

If it had a picture of a gun on it, it would have been equally problematic. The restriction is based on the imagery, not on the content of the message.

Except there is no rule saying you can't have a T-shirt with a picture of a gun on it. Furthermore, we all know that the content of the message is in fact what these bonehead left-wing teachers object to. You have to be terminally naive to believe they don't object to the message. The whole "zero tolerance" campaign is really just a left-wing Jihad against the 2nd Amendment. Why else would any school waste their time and their reputations enforcing such nonsense?

 

[bripat9643]

Many private schools get around this issue by requiring uniforms.

That's what we should do in general.

What we should do is abolish government schools. Ever notice how these scandals never occur in private schools? That's because when the parents can instantaneously reduce a school's income to zero by transferring their child to another school, the staff don't dare engage in such shenanigans.

 

[Polk]

Interesting, if he wore a shirt with an Anti-Gun message, would it have been an issue? I doubt it. These rules are completely arbitrary. State-Run Education is a mess. This is just more proof of that.

If it had a picture of a gun on it, it would have been equally problematic. The restriction is based on the imagery, not on the content of the message.

Except there is no rule saying you can't have a T-shirt with a picture of a gun on it. Furthermore, we all know that the content of the message is in fact what these bonehead left-wing teachers object to. You have to be terminally naive to believe they don't object to the message. The whole "zero tolerance" campaign is really just a left-wing Jihad against the 2nd Amendment. Why else would any school waste their time and their reputations enforcing such nonsense?

The school had a policy against disruptive clothing. School prohibitions on shirts with violent imagery are widespread.

The rest is just mere speculation on your part.

 

[paulitician]

If it had a picture of a gun on it, it would have been equally problematic. The restriction is based on the imagery, not on the content of the message.

Except there is no rule saying you can't have a T-shirt with a picture of a gun on it. Furthermore, we all know that the content of the message is in fact what these bonehead left-wing teachers object to. You have to be terminally naive to believe they don't object to the message. The whole "zero tolerance" campaign is really just a left-wing Jihad against the 2nd Amendment. Why else would any school waste their time and their reputations enforcing such nonsense?

The school had a policy against disruptive clothing. School prohibitions on shirts with violent imagery are widespread.

The rest is just mere speculation on your part.

Not seeing the 'violent imagery.' If that's their argument, they've clearly lost.

 

[Polk]

Except there is no rule saying you can't have a T-shirt with a picture of a gun on it. Furthermore, we all know that the content of the message is in fact what these bonehead left-wing teachers object to. You have to be terminally naive to believe they don't object to the message. The whole "zero tolerance" campaign is really just a left-wing Jihad against the 2nd Amendment. Why else would any school waste their time and their reputations enforcing such nonsense?

The school had a policy against disruptive clothing. School prohibitions on shirts with violent imagery are widespread.

The rest is just mere speculation on your part.

Not seeing the 'violent imagery.' If that's their argument, they've clearly lost.

If I had a rifle shoved in your face, I have the feeling you wouldn't consider that peaceful...

 

[paulitician]

The school had a policy against disruptive clothing. School prohibitions on shirts with violent imagery are widespread.

The rest is just mere speculation on your part.

Not seeing the 'violent imagery.' If that's their argument, they've clearly lost.

If I had a rifle shoved in your face, I have the feeling you wouldn't consider that peaceful...

His shirt does not depict 'violent imagery.' It's a very weak argument.

 

[Polk]

Not seeing the 'violent imagery.' If that's their argument, they've clearly lost.

If I had a rifle shoved in your face, I have the feeling you wouldn't consider that peaceful...

His shirt does not depict 'violent imagery.' It's a very weak argument.

It's not when you consider in the broader framework of school dress codes.

 

[bripat9643]

If it had a picture of a gun on it, it would have been equally problematic. The restriction is based on the imagery, not on the content of the message.

Except there is no rule saying you can't have a T-shirt with a picture of a gun on it. Furthermore, we all know that the content of the message is in fact what these bonehead left-wing teachers object to. You have to be terminally naive to believe they don't object to the message. The whole "zero tolerance" campaign is really just a left-wing Jihad against the 2nd Amendment. Why else would any school waste their time and their reputations enforcing such nonsense?

The school had a policy against disruptive clothing. School prohibitions on shirts with violent imagery are widespread.

The rest is just mere speculation on your part.

Sorry, but it takes a big stretch to call the mere picture of a gun "violent imagery" or "disruptive." Is only "disruptive" to a gang of left-wing nutburgers who lose all self control when they see a picture of a gun. The kid isn't responsible for the fact that adults supervising him are a bunch of biased hysterical nutburgers.

 

[bripat9643]

The school had a policy against disruptive clothing. School prohibitions on shirts with violent imagery are widespread.

The rest is just mere speculation on your part.

Not seeing the 'violent imagery.' If that's their argument, they've clearly lost.

If I had a rifle shoved in your face, I have the feeling you wouldn't consider that peaceful...

It was a piece of cotton cloth with an image on it, not a rifle.

 

[Polk]

Except there is no rule saying you can't have a T-shirt with a picture of a gun on it. Furthermore, we all know that the content of the message is in fact what these bonehead left-wing teachers object to. You have to be terminally naive to believe they don't object to the message. The whole "zero tolerance" campaign is really just a left-wing Jihad against the 2nd Amendment. Why else would any school waste their time and their reputations enforcing such nonsense?

The school had a policy against disruptive clothing. School prohibitions on shirts with violent imagery are widespread.

The rest is just mere speculation on your part.

Sorry, but it takes a big stretch to call the mere picture of a gun "violent imagery" or "disruptive." Is only "disruptive" to a gang of left-wing nutburgers who lose all self control when they see a picture of a gun. The kid isn't responsible for the fact that adults supervising him are a bunch of biased hysterical nutburgers.

It's the same principle as you can't wear a shirt with a picture of a crack pipe to school. You can't pull the pipe out of the shirt and start puffing on it.

 

[paulitician]

If I had a rifle shoved in your face, I have the feeling you wouldn't consider that peaceful...

His shirt does not depict 'violent imagery.' It's a very weak argument.

It's not when you consider in the broader framework of school dress codes.

I'm not getting yours or their argument. There is clearly no violent imagery on this student's shirt. It does seem to indicate his support for an organization that defends 2nd Amendment rights though. I'm pretty sure if he wore a shirt indicating his support of a particular Teacher Union, it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Polk]

Not seeing the 'violent imagery.' If that's their argument, they've clearly lost.

If I had a rifle shoved in your face, I have the feeling you wouldn't consider that peaceful...

It was a piece of cotton cloth with an image on it, not a rifle.

But it's promoting the action, just like shirts with drug items on them.

 

[Polk]

His shirt does not depict 'violent imagery.' It's a very weak argument.

It's not when you consider in the broader framework of school dress codes.

I'm not getting yours or their argument. There is clearly no violent imagery on this student's shirt. It does seem to indicate his support for an organization that defends 2nd Amendment rights though. I'm pretty sure if he wore a shirt indicating his support of a particular Teacher Union, it wouldn't be an issue.

It would have been an issue if it had a gun on it. Once again, you guys are so focused on the political message that you're missing the actual issue.