Say Anything Blog

First, let’s come back to the real issue.  Suspending a kid from school is far different from jailing him.  Kids get suspended from school for things that they do off campus all the time.  You go out to a party and get caught drinking and you can be suspended from athletics.  You act in an inappropriate way while representing the school, and they can suspend you.

Posting a sign that says “bong hits for Jesus” across from school property is not a “free speech experiment” but rather an attempt by the student to disrupt the educational process.  Schools have policies regarding attire in and around the campus.  What if his little free speach experiment was to display pornography that he called “art”.  You know, banners of naked models in “artistic poses”?

I am not ready to say that schools are “free speach zones”.  I think the problem here is that these are “public” schools.  Would a private school be prohibited from suspending the student or for that matter expelling them?  So we come back to the fact that because of the NEA monopoly, schools are state run and thereby an extension of the Government.  Because they are run by the government, they lose the ability to control the learning environment by removing students that cause disciplinary problems. 

Why not talk about the assault on the right to bear arms by schools that don’t allow guns on campus or the right to not have illegal search and seizure when cops inspect lockers and cars in the parking lot without warrants.  What was this kid’s intention?  To get attention?  To disrupt the education of others?  To provoke a response from the school?  Or just to show how much he loves the 1st Amendment?

It ain’t like he was arrested and freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

First, let me say that I actually side with Frederick in this case.  While there is some support for the school’s position because this kid decided to do this during school hours in what could be ostensibly be considered a school function.  The school let their students out of class to watch the Olympic torch pass.  What makes Frederick’s case in my mind is that the school did not seem to be in control of the students at the time.

That being said what makes conservatives mostly side with Morse is the ridiculous opinion from the 9th Circuit.  They ruled that it was a school event, but that the school had no right to stop Frederick.  WTF?!?  If their opinion prevails, schools will not be able to stop the same thing happening at a pep rally or football game or during lunch hour in the cafeteria.  The 9th circuit should be abolished forthwith and their pending cases given to sane justices.

but don’t trust this American citizen when he says it wasn’t promoting drugs. How can you read his mind. Are there any materials saying that he meant this as a pro-drug banner? No. Then get off his case.

First, even though the media is focusing on this issue and that is how Frederick is arguing this since the 9th circuit’s asinine decision makes it the most expedient course to the correct ruling, the meaning of “bong hits 4 jesus” is hardly the core of the case.  Having said that, your interpretation is nearly as idiotic as the 9th circuit’s.  Of course “bong hits 4 jesus” is not a nonsense phrase.  If you ask a hundred people what the message means, ninety-nine will tell you that it’s a pro-drug use message.  It’s self-evident what the phrase means regardless of the author’s intent.  If intent was the sole arbiter of a phrase’s meaning then all language becomes meaningless.  People would be free to slander and libel as long as they claimed their intent was anything but slander or libel and that their words were meaningless.

Posting a sign that says “bong hits for Jesus” across from school property is not a “free speech experiment” but rather an attempt by the student to disrupt the educational process.  Schools have policies regarding attire in and around the campus.  What if his little free speach experiment was to display pornography that he called “art”.  You know, banners of naked models in “artistic poses”?

First off, there are laws against showing pornography in public.  So, he should be prosecuted under those laws if he were showing that stuff.  Also, I don’t think that the school’s reach should be extended past their property.  If the student isn’t on school property and the actions that he is taking isn’t hurting the school, people in the school, or anything on school property that they shouldn’t be able to punish him.

What educational process is there in letting the students out of school to observe the Olympic Torch pass by?  Is there a class in school that teaches the correct posture of running while holding a torch?  Just wondering about that point that was raised.

I am not ready to say that schools are “free speach zones”.  I think the problem here is that these are “public” schools.  Would a private school be prohibited from suspending the student or for that matter expelling them?  So we come back to the fact that because of the NEA monopoly, schools are state run and thereby an extension of the Government.  Because they are run by the government, they lose the ability to control the learning environment by removing students that cause disciplinary problems.

Why not talk about the assault on the right to bear arms by schools that don’t allow guns on campus or the right to not have illegal search and seizure when cops inspect lockers and cars in the parking lot without warrants.  What was this kid’s intention?  To get attention?  To disrupt the education of others?  To provoke a response from the school?  Or just to show how much he loves the 1st Amendment?

Schools aren’t free speech zones.  He wasn’t on school property.  The school had let their students out of class to observe the Olympic Torch.  The school was not in session.  I would hope that a private school would do nothing to the student since he wasn’t participating in a school function and wasn’t on school property. 

There is no assault on the right to bear arms in school because it is a public building.  The local laws control that as well as the School Board.  Illegal searches and seizures?  There is no right of privacy as many conservatives will always say.  So for a person to even think that there is a right to privacy in a public setting is just absurd.  The kid and his lawyer have said that he was exercising his First Amendment rights.  Why is the government so intent on saying that he doesn’t have a right to speak his mind even though he is partaking in a private function?  Then have the school punish him when he is not doing anything wrong. 

