# Boy sent home because of hat.



## MA-Caver (Jun 18, 2010)

Ok this is just about as stupid as stupid does on a school's ZERO tolerance as you can get. 
A child given a project to show patriotism has a ball cap and those plastic army soldiers glued onto it along with the American Flag... He wears it to school and is sent home because the soldiers on the hat have guns. 
I cannot even PHANTOM just how this would be construed as dangerous or even harmful. 
Kids know soldiers fight, they know they fight with GUNS... the green army men have long since been molded into ONE PIECE with guns... the army men represent (typically) U.S. soldiers because they're molded in green (or lately tan colored) plastic. 
Watch the video and be appalled as I was. 
http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/toy-soldiers-run-afoul-of-school-s-weapons-ban-20386822

I mean give me a friggin break here.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 18, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> Ok this is just about as stupid as stupid does on a school's ZERO tolerance as you can get.
> A child given a project to show patriotism has a ball cap and those plastic army soldiers glued onto it along with the American Flag... He wears it to school and is sent home because the soldiers on the hat have guns.
> I cannot even PHANTOM just how this would be construed as dangerous or even harmful.
> Kids know soldiers fight, they know they fight with GUNS... the green army men have long since been molded into ONE PIECE with guns... the army men represent (typically) U.S. soldiers because they're molded in green (or lately tan colored) plastic.
> ...


 
You still think you live in America? That place doesn't exist anymore......


----------



## MJS (Jun 18, 2010)

What a bunch of paranoid *******s.  Amazing, really amazing.  Nothing wrong with what the kid did, but its the paranoid teachers that are worried about the message that its supposedly sending.  I mean really, isnt there something more pressing than this, that they should be worrying about?


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 18, 2010)

Remember kids:  pretending things like poverty, racism, and pollution don't exist won't make them go away, but pretending that guns don't exist will totally work.


----------



## fireman00 (Jun 18, 2010)

It was great to see that the kid was given a medal by the Rhode Island National Guard:​
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/1...-banned-toy-soldier-hat-gets-medal-603569291/

and I'm very happy to see the ACLU getting involved and actually supporting the kid's effort.


----------



## baron (Jun 18, 2010)

elder999 said:


> You still think you live in America? That place doesn't exist anymore......


 It sure is not the America I was born and raised in.  Man we all had play guns as kids and we survived.  Father had all kinds of guns in house and he taught us gun safety and how to be responsible for our actions.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 18, 2010)

baron said:


> It sure is not the America I was born and raised in.  Man we all had play guns as kids and we survived.  Father had all kinds of guns in house and he taught us gun safety and how to be responsible for our actions.


Same here and as an older teenager I learned from professional gun-safety instructors as well. 
They let a few outweigh the many and think that every kid has the potential of being another Columbine type attacker. Yes it has happened in other schools or other students got caught before they could initiate their own reign of terror among their classmates but, uh... how many millions of students are in below college level schools today? 
Recognizing the signs of students who are becoming disturbed/distraught helps ward off many potential shooting incidents. Recognizing signs by both educators (teachers and school staff) *and* parents.


----------



## Carol (Jun 19, 2010)

Rhode Island schools just...suck.  5 of the 6 New England states are "better than average" or "much better than average" for education.  RI is "worse than average". 

Then there's Central Falls, RI.  Teachers are getting paid $70-80K per annum to work 9 months a year can't produce kids that can pass a damn test...and they think its unreasonable that they be fired over such a minor detail.  

http://www.projo.com/news/content/central_falls_meeting.1_03-24-10_DPHSMAF_v14.3b316d7.html

Then there was this stunning display of sportsmanship...by both the players AND the fans...demonstrating that violence is an acceptable way to end a one-sided sports matchup, at least if its a championship.

http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_wpri_providence_high_school_girls_soccer_brawl_20091109_BRT

Way to represent, Little Rhody


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 20, 2010)

christ, we had play guns, play knives, baseball bats, and nunchucks when my bro and i were small. nothing happened to us. seriously, wtf....


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 20, 2010)

elder999 said:


> You still think you live in America? That place doesn't exist anymore......



It never did.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 20, 2010)

True, but the PC craps getting crazier.

If I was a school kid today, I'd have been expelled as a sexual predator because I used to be a hugger, a drug pusher because I would bring asprin for my headaches, or arrested as a violent terrorist because I'm a computer geek who once hacked the school lab computers and wrote a wargames sim.

Never mind saluting the Obama logo some insisted on...I used to sit and read Star Trek during the indoctrination loyalty oath, err I mean "Pledge". I also hung out with religious fanatics and plotted war with them (bible club and chess club were the same folks).

I mighta been executed for arms dealing after all the finger guns and bang-bang motions I did.

Yeah, its nuts.  Now remember to pack your kid with at least 6" of approved foam padding, that their helmet and body pads are correctly installed, and that you've removed their independence circuit prior to sending to school.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 20, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> Remember kids:  pretending things like poverty, racism, and pollution don't exist won't make them go away, but pretending that guns don't exist will totally work.



That needs to be a bumper sticker or something.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 20, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> True, but the PC craps getting crazier.



I don't think political correctness (whatever that is) is even really part of it.  We are in the middle of a paradigm shift in the way that children are perceived, raised, and the expectations and values put on them.  

