Oregon eighth-grader suspended from school for wearing patriotic shirt showing gun

[theyarecomingforyou]

IMHO, a gun is an offensive weapon not defensive as such it absolutely represents violence no matter what the context. 

Exactly. A defensive weapon would be pepper spray or a taser, something that allows the victim to escape without inflicting any permanent injury to the attacker (in most cases). A gun, on the otherhand, is designed to incapacitate or kill the target - that is inherently violent.

The rifle shown may be used at times to kill (offensively or defensively), others it may be used to provide food, and yet here it is used in memory of a fallen soldier. Context matters.

A rifle cannot 'provide food' - that's a ridiculous statement. Soldiers are professional killers - they kill people for money, which is inherently violent. I understand the necessity for a military in order to defend a country under attack but vehemently oppose the imperialism of western nations seeking to impose their values on people in the Middle East. The only thing the US has achieved in the Middle East is to unite everybody against America, as well as funnelling trillions of dollars into the military-industrial complex and impoverishing the American people.

Supporting soldiers in today's political climate is supporting violence, is supporting imperialism, is supporting war crimes. If the school has a policy against violence, which is perfectly reasonable, then that should extend to supporting the military regardless of whether a gun is displayed or not. It's astonishing that people have become indoctrinated to the point where they don't associated the military with violence.

[Noir Angel]

Liberals don't understand or respect what that shirt symbolizes. In combat to mourn a loss military personnel will take a fallen soldiers boots, rifle, helmut, and dog tags and make a memorial with those just as the shirt shows.

###### that school. I dare somebody to talk trash about the picture below, these people have more honor than you. This has nothing to do with gun control.

So being in the military automatically makes a person honourable? No. And you're certainly not among those considered "honurable" if you're going to make broad and sweeping generalisations

In general the population in the military has  a higher percent of honorable people than civilians in the United States

Citation needed 

[techbeck]

A rifle cannot 'provide food' - that's a ridiculous statement.

Tell people who hunt for their food and live off the land that.    Rifles are used to kill animals this providing food.

Supporting soldiers in today's political climate is supporting violence, is supporting imperialism, is supporting war crimes.

Military does more than just war and violence.  May want to look it up sometime.

Edited October 13, 2015 by techbeck

[Ralph3100]

Actually no it does not when it comes to a school dress code.

Agreed. I was speaking in the larger overall context of the symbolism and how some believe that there is no possible situation where a gun could be used to memorialize someone in a positive manner.

Dress codes have to be black and white. The rest of the world does not.

[Ralph3100]

Exactly. A defensive weapon would be pepper spray or a taser, something that allows the victim to escape without inflicting any permanent injury to the attacker (in most cases). A gun, on the otherhand, is designed to incapacitate or kill the target - that is inherently violent.

A rifle cannot 'provide food' - that's a ridiculous statement. Soldiers are professional killers - they kill people for money, which is inherently violent. I understand the necessity for a military in order to defend a country under attack but vehemently oppose the imperialism of western nations seeking to impose their values on people in the Middle East. The only thing the US has achieved in the Middle East is to unite everybody against America, as well as funnelling trillions of dollars into the military-industrial complex and impoverishing the American people.

Supporting soldiers in today's political climate is supporting violence, is supporting imperialism, is supporting war crimes. If the school has a policy against violence, which is perfectly reasonable, then that should extend to supporting the military regardless of whether a gun is displayed or not. It's astonishing that people have become indoctrinated to the point where they don't associated the military with violence.

1. Tasers have killed plenty of people in more gruesome ways than bullets.

2. Rifles, handguns, bows, spears, slingshots, etc. have provided food to many people for thousands of years.

3. Your personal vendetta against American war does not preclude rifles being used as a memorial symbol to honor fallen soldiers so you can run your mouth in peace.

People in the US don't associate the military with violence because that is only a part of their job. We associate them with sacrifice because these men and women are willing to give up 4 years - entire span of their lives to help people. Do they get put in bad positions by corrupt governments? Yes. Do they do things that we may not agree with on other moral grounds? Yes. Is their sacrifice any less honorable because they are compelled to do these things? No.

[Ralph3100]

You are inventing trees to obfuscate the wood.  A gun is not a hammer and context goes out the window when you celebrate and glamorise weapons of death (and it IS glamorising it, as these fallen soldiers could equally be remembered without the tools of warfare, as MUCH of the the rest of the world does with poppies).  Using a gun even in a defensive role is violent.

Please go tell the soldiers in the middle of the desert that they need to discard their brother's boots, helmet, tags, and rifle and have some flowers shipped in instead.