It’s self-evident what the phrase means regardless of the author’s intent.  If intent was the sole arbiter of a phrase’s meaning then all language becomes meaningless.  People would be free to slander and libel as long as they claimed their intent was anything but slander or libel and that their words were meaningless.

Wrong.  The definition of libel and slander is to hurt or ruin a person’s reputation by stating things that you know are wrong.  The only difference is the way it is communicated.  The intent of passing false information is there.  That’s why people can blog and not be sued.  They might be wrong but their intentions are not to state things that you know are wrong and can be harmful to one’s reputation.  So now you want to say that even if you put together words wrong that you can be held liable.  If that’s the case, then everybody in the world should get ready to be sued.  Intent is what you have to prove.  The government cannot do it here.  The case should be decided against the school.

There is no assault on the right to bear arms in school because it is a public building.

You can’t carry a weapon if you’re within 500 feet away from a school. That includes right outside of people’s homes.

And who cares if it is a public building? The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say, “shall not be infringed unless it is a ‘public’ building”.

In Alaska, I believe the state’s education system is mandated by the state constitution, and paid for with tax revenues collected by the state.  The public/government schools, are thus an arm of the state.

As such, the school’s authority should extend no farther than school grounds, and to punish a student (which is what the suspension amounts to) for activities beyond the legal authority of the school is clearly a violation of the student’s rights under both the federal and state constitution.  Had the student been arrested by the police, charged with some sort of misdemeanor, and found guilty, THEN, and only then would the school have cause to punish the student.

Most school disciplinary procedures are carried out under the doctrine of in loco parentis, which means that the school is acting as the parent/guardian of the students while they are in school care/custody.  This is because attendance by the students is required by law.

The correct way to approach the question of the school’s authority to punish the student “off campus” is to ask this question:

If the student had been injured doing that for which he is being disciplined, at the same location, would the school be legally liable for the student’s injury?

If the answer is “No,” then the school should have no legal authority to punish the student either.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Note to terrorists: U.S. schools are “gun free zones”. You will find juicy targets and be met with NO forceful resistance. Your thanks should go to people like bak72 and other short-sighted individuals who believe that we best serve our children when they aren’t protected.

Terrorists - just look for this sign (we like to advertise our vulnerability):

Don’t forget to thank bak72 for making it so easy.

Bat One hits the bullseye. Particularly in the last 3 graphs.

We can all agree that this kid put up some inflammatory nonsense and is just out for attention, but the school administration cannot have it both ways.

Many years ago, several weeks before I graduated, a principal broke up a fight that was going on on campus, about 10 paces from the school’s property line. The kids moved about a hundred yards over into the neighboring park and resumed going toe to toe.

Some unemployed twentysomething hood who had joined the spectators didn’t like the outcome and proceeded to shoot 3 of the kids, killing one. The principal, which obviously didn’t show any due diligence or professionalism in controlling the situation, was essentially emancipated from the fall-out by insisting that it had occurred off of school property.

One of the most egregious trends in the last generation is the use of the public schools to de-program youth concerning basic civic rights. In loco parentis has been used as a bludgeon to divorce young people’s expectations regarding the Bill of Rights.

Hey, you wanna play sports? Piss in this cup. Here’s a metal detector for your entrance and a dozen of your towns finest rifling through your locker.

Give the kids a police state for a learning environment and they start to embrace the fear and over-arching authority.

So Likwid, are you arguing that people should be able to bring guns and drugs into schools?

[A]n act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

—Marbury v. Madison

Likwidshoe wrote:

And who cares if it is a public building? The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say, “shall not be infringed unless it is a ‘public’ building”.

Absa-freekin-lutely.

Leftists will often try to justify their infringements on the Constitutional rights of others based upon their previous infringements on the Constitutional rights of others.

This is what makes arguing Constitutional law so problematic when Leftists wear the Black Robes.  Individual Constitutional rights are wratcheted away from the People and from the Constitition, bit by bit.  It’s a one-way movement towards increased Governmental power.

To get back to basics, you need to:

1) First, have a non-Leftist on the Bench!

2) Second, blast away the overburden of years of infringements heaped upon infringements to get to the bedrock of what the Constitution says in plain language and original intent.

3) Reinforce the requirement that if the Constitution need be changed, it can only be changed through the amending process, not by ignoring it or re-nuancing the meaning of its provisions.

Let no more be said about the confidence of men, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.

—Thomas Jefferson

...for great justice

* asked, So Likwid, are you arguing that people should be able to bring guns and drugs into schools?

Did I say anything about drugs?

Would you like to ask another dumb question?

Wrong.  The definition of libel and slander is to hurt or ruin a person’s reputation by stating things that you know are wrong.  The only difference is the way it is communicated.  The intent of passing false information is there.  That’s why people can blog and not be sued.  They might be wrong but their intentions are not to state things that you know are wrong and can be harmful to one’s reputation.  So now you want to say that even if you put together words wrong that you can be held liable.  If that’s the case, then everybody in the world should get ready to be sued.  Intent is what you have to prove.  The government cannot do it here.  The case should be decided against the school.

