7th-grader suspended for having gun keychain

[JLM]

I totally disagree. There is no way I should be charged with murder if I am defending myself, my family or my property. To me that is an innate human right. I am tired of the bleeding hearts who think we should let ourselves be robbed or beaten and the criminals deserve sympathy. Sorry but I have no sympathy and their life is definitely worth less than mine. I contribute to society through actions and taxes and teach my offspring to be responsible & respectful members of society. There is no way a murderer or rapist or robber is of the same value. It is time that is realized and these leeches are dealt with in an immediate and harsh fashion. We can save so much time and money by just allowing people to defend their person and their homes with deadly force.

Yep, but you are missing one tiny little thing. You are only supposed to use enough force to get the perpetrator to cease and desist. The person may not be of the same value but the life is judged to be of the same value. And every person has a right to "say his piece" before being terminated.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Yep, but you are missing one tiny little thing. You are only supposed to use enough force to get the perpetrator to cease and desist. The person may not be of the same value but the life is judged to be of the same value. And every person has a right to "say his piece" before being terminated.

They get to say their piece. They say "give me your money"....then I terminate them. ;-)

If I use deadly force they will cease and desist robbing me and any other possible victim in the future. It would only take a relatively small amount of dead criminals to slow the rest down.

 

[JLM]

They get to say their piece. They say "give me your money"....then I terminate them. ;-)

If I use deadly force they will cease and desist robbing me and any other possible victim in the future. It would only take a relatively small amount of dead criminals to slow the rest down.

Wouldn't you feel bad if the guy had a wife and 8 starving children at home?

 

[tober]

I think the parents should go pass their safety test, buy a couple of .45s and express their right to open-carry right into the principal's office to discuss the suspension.

The reaction of the school is caused by the extremist attitude of the NRA and US gun supporters. Suggesting an armed sojourn into the principal's office takes it a step worse. I agree that the attitude of the school is unfortunate and extremist, but US gun extremism has driven it there. Hopefully carrying handguns into the schhol to make such a political point would result in an equally effective counter point - arrest.

 

[PoliticalNick]

The reaction of the school is caused by the extremist attitude of the NRA and US gun supporters. Suggesting an armed sojourn into the principal's office takes it a step worse. I agree that the attitude of the school is unfortunate and extremist, but US gun extremism has driven it there. Hopefully carrying handguns into the schhol to make such a political point would result in an equally effective counter point - arrest.

Why would they get arrested for exercising their rights under the second amendment and Rhode Island law? I'm not suggesting they should march in wearing full combat gear and carrying M-60s. I am simply saying the law in RI allows for open carry of sidearms and it doesn't say except in a church or a school or anywhere else.

I have seen New Hampshire open carry law put to the test by someone walking into the police station. Guess what? He wasn't arrested, he wasn't tackled to the ground and nobody called in swat or shot at him. Why, because he did nothing illegal.

 

[tober]

Why would they get arrested for exercising their rights under the second amendment and Rhode Island law? I'm not suggesting they should march in wearing full combat gear and carrying M-60s. I am simply saying the law in RI allows for open carry of sidearms and it doesn't say except in a church or a school or anywhere else.

Two reasons.

1. US law, as I understand it, permits the creation of gun free zones within which carrying a gun is illegal.

2. Because the thrust of your suggestion could reasonably be interpreted as threatening. Not a direct "hands up" personal threat, but an implicit, "Watch me break the law with my gun in your protected school office," threat.

As Walden said in his article on civil disobediance, there can be times and places where civil disobedience is acceptable. But for the system to work as it should to make the disobedience civilly effective, the law must punish the law-breaker as a consequence of the disobedience. Only in that way is the entirety of the issue placed in proper and effective perspective.

 

[JLM]

If you are going to do that over a toy gun on a key chain, what have you got saved for the really serious stuff where you do want to make a serious impression?

 

[PoliticalNick]

1. US law, as I understand it, permits the creation of gun free zones within which carrying a gun is illegal.

There is no such thing in the constitution which is the supreme law and overrules every other law. There is also no such law on the books in Rhode Island. I believe the feds have made such zones but I don't know if they have actually passed a law on it yet and I don't think it would stand a constitutional challenge if they did.

2. Because the thrust of your suggestion could reasonably be interpreted as threatening. Not a direct "hands up" personal threat, but an implicit, "Watch me break the law with my gun in your protected school office," threat.

The thrust of my suggestion is more along the line of 'look here dumba$$, I can lawfully carry a real firearm and your stupid a$$ wants to suspend a student for a keychain. Are you really smart enough to be responsible for my children?'

As Walden said in his article on civil disobediance, there can be times and places where civil disobedience is acceptable. But for the system to work as it should to make the disobedience civilly effective, the law must punish the law-breaker as a consequence of the disobedience. Only in that way is the entirety of the issue placed in proper and effective perspective.

I don't completely disagree with this. I also don't believe there is anything that supersedes the constitution or the open carry law in RI.

If you are going to do that over a toy gun on a key chain, what have you got saved for the really serious stuff where you do want to make a serious impression?

A tickle-me-Elmo. ;-)

 

[JLM]

Hey Nick- here's case where you could arrive with your arsenal and make a valid and lasting impression. He may be much more obnoxious than school teachers.

High risk sex offender to reside in Vancouver - British Columbia - CBC News

 

[PoliticalNick]

Hey Nick- here's case where you could arrive with your arsenal and make a valid and lasting impression. He may be much more obnoxious than school teachers.

High risk sex offender to reside in Vancouver - British Columbia - CBC News

I would gladly trip on a curb and accidentally fire 8 or 9 times into his chest if I could get away with it. ;-)

 

[tober]

There is no such thing in the constitution which is the supreme law and overrules every other law. There is also no such law on the books in Rhode Island. I believe the feds have made such zones but I don't know if they have actually passed a law on it yet and I don't think it would stand a constitutional challenge if they did.

It sounds to me like you are taking the simplistic approach that "shall not infringe" means government must keep hands off guns. If so, your interpretation is incorrect. The SCOTUS has spoken to much of what some people would consider "infringing", and ultimately any section of the US constitution means what the SCOTUS says it means. The SCOTUS has approved of gun free zones such as schools and courts. There was discussion of this principle in the recent SCOTUS case Heller v DC. Governments can legislate gun free zones. People owning, leasing or renting can forbid firearms on their premise. A gun free zone would survive a court challenge.