[Zidane]

Exactly. A defensive weapon would be pepper spray or a taser, something that allows the victim to escape without inflicting any permanent injury to the attacker (in most cases). A gun, on the otherhand, is designed to incapacitate or kill the target - that is inherently violent.

A rifle cannot 'provide food' - that's a ridiculous statement. Soldiers are professional killers - they kill people for money, which is inherently violent. I understand the necessity for a military in order to defend a country under attack but vehemently oppose the imperialism of western nations seeking to impose their values on people in the Middle East. The only thing the US has achieved in the Middle East is to unite everybody against America, as well as funnelling trillions of dollars into the military-industrial complex and impoverishing the American people.

Supporting soldiers in today's political climate is supporting violence, is supporting imperialism, is supporting war crimes. If the school has a policy against violence, which is perfectly reasonable, then that should extend to supporting the military regardless of whether a gun is displayed or not. It's astonishing that people have become indoctrinated to the point where they don't associated the military with violence.

We'll agree on guns representing violence...I mean when they are being used (besides recreation), its always meant to inflict damage. No disagreements here. What I WILL disagree on is your perspective on supporting the military. Your words have escaped you as you fell to generalizations...the Military is a weapon as is a gun to a Soldier's hands. A Soldier doesn't fire upon the enemy without instruction. Your issue is with the establishment yet you hold the weapon accountable? That is one of the biggest issues in America today...holding guns responsible when, clearly, the gun didn't shoot itself. Also, on a side note, last I checked I could use a gun to kill an animal and use it to provide food for my family. If you consider any tool such as a bow, a sword, etc as being able to facilitate "acquiring food" then a rifle is no different.

On the topic of patriotism, your usage of generalizations goes full critical. While I've never liked the whole pledge of allegiance deal (and its fading from schools so really a moot point on your behalf), that is the thick of it. Some people are more flamboyant about politics and such but many are not. To attempt to salvage your point, you blundered and lopped everyone under one banner. Really not fair theyarecomingforyou.

[Skiver Veteran]

I support the kid from the sense of showing support for fallen soldiers, I don't think there is such a thing as showing too much respect to those who were sent into the line of duty and not returned. However dress code is a thing, and respecting authority is another thing. 

By refusing to change his t-shirt he unfortunately lost the battle, IMO he would have been much better off doing as they say and then crying to media to make a mountain out of this. 

[Dick Montage]

Please go tell the soldiers in the middle of the desert that they need to discard their brother's boots, helmet, tags, and rifle and have some flowers shipped in instead.

Is their role out there to honor people then?

[Ralph3100]

Is their role out there to honor people then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Cross

Is it your role to honor your passed family members?

[theyarecomingforyou]

 

Tell people who hunt for their food and live off the land that.    Rifles are used to kill animals this providing food.

We're not talking about hunting rifles here, though in the context of this topic they are still violent. The weapons in question are military, they're designed to kill humans. It's like comparing a carving knife to a combat knife. However, if you're going to go there then why is it acceptable to shoot dead an animal and not a human? Aside from 'we've always done it' I'm actually intrigued. Killing an animal is no less violent than killing a human. How is shooting a deer in the head better than kicking a cat to death?

What I WILL disagree on is your perspective on supporting the military. Your words have escaped you as you fell to generalizations...the Military is a weapon as is a gun to a Soldier's hands. A Soldier doesn't fire upon the enemy without instruction. Your issue is with the establishment yet you hold the weapon accountable? That is one of the biggest issues in America today...holding guns responsible when, clearly, the gun didn't shoot itself.

I hold everybody accountable - the voters who elect pro-war politicians, the media for glamorising war and celebrating assassins like Chris Kyle, soldiers for blindly following immoral orders as well as those who defy orders to commit war crimes, the NRA for lobbying for weaker gun regulations, weapons manufacturers for profiting from death, etc. Society glamorises war and millions suffer. Guns are inherently violent and without them society would be a safer place.

I'm all for schools banning clothing that promotes violence and I would include any reference supporting war, the military, hunting and guns.

[Zidane]

We're not talking about hunting rifles here, though in the context of this topic they are still violent. The weapons in question are military, they're designed to kill humans. It's like comparing a carving knife to a combat knife. However, if you're going to go there then why is it acceptable to shoot dead an animal and not a human? Aside from 'we've always done it' I'm actually intrigued. Killing an animal is no less violent than killing a human. How is shooting a deer in the head better than kicking a cat to death?

I hold everybody accountable - the voters who elect pro-war politicians, the media for glamorising war and celebrating assassins like Chris Kyle, soldiers for blindly following immoral orders as well as those who defy orders to commit war crimes, the NRA for lobbying for weaker gun regulations, weapons manufacturers for profiting from death, etc. Society glamorises war and millions suffer. Guns are inherently violent and without them society would be a safer place.