You might want to consult a lawyer or even just read your state’s civil code.  For example, Texas’ libel code does not deal with intent except to say that a newspaper commits libel when it “[republishes] a matter if it is proved
that the matter was republished with actual malice after it had ceased to be of public concern”.  The elements of libel makes no reference whatsoever to intent.  The EFF has a great FAQ regarding defamation regarding bloggers.  The only time that intent is considered is if the person being defamed is a public figure.

So again, after having exposed your ignorance on the matter, the intent of the statement has nothing to do with its meaning.  If it were otherwise, libel and slander would not be prosecutable as all the defendant has to claim is that their intent was other than what the statement is commonly known to mean.  I know that doesn’t seem very clear, so let me give you an example:

Let’s say that I publish a statement (whether it’s on a blog or via letters to the editor in the local news rag doesn’t matter) about you.  That statement is untrue and worse it gives you a bad reputation.  You sue me for libel (written defamation).  My whole defense rests on the fact that my statement was meant to be a gibberish phrase.  The fact that anyone might construe it as saying something about your character is entirely coincidental and was not what I intended.  Any judge would laugh at such a defense.  If the meaning of the phrase is clear and any reasonable person could construe it as a statement against your character, I would be guilty.  Your reasoning would let me off scot-free.

That is why I state emphatically, intent should not have anything to do with Frederick’s case.  It’s a ridiculous defense and should not be taken seriously, especially since any reasonable person would understand “bong hits 4 jesus” to be a pro-drug use message.

OK, genius, why don’t you take a look at your 2:44 post.

Pardon my inability to read your mind, so you are arguing that guns should be allowed on campus, then?

A stroke of brilliance. Let’s pack some frustrated, hormonally inbalanced, emotionally undeveloped teenagers into a sweaty overcrowded classrooms, and for a little extra spice, make it legal for those kids to go there packing heat.

That would stop the ‘terrorists’ now, wouldn’t it?

Like I said, you are a genius.

So Likwid, are you arguing that people should be able to bring guns and drugs into schools?

Ahhh .. this reminds me of my buddies’ pickup line:

Wanna come back to my place, fuck and eat pizza?

If the gal gave him him an angry negative response, he’d act hurt and confused, saying:

What’s the matter?  You don’t like pizza???

The Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms is in the Constitution.

There is no right to narcotics or drugs, but then again, people on drugs ought not try to interpret law.

Prior to all this Columbine scare (the Big Scare before the Global Warming Scare) and the BS that kids automatically go insane in the vicinity of weapons, not so long ago, young men, at least in rural parts of the country, would often bring their own hunting rifles or shotguns to school with them, as they had gone hunting before or wanted to go hunting after, school. 

Kids back then had a LOT more access to guns than they had in the 1990’s and we had a lot fewer school shoot-em-ups.  Almost every young white male who lived in the country was trained to arms and their safe use.  Heck, even to this day, with approximately 270 million guns in the hands of about 85 million citizens, there are only between 25-to-32,000 gun-related deaths each year, the majority of those being suicide, the balance comprising gang-banger turf wars (like THOSE guys ever bought a gun from a gun shop), justified police and citizen self-defensive gun uses.  Do the math, it’s a percentage of a percentage safety factor (e.g. 99 percent of guns kept and used safely every year).  The airlines would be envious to have such a safe record.

What has changed since then?

There are FAR MORE laws and restrictions on gun ownership, and nut just for kids.

Perhaps stringing those kids out on Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI’s) .. Ritalin, Luvox, Prozac and other Schedule III drugs might have something to do with it. 

Almost every mass public shooting involved a kid on drugs, or one who had been on drugs, but had stopped cold turkey.

The problem was the drugs, not the kids, not the video games and not the guns.

...for great justice

* continues his illogical rant, OK, genius, why don’t you take a look at your 2:44 post.

I still haven’t said anything about drugs. I did include a sign that mentioned them because that is the most common sign declaring a school to be a “gun free” zone, but nowhere did I specifically mention them.

Pardon my inability to read your mind, so you are arguing that guns should be allowed on campus, then?

A stroke of brilliance. Let’s pack some frustrated, hormonally inbalanced, emotionally undeveloped teenagers into a sweaty overcrowded classrooms, and for a little extra spice, make it legal for those kids to go there packing heat.

Now you’re attributing more arguments to me. Maybe you should head on back to those “gun free” schools to learn a thing or two about debating. You should start at square one - listening to what your opponent has actually said, not what you wanted him to say.

That would stop the ‘terrorists’ now, wouldn’t it?

Like I said, you are a genius.

You’re an idiot.

Listen, idiot - schools should at least allow principles and teachers to arm themselves. Contrary to your ludicrous red herrings, I do not think that it is a good idea to allow students to arm themselves.

(e.g. 99 percent of guns kept and used safely every year).  The airlines would be envious to have such a safe record.

Heh- Specious. I’m fairly sure I’ve flown more than a hundred times, and each time the plane landed.

People concerned with gun ordinances aren’t concerned with the 99%, they’re concerned with the 1%. The 1% happen to be what the ordinances are for, as is the case with most laws.

Almost every mass public shooting involved a kid on drugs, or one who had been on drugs, but had stopped cold turkey.

The problem was the drugs, not the kids, not the video games and not the guns.

Not necessarily, in Columbine, the problem wasn’t the drugs, the video games, violent rock music, the guns themselves, the parents, or any other reason attributed to it in the immediate aftermath.

The problem was two pathologically depraved individuals had easy access to legal firearms, and young people died because of it.

The two previous commentors make some good points. My concern is trying to frame this as a Republican/Conservative issue versus the free world.

I look at this as an educational discipline issue that should be left to the states to administer. The United States Constitution does not address the issue of education and/or rules of institutions that try to do the same.

I think when you frame this as the citizens of a state or local area who want to enforce certain social mores, which are not addressed in the Constitution, it tends to fall into place. After all, the citizens and their children of San Francisco would accept social behavior not deemed appropriate in other parts of the country.

If the people and backed up by the courts of Alaska choose to find the schools administrator’s action contemptible, so be it.

Responsibilities to be a good citizen and conform to the rules does not mean that a person can exercise their Constitutional Rights to fullest regardless of the effect said behavior will have on others in a given situation. Does unlimited exercise of my Constitutional rights give me the right to say anything I want to on or about my job? Does it give a school student the right to say something and potentially disrupt school functions because he thinks he has the right to say anything at any time. I think not, especially in this situation where disenfranchised students were in attendance.

Tough call, personally, I would have kicked the young punk’s ass and sent him home. Probably would have made his two fathers cry, if he lived in San Francico.

Pardon me, just curious…

but is ‘*’ pronounced ‘sphincter? ‘

It kinda’ looks like a sphincter. 

Is there a play on words there somehow?

Kinda’ like the artist previously known as such and such?

Neat.

...for great justice

Again, Likwid, you are a genius.

You do understand that in many prisons, the guards that come into contact with the prisoners do not posess firearms, right?

You do understand that administrators and teachers come into contact with emotionally imbalanced young people, correct?

Why don’t you think about that for a few seconds, genius.

You do understand that in many prisons, the guards that come into contact with the prisoners do not posess firearms, right?

Duh, cause the prisoners aren’t armed themselves and that guards with guns will come running as soon as they are called.  Duh.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

* spews, You do understand that in many prisons, the guards that come into contact with the prisoners do not posess firearms, right?

Tell me how a school compares to a prison in this situation.

You do understand that administrators and teachers come into contact with emotionally imbalanced young people, correct?

So? What are you thinking? That the teachers are going to shoot these emotionally imbalanced young people? What is the analogy that you’re struggling to make here?

Why don’t you think about that for a few seconds, genius.

Why don’t you explain yourself, idiot.

I don’t think that the school’s reach should be extended past their property.

me either. people stand across from schools and other public buildings with signs that say all sorts of foolish things including ‘fuck’ and ‘legalize weed’ or whatever else. who cares? this is a total non-issue for me. the fact that the supreme court is granting the school this type of censoring power and effectively confiscating education from the kid because he’s being dumb… is all a joke. it’s pretty funny actually. i mean the hybridization of drug use, christianity, and the commonplace ‘blank’ for ‘blank’ thingy… be it walking or whatever for the poor or for breast cancer… a nice detournment. i’m amused. frankly i fear its another case of uppity people giving inflammatory people their desired effect.

lik

continues his illogical rant

be nice. there are lots of christians around! they may get upset on account of basing their entire ontologies and sunday mornings around illogical rants. some ancient sheepherders are very special don’t you know…

Lik,

Actually this discussion reveals the inner mindset of Sphincter, the troll formerly known as * :

The analogy between students and a prison population is apt for him.  Both are masses of people which need to be controlled by the Leftist cadre.  They might not call themselves Leftist or even Cadre, but the underlying view of others as sheep demanding control is there.

Summarily dismisseed and unread were the links to the causation of problems in schools vis-a-vis guns—it was invariably the drugs, not the guns that were the root of the problem. 

We’ve had guns, discipine and the Bible in schools for about 200-odd years with no major problems.

Enter Brown v. Board of Education in 1953 and a federalization of US Schools, NEA/AFT control of the currculum and lawsuits to remove any last vestige of religious guideance to students. 

Enter New Math, Timmy has Two Daddies and kids lining up at the school nurses’ office for their daily dose of Prozac, Ritalin, Luvox, what-have-you.  I spoke to one girl who’d been prescribed 26 different medications!  She had more pharmaceuticals swimming in her bloodstream than actual blood.  No wonder the kids are messed up!

The Left have deliberately created this mess, and now they want more power to clean it up with.