I'm all for schools banning clothing that promotes violence and I would include any reference supporting war, the military, hunting and guns.

Ah, where to start.

Lets see...yet again we agree on guns being violent (which you chose to reiterate this for some reason). What I find amusing is now you've decided to segment this: "The weapons in question are military, they're designed to kill humans. It's like comparing a carving knife to a combat knife". Interesting. So then when I take a carving knife and stab and kill one of your family members to death it wasn't AS bad since I didn't just shoot them (or use a better, more efficient, tool) OR don a uniform? Not sure about you friend but if I was going to be killed, being stabbed with a low-grade knife vs. just being shot to death...I'd take the bullet. Also, since you asked, the only reason we don't shoot one another for food is society frowns upon it and I doubt I'm tasty. As for kicking a cat vs. just shooting him, humans are all about efficiency...kicking the cat would take more time, much simpler to just shoot and be done with it. Basically my point is with people who have your mindset its "the guns are violent" ...removes the guns... "the bows are violent" ....removes the bows... "the knives are violent" ...removes the knives... see where this is headed?

As for your last part, well I hope you hold yourself accountable then! Society glamorizes war and your avatar is a nice photoshop of a game in-which has soldiers that use guns to kill others. Your display of this avatar either means you are hypocritical or negligent. Which is it?

Edited October 13, 2015 by Zidane

[FloatingFatMan]

Please go tell the soldiers in the middle of the desert that they need to discard their brother's boots, helmet, tags, and rifle and have some flowers shipped in instead.

I'd rather tell them to GTFO of other people's land.

[theyarecomingforyou]

What I find amusing is now you've decided to segment this: "The weapons in question are military, they're designed to kill humans. It's like comparing a carving knife to a combat knife". Interesting. So then when I take a carving knife and stab and kill one of your family members to death it wasn't AS bad since I didn't just shoot them (or use a better, more efficient, tool) OR don a uniform?

Guns are designed to kill, either humans or animals - there is little distinction as both are violent. As for a knife, you could have a t-shirt featuring chopped vegetables and a chopping knife and it wouldn't be violent, whereas a picture of a combat knife is inherently violent given its intended usage.

Also, since you asked, the only reason we don't shoot one another for food is society frowns upon it and I doubt I'm tasty. As for kicking a cat vs. just shooting him, humans are all about efficiency...kicking the cat would take more time, much simpler to just shoot and be done with it. Basically my point is with people who have your mindset its "the guns are violent" ...removes the guns... "the bows are violent" ....removes the bows... "the knives are violent" ...removes the knives... see where this is headed?

So it's okay to go around shooting cats because that's efficient? I'm struggling to understand your point. My point is quite clear - that guns are inherently violent. Anyway, I'm not calling for a ban on domestic knives - combat knives, on the otherhand, should be banned. I don't know about the US but in the UK it's illegal to carry around large knives of any kind in public. Explosives in the UK are also restricted, though they're still for sale in fireworks and model rocket engines. And I also believe that fossil fuels should be banned because of the environmental and health consequences. I believe that dangerous items should be restricted - that's a pretty common sense policy.

[DocM]

when I was in high school,  shirts with images of "violence or weapons" where banned.... had nothing to do with being patriotic or not, the rule was clear as day... kids had to flip them inside out or change them if they were caught with them on...... this isn't a violation of rights, it's the kid violating the rule

Our principal, and several teachers, wore their NRA pins, as did our parents. We also had a skeet, trap and rifle team in high school so a busload of kids with cased weapons was routine. In many parts of the US this is still common, and high school shooting sports is growing very rapidly. Especially from Ohio to the Dakotas, and to some extent from Pennsylvania to Maine.

This patch is worn by clay target high and middle school students, and the HQ of the group is about 30 miles from here.

 

 

[Emn1ty]

Guns are designed to kill, either humans or animals - there is little distinction as both are violent. As for a knife, you could have a t-shirt featuring chopped vegetables and a chopping knife and it wouldn't be violent, whereas a picture of a combat knife is inherently violent given its intended usage.

So it's okay to go around shooting cats because that's efficient? I'm struggling to understand your point. My point is quite clear - that guns are inherently violent. Anyway, I'm not calling for a ban on domestic knives - combat knives, on the otherhand, should be banned. I don't know about the US but in the UK it's illegal to carry around large knives of any kind in public. Explosives in the UK are also restricted, though they're still for sale in fireworks and model rocket engines. And I also believe that fossil fuels should be banned because of the environmental and health consequences. I believe that dangerous items should be restricted - that's a pretty common sense policy.