I say, toss them out of the school system, or better yet, give the parents total choice through school vouchers.  They can then decide if they want to subject their kids to a Leftist indoctrination environment, or whether they want their kids to learn reading, writing and arithmatic.

Let the Free Market decide.

...for great justice

Explain myself? Looks like your comprehension, as well as your logic are as rock-solid as “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”

I will try to use small words so you can understand:

Forget for a moment just how distracting a teacher with a side-arm has on the learning process.

The reason why I cited the prison analogy was not because the teacher is going to plug a student he has issues with with lead, but rather the opposite.

Has it occurred to you that occasionally in the history of American prisons, a prisoner has grabbed a gun from a corrections officer and used it for a purpose the corrections officer did not intend it to?

Perhaps the various education systems aren’t as intelligent as you or your arguments, but maybe they’ve come to the obvious realization that if you place a gun somewhere in a classroom, it miiight just be used for a reason the teacher may not have intended it to.

You care to conjecture what would happen to 2nd Ammendment interpretations, should a teacher’s side arm ever be used in a Columbine-related tragedy?

I’m sure that it wouldn’t be covered at all considering that when people have used a privately owned firearm to stop a school shooting that’s not even been mentioned.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Move_zig, I would think that someone whose avatar resembles a phallus and testes would not recycle previous taunts from other posters.

But then again, unlike you, I think.

Brown vs Board? Wow, that is rich. So having multiracial classrooms is the cause of so much problems? I guess in your world, America was doing quite well for itself until black people were recognized as human beings?

And the ressurection of your favorite ‘The Left’ strawmen. Next we’ll be hearing how Nazis are not xenophobic ultraconservative nationalists, but rather ‘Socialists.’

Which will be particularly charming coming from the post of a bigot such as yourself.

How freudian of you *.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Whistler-

Please pardon my ignorance, but when has a privately-owned sidearm ever stopped a school shooting?

Heh, to paraphrase Freud: sometimes a spaceship that looks like cock and balls is just a spaceship that looks like cock and balls.

* flounders, Explain myself? Looks like your comprehension, as well as your logic are as rock-solid as “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”

It takes a lot of gall to go on about my comprehension when your comments have been replete with making up things that weren’t said. Notice, if you will, that you don’t find me making those elementary mistakes.

Forget for a moment just how distracting a teacher with a side-arm has on the learning process.

Why would that be distracting? It’s just a gun. If one is distracted, he’ll quickly get over it.

Has it occurred to you that occasionally in the history of American prisons, a prisoner has grabbed a gun from a corrections officer and used it for a purpose the corrections officer did not intend it to?

Yes. That’s always a risk for just about any product out there. It’s why proper gun training is so important.

Perhaps the various education systems aren’t as intelligent as you or your arguments, but maybe they’ve come to the obvious realization that if you place a gun somewhere in a classroom, it miiight just be used for a reason the teacher may not have intended it to.

Or it could be used to protect the students from an attack. I’m glad you found the logic in your own roundabout way.

You care to conjecture what would happen to 2nd Ammendment interpretations, should a teacher’s side arm ever be used in a Columbine-related tragedy?

People like you would then piss all over the 2nd Amendment. That’s what would happen.

This nation is messed up. We protect large sums of money with guns. We protect schools with words. “STAY AWAY YOU BAD MEN! DON’T HURT US!”

Stay out of an Democrat controlled inner city school *. In those places, the teachers need guns to protect themselves from the students.

* continues his illogical tirade, Brown vs Board? Wow, that is rich. So having multiracial classrooms is the cause of so much problems? I guess in your world, America was doing quite well for itself until black people were recognized as human beings?

Once again you’re manufacturing an opponent’s position out of thin air. It’s called a straw man and you’ve done it in almost every comment in this thread.

You need to brush up on that comprehension thing you were espousing. You’re lacking.

Please pardon my ignorance, but when has a privately-owned sidearm ever stopped a school shooting?

When was the last time privately-owned sidearms were allowed in schools?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

* asked, Please pardon my ignorance, but when has a privately-owned sidearm ever stopped a school shooting?

Goodness. You are quite ignorant.

I use the Mozilla Firefox browser. And it’s nice, because all one has to do is highlight a word or phrase, right click, and then click “Search Google for”.

Here’s what comes up when highlighting your own comment.

Enlighten yourself.

Please pardon my ignorance, but when has a privately-owned sidearm ever stopped a school shooting?

In the Appalachian law school shooting a student went out to the parking lot and retrieved his gun.
or this one:

The recent Santana High School incident in nearby Santee was also stopped by an armed citizen, another peace officer who “happened to be there.” Joel Myrick stopped a school shooter in Pearl, Mississippi with a gun he “illegally” had in his car at the time. He had to violate a federal law to save children’s lives, but do you think their parents minded his ignoring that law? Hardly

On the link there are also instances where off duty law enforcement stopped a shooting.  Of course there’s not always a cop around, not even off duty.  Allowing teachers to carry would correct that.

I don’t blame you for your ignorance because unless you go looking for this information you don’t find it.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Hey Likwid, forgive me for the literal interpretation.

Note that I did not make up anything that wasn’t said, you took issue with bak’s rather sensible worldview, posted a picture (see 2:44,) I pointed this out, and now your stuck on it.

I don’t blame you, it’s all you have now in this argument, and I think you’re beginning to realize this.

But do keep trying.

You care to conjecture what would happen to 2nd Ammendment interpretations, should a teacher’s side arm ever be used in a Columbine-related tragedy?

People like you would then piss all over the 2nd Amendment. That’s what would happen.

I might be sitting two rooms away from a modest private gun collection; I might just have a family member or two that works in a ‘Democrat controlled’ inner city school. You don’t know if either are true, but please ascribe these assertions to me if it helps redeem your short-bus outlook on the world.

Again, do keep trying.

Once again you’re manufacturing an opponent’s position out of thin air. It’s called a straw man and you’ve done it in almost every comment in this thread.

Likwid, I truly pity you. I did not pull Brown Vs Board into the conversation, Move_zig did. If someone states that they have an issue with Brown Vs Board, it is not a logical fallacy to call them on it.

I guess I should have googled to find instances where private gun owners stopped attacks.  I just assumed there weren’t many because guns aren’t allowed in schools.

I guess I’d point out that maybe a lot of these school shootings could have been prevented were responsible gun owners in and around the school encouraged to carry their sidearms.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

* is now lying, Note that I did not make up anything that wasn’t said, you took issue with bak’s rather sensible worldview, posted a picture (see 2:44,) I pointed this out, and now your stuck on it.

Stop lying. You’ve made up a couple of things now.

As for “bak’s rather sensible worldview”, criminals agree.

I don’t blame you, it’s all you have now in this argument, and I think you’re beginning to realize this.

Correcting your straw men is all I have? You’re full of shit.

I might be sitting two rooms away from a modest private gun collection; I might just have a family member or two that works in a ‘Democrat controlled’ inner city school. You don’t know if either are true, but please ascribe these assertions to me if it helps redeem your short-bus outlook on the world.

You’re a looney lib who is afraid of guns. You’re not hiding it and it isn’t “short-bus outlook” to notice it.

Likwid, I truly pity you.

Pity is a disgusting emotion. It is tied to one’s own pride.

I’m not surprised to find out that you pity people.

I did not pull Brown Vs Board into the conversation, Move_zig did. If someone states that they have an issue with Brown Vs Board, it is not a logical fallacy to call them on it.

Move_Zig was lamenting the federalization that Brown vs Board brought about. You ignored that part and went to to assume that he was talking about race.

You called him on nothing. This was just another one of your pathetic straw men.

Can’t you just pay attention to what is actually said for once?

I would think that someone whose avatar resembles a phallus and testes ...

Kinda gives you chills, bein a Sphincter and all, don’t it?

Hahahahahaha!

FYI Brown vs. Board of Education was not about race, as much as they would say it was about race.

It was about control. 

Control which ultimately was wrested from the historic local control at the point of National Guard guns. 

I suppose you will try to tell me that our school system, since its governmental takeover, has not resulted in strung-out, conflicted and functionally illiterate kids, and that they did not wear suits and ties, or nice dresses, study physics and advanced math before?

Of course not, that would be stating the truth and the truth is a proposition that a Leftist troll has to avoid at all costs. 

There is such a thing as res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), and in this instance, the total abomination the Left has made of our schools and the horrendous job they have done of educating America’s children.  Instead, they are indoctrinated by PC (camouflage Socialist) tenets and essentially being acclimatized to giving up civil liberties and Constitutional Rights.

And yes, Hitler was a Statist, and a Socialist, the same as your Socialist icons Mao, Lenin and Stalin, more to the point, he was—like yourelf—a Socialist. 

Americans stand in the Constitutionalist camp, that is our focal point.

...for great justice

There you have it *.

Now we await your apology for calling Move_Zig a “bigot”.

Guns Save Lives - 2.5 Million Times a Year

Take that, Hippie.

And here’s more....

Neal Boortz - Tuesday, Sept. 12, 2000

Did you know that prior to 1969 virtually every New York City high school had a shooting program for students?

These students would bring their guns to school and leave them with a homeroom teacher or shooting instructor until time for the shooting class. Then they would carry those guns home at the end of the day.

Back then these students, and children elsewhere in the country, could buy guns through mail order or at their local hardware stores or gas stations. Talk about an easy availability of guns!

Now it is illegal for a teenager to even purchase a gun, much less take one to school. Shooting courses or competitions in schools are virtually unheard of. The availability of guns is far more restricted now than it was in the 1960s.

Now we have school shootings! And what do the politicians and anti-gun crowd blame those school shootings on? The “easy availability of guns”! Does something just not sound right here?