Violence is a fact of life. If we're going to be removing violence from schools, why are we teaching them about history at all? How are we supposed to teach our youths about the world, and what cruelty it's capable of if we can't expose them to what we've learned from our past mistakes? A gun is inherently violent, maybe. But the impression it gives to a person isn't inherently violent. What it means is often open to interpretation.

What I'm getting from you is "violence is bad", but the reality is violence is real. Bad things happen, and every generation must learn about it sooner or later or else they'll be ill-equiped to deal with the harsh truth of the world. That people are capable of terrible things. Knowing evil when you see it is important, as is knowing right from wrong. But in order to understand these concepts people need to be exposed to them in some way.

As far as your comments on combat knives vs non-combat knives. There's little difference between them, so banning "combat" knives doesn't actually solve anything. Just like banning "assault" weapons doesn't actually solve anything either. It's a pointless distinction that ignores the truth. You know what the difference is between a combat knife and a survival knife?

Here's two knives, one is a standard issue US Army knife while the other is a Survival Knife. Can you correctly identify them?

 

Even knowing which is which, can you point out any significant difference in killing power? These definitions are arbitrary and meaningless.

[Ralph3100]

Guns are designed to kill, either humans or animals - there is little distinction as both are violent. As for a knife, you could have a t-shirt featuring chopped vegetables and a chopping knife and it wouldn't be violent, whereas a picture of a combat knife is inherently violent given its intended usage.

So it's okay to go around shooting cats because that's efficient? I'm struggling to understand your point. My point is quite clear - that guns are inherently violent. Anyway, I'm not calling for a ban on domestic knives - combat knives, on the otherhand, should be banned. I don't know about the US but in the UK it's illegal to carry around large knives of any kind in public. Explosives in the UK are also restricted, though they're still for sale in fireworks and model rocket engines. And I also believe that fossil fuels should be banned because of the environmental and health consequences. I believe that dangerous items should be restricted - that's a pretty common sense policy.

No body said it is okay to go around shooting cats. If you are hunting animals for meat, the reason you use a gun over a bow, or a spear, or a snare, or a rock is because it is faster and more humane.

As for your combat knife statement, a kitchen knife doesn't care if the flesh it is cutting through is living or dead.

*Side Note* There are probably a lot of environmentalists that would be very upset with how casual you were about chopping up plants. Those are living organisms. They have just as much right to exist on our planet as you do and should not be subjected to such violence.

[exotoxic]

Tell people who hunt for their food and live off the land that.    Rifles are used to kill animals this providing food.

 

This thread: People don't kill animals, guns do.

Mass shooting thread: People kill people, not guns.

[Dick Montage]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Cross

Is it your role to honor your passed family members?

Sigh, you tried to make an (invalid) argument, then missed the point of the rebuttal.  I know full well what the Battlefield Cross is MEANT to symbolise.  It simply fails to do so when a major component of it is a weapon.

[adrynalyne]

Sigh, you tried to make an (invalid) argument, then missed the point of the rebuttal.  I know full well what the Battlefield Cross is MEANT to symbolise.  It simply fails to do so when a major component of it is a weapon.

I am so glad there is someone that someone who isn't American that can tell Americans what something symbolizes and represents to Americans for the last 250+ years.

Your arrogance is astounding.

 

[Dick Montage]

I am so glad there is someone that someone who isn't American that can tell Americans what something symbolizes and represents to Americans for the last 250+ years.

Your arrogance is astounding.

 

Sorry, after illegally invading nation states, you now claim ownership of what honor means.  Well done, wave your flag and wear a gun to school.

[Ralph3100]

 

This thread: People kill animals with guns to eat.

Mass shooting thread: People kill people with guns because they are psychopaths.

All gunish threads: Guns are inanimate tools, and therefore cannot be evil.

FTFY... Looks like there was a misunderstanding on your part.

[Noir Angel]

I am so glad there is someone that someone who isn't American that can tell Americans what something symbolizes and represents to Americans for the last 250+ years.

Your arrogance is astounding.

 

Strange, you people seem to have no problem telling other countries how they should function, you but into their affairs all the time. Funny watching you get angry when someone turns the scrutiny onto you.

[Ralph3100]

Sigh, you tried to make an (invalid) argument, then missed the point of the rebuttal.  I know full well what the Battlefield Cross is MEANT to symbolise.  It simply fails to do so when a major component of it is a weapon.

Your opinion on a weapon being there doesn't change the meaning of the symbol.

[adrynalyne]

Strange, you people seem to have no problem telling other countries how they should function, you but into their affairs all the time. Funny watching you get angry when someone turns the scrutiny onto you.

Show me where I have said that?

That's what I thought. You put the actions of my government on me. Typical American hater.