When we had scores of kids legally carrying guns to school every week, there were no shootings. Now guns are absolutely forbidden in schools – even administrators and teachers can’t have them – and we do have shootings. And the left is blaming this on “easy availability of guns.”

Sorry, doesn’t compute.

Since we’re talking about guns in schools, let me relate three different incidents to you.

Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi – 1998

After killing his mother, Luke Woodham took a gun to Pearl High School, where he shot and killed the girl who had broken up with him a year earlier. He killed two at that high school and injured seven.

Assistant Principal Joel Myrick heard the first shot and saw Woodham with a gun. Myrick had a .45 in his pickup truck parked a quarter-mile away, off school property. You see, federal law said he couldn’t bring that gun onto school property.

Myrick sprinted to his truck and got his gun. He got back to the school in time to confront Woodham as he was trying to leave in his mother’s car. He later said he was headed to the middle school to shoot more people.Myrick put the .45 in Woodham’s face and ordered him out of the car and on the ground. He held him there for the cops, saving lives.

A Lexis-Nexus search for the 30 days following the shooting showed a total of 687 articles. Only 19 of those articles mentioned Myrick. Only 10 of those said that Myrick used a gun to stop the attack. So, less than 1 1/2 percent of the articles on the Pearl High School shootings mentioned that the attack was stopped by an assistant principal with a gun.

Edinboro, Pennsylvania – 1998

Fourteen-year-old Andrew Wurst opened fire on an eighth-grade graduation dance. The dance was being held at a privately owned ballroom. The owner of the ballroom, James Strand, grabbed a shotgun out of his office and confronted Wurst. Wurst dropped his gun. One teacher killed, two wounded. Who knows how much worse it would have been if Strand had not been there with his shotgun.

I couldn’t find one media story which revealed that Wurst was stopped by a man with a gun. The articles all said he was “subdued” or “persuaded to surrender.”
...
Israel – 1997

In times past there were many terrorist attacks on Jewish children in Israeli schools. Finally some of the teachers and administrators started carrying guns. The shooting stopped. Flat-out stopped.

Stopped, that is, until 1997 when a group of Israeli schoolchildren was scheduled to visit the “Island of Peace” along the Jordanian border. Teachers were told that they had to leave all firearms behind because this was a place of peace. They did. The terrorists didn’t. Arab gunmen killed seven children and wounded six more.

...for great justice

Flesh Gordon‘s ride:

Move_zig, I would think that someone whose avatar resembles a phallus and testes would not recycle previous taunts from other posters.

Bwah-hah-hah-hah!

I may change my avatar…

...for great justice

Ladies and gentlemen, the sound the cockroaches make on linoleum floor when Move_Zig turns on his kitchen light sounds a lot like this:

FYI Brown vs. Board of Education was not about race, as much as they would say it was about race.

Crypto-racist, cowardly bull$hit.

*
What do you expect from a meth addict, paranoid nutjob? C’mon.

Fess up M_Z, how often do you smoke that crap?

* spews, Crypto-racist, cowardly bull$hit.

Dude, do you ever make arguments that don’t rely on assumptions?

Instead of the immature name calling and petty taunts, perhaps you could instead examine a viewpoint that is different than yours. Are you mature enough to do that? Because if you really stop and think about it, Brown vs Board of Education was about control. Racial segregation was merely the fuel and the cause used to wrest away control from the states. Notice, if you will, that Move_Zig has not ever stated that he supports racial segregation. Once again (I feel like I’m speaking to a child here), it’s the federalization that concerns people like me and Move_Zig.

Lik
So you and Move_Zig believe segregation and slavery should be state-level issues? Democrats!

So you and Move_Zig believe segregation and slavery should be state-level issues? Democrats!

Segregation - yes. Slavery - no. Slavery violates the U.S. Constitution. Segregation only violates the Constitution if you torture a meaning out of it that doesn’t exist.

For the idiot who calls himself * - that does not mean that I support racial segregation in schools.

Tiny dancer:

Segregation - yes. Slavery - no. Slavery violates the U.S. Constitution. Segregation only violates the Constitution if you torture a meaning out of it that doesn’t exist.

For the idiot who calls himself * - that does not mean that I support racial segregation in schools.

So you support the rights of states to impose racial segregation, but not segregation per se?

My my, how… benevolent of you.

This is essentially saying: ‘I don’t support the stratification of socioeconomic classes of individuals based solely on race (i.e. institutional racism,) but I do support the mechanisms that enable this to occur.’

Again, I do not ascribe your tortured ‘logic’ to you; pointing out someone is digging a hole for themselves and actively digging that hole are, in fact, two different things.

Perhaps you can refine an argument around ‘heritage, not hate,’ maybe you can ascribe Martin Luther King Jr.’s killing as the work of an assassin angry at trash workers working for the city of Memphis, but you’d still be very wrong.

Subsequently, tiny dancer, being called an idiot or a child by someone like yourself is nothing less than the sincerest form of flattery.

Ah yes, just when you think, Sphincter, the troll formerly known as * has plumbed the depths of ignorance, he surprises you by drilling and blasting.

Slavery has been outlawed in the aftermath of the Civil War by the 13th (in conjunction with the 14th and 15th) Amendments to the US Constitution.

Segregation, on the other hand, is not slavery It is a function of the First Amendment Right of Association.  All rights, in order to be effective, have their corollary rights—ex. the right to own property, is the right to exclude others from your property.  Likewise, the Freedom of Association (birds of a feather flock together) implies Freedom from Forced Association.

Now whether you agree that schools should legally be separated by sex, location (just local students), religious belief (e.g. Catholic Schools) or race is a value judgment.  But whose decision is it?

The Supreme Court pulled many factors out of its collective ass in justifying the usurpation of local control of schools.  The strongest was their alleging that separation by race , when done by a locality, constituted by governmental action and a badge or incident of slavery. Most of the rest of the SCOTUS’s argument was unsubstantiated, feely-meely dross, which had no business being in a cogent legal opinion, much less as a determiner of Federal over States’ rights. 

Indeed, the New Federal Control reached right down to the parental choice in rearing their children.  Thus, at bottom, it was the seizure by the State of the parental control over the rearing of their children.

It was a massive exercise of judicial overreaching and arrogance:  We know better than the People and We shall Command them What to Do. The task of the Supreme Court is allegedly to be the Guardians of the Constitution.  It’s exclusive province is to hold up any law that has been passed, compare it to the strictures, rights and duties of the Constitution and strike down those provisions which it deems to be repugnant to the Constitution.

That’s it.

Writing the Law is the exckusive province of the Legis (law) Slature (to write), who are electable and therefore most accountable to the People—NOT an unelected and untouchable Junta of Nine tyrants in black robes.  When THEY presume to write the law, as they did in Brown, they make the House and Senate surplusage.

That is what Brown v. Board of Education was all about. 

But segregation is not slavery, and more importantly, where in the Constitution does it provide that the Federal government, one of limited and enumerated powers, can reach down and control the minutiae of its’ citizens’ lives?

It does not.  It was a power grab pure and simple.  It opened the door to a vast array of governmental controls over what heretofore had been exclusively local or parental decisions.

Objectively speaking, what has it accomplished?  Did it raise all boats?  You would have to be braindead or insane to allege that it has improved US education.  As noted previously, it has bastardized the education system and polluted generations of young Americans’ minds with Leftist dross and failed to educate them to the very basics of knowledge required to function in an advanced society and worse, it has dumbed them down, inculcated them in a nihlist, America-hating anti-deology, creating generations of self-congratulatory, self-absorbed whiners.  Indeed, Sphincters are fine examples of the New Educational Systems’ workproduct.

The assault on civic values is arguably the Left’s true objective—with the rise of the faux symptoms of ADD and ADHT, male attributes are stigmatized and browbeaten and drugged out of existence.

Evidently the Left’s foreign masters do not want to encounter any future generations of John Waynes, Bravehearts or men in the manner of the 300 Spartans.

THAT was Brown v. Board of Education’s ultimate objective.

When an opponent declares,
‘I will not come over to your side.’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.’”

—Adolf Hitler

...for great justice

* continues the stupidity, So you support the rights of states to impose racial segregation, but not segregation per se?

My my, how… benevolent of you.

Right. I also support things such as drug laws residing under the sole purview of the state rather than the feds. If a state like California wants to make marijuana legal while a state like Oklahoma wants to put people in jail for the same, then so be it. I will not support Oklahoma’s choice in that matter, but I do support them having that choice.

This is essentially saying: ‘I don’t support the stratification of socioeconomic classes of individuals based solely on race (i.e. institutional racism,) but I do support the mechanisms that enable this to occur.’

Yep. Freedom cuts both ways. That’s a bitch sometimes, isn’t it?

Again, I do not ascribe your tortured ‘logic’ to you; pointing out someone is digging a hole for themselves and actively digging that hole are, in fact, two different things.

Perhaps you can refine an argument around ‘heritage, not hate,’ maybe you can ascribe Martin Luther King Jr.’s killing as the work of an assassin angry at trash workers working for the city of Memphis, but you’d still be very wrong.

Well,..you can refer to freedom as “tortured logic” while attributing all manner of evil things to me if it makes you feel better. But it doesn’t address the topic in any way.

Subsequently, tiny dancer, being called an idiot or a child by someone like yourself is nothing less than the sincerest form of flattery.

It is sad and amusing at the same time to watch someone admit that their idiocracy is flattering to them.

* had said, This is essentially saying: ‘I don’t support the stratification of socioeconomic classes of individuals based solely on race (i.e. institutional racism,) but I do support the mechanisms that enable this to occur.’

How about this one? - “I don’t support your stupid comments, but I do support the mechanisms that enable them to occur.”

Understand that one, chief? Is it “tortured logic” when explained that way?

Would you like a shovel to help dig out of that hole you got yourself into? Heh.