Some parts of it, like the hysteria over sex offenders, looks exactly like a widespread moral panic.  Maybe the rest of it is part of that moral panic as well.  I'm not that old, and even the things my parents let me do at a particular age would be considered irresponsible now - and my mother was very protective!  For lack of a better way to describe it, children are considered more "precious" now, and it reverberates into all areas of society.  

The craziness at the schools is merely amplified because that is an area of our society solely concerned with children, which reflects the attitudes of the parents which are a big part of the school system.  The schools also have the lawsuit culture that intersects with the changing views on children to produce even more nonsense.

The thing of it is, these shifts and these widespread social panics are nothing new.  The topic just changes.  In the 80's there was a huge moral panic over Satanism, when there was no real evidence that it even existed.  There was panic and hysteria over communism for decades before.  In the 19th and early 20th centuries, there was widespread hysteria and fear, particularly in the South, over what blacks were up to - rise in a slave rebellion or marry your daughter, and no one knew which was worse.

We are strange creatures.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 20, 2010)

Maybe he shouldn't have glued real guns on the soldiers..............


----------



## The Game (Jun 20, 2010)

Soldiers are bad. They have guns and kill people. Everyone should get rid of their guns. Then there would be no need for guns. Because no one ever died before there were guns.

Hold on a sec, I need a few more hits from this bong.

Maybe a couple cracks to the head too.

Ok, and this shot of Jack.

Ok, back to guns r badd.


I hope you people get the sarcasm here. I might lose respect if you don't.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 20, 2010)

lol i think some peeps in this thread have a degree in Advanced Sarcasm 

i love sarcasm btw =]


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 20, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> lol i think some peeps in this thread have a degree in Advanced Sarcasm
> 
> i love sarcasm btw =]


Some of us here are Doctors of Sarcasm at Sarcasm University.


----------



## JDenver (Jun 21, 2010)

Did the school overreact?  Possibly, but we can choose to try to understand the position rather than just dismissing it as stupidity.

The project was on patriotism, not militarization.  Many Americans don't understand that positioning those two importantly distinctive things together can be, well, problematic.  You don't have to support increased military action and military spending in order to support your country.  You can support the flag without the need for a soldier with it.

Frankly, many people around the world find this unabashed reverance for the military a little chilling.  You find this type of meshing of national pride and military might in North Korea and China and the USA, but not in France or Germany or Denmark or Canada.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 21, 2010)

JDenver said:


> Did the school overreact?  Possibly, but we can choose to try to understand the position rather than just dismissing it as stupidity.
> 
> The project was on patriotism, not militarization.  Many Americans don't understand that positioning those two importantly distinctive things together can be, well, problematic.  You don't have to support increased military action and military spending in order to support your country.  You can support the flag without the need for a soldier with it.
> 
> Frankly, many people around the world find this unabashed reverance for the military a little chilling.  You find this type of meshing of national pride and military might in North Korea and China and the USA, but not in France or Germany or Denmark or Canada.


That may be true but America's might has not only been industrial and population and our basic freedoms but our military strength as well. The Red in our flag represents the blood that was shed for many to maintain those freedoms we hold so dear. 
This website gives one interpretation of the colors... 





> http://www.funmunch.com/events/usflagday/colors.shtml *Charles Thompson, Secretary                           of the Continental Congress, reporting to  Congress on                           the Seal, stated:* *"White                                   signifies purity and innocence,
> Red, hardiness & valor,
> and Blue . . . vigilance, perseverance  &                                   justice."*


For me valor is the aforementioned blood shed, (dunno about the white however  ) 

This other website (among many) has this explanation


> http://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/usa-flag/usa-flag-meaning.html
> The colors also have some meanings in the flag. The color *red * is symbol of *courage *,  enthusiasm, valor, blood and life. Then the color *blue  * represents the azure *sky *and  symbolizes the respect for *God *. The *white * color in the USA flag on the other hand  means the *purity and peace *.


 So military is important part of who we are. That which we are ready to defend. I do support our military but not ALWAYS the causes in which they've been sent to fight.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2010)

JDenver said:


> Did the school overreact? Possibly, but we can choose to try to understand the position rather than just dismissing it as stupidity.
> 
> The project was on patriotism, not militarization. Many Americans don't understand that positioning those two importantly distinctive things together can be, well, problematic. You don't have to support increased military action and military spending in order to support your country. You can support the flag without the need for a soldier with it.
> 
> Frankly, many people around the world find this unabashed reverance for the military a little chilling. You find this type of meshing of national pride and military might in North Korea and China and the USA, but not in France or Germany or Denmark or Canada.


 
Reading this I was thinking that's a damn good point, I for one hadn't thought of it this way. Tbh I hadn't seen it as anything other than Americans love for weapons which is actually how many see America. It is seen as a militaristic state with the people in love with their guns more than anything else. Now whether this is a true perception or not, is a different matter of course.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 21, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Reading this I was thinking that's a damn good point, I for one hadn't thought of it this way. Tbh I hadn't seen it as anything other than Americans love for weapons which is actually how many see America. It is seen as a militaristic state with the people in love with their guns more than anything else. Now whether this is a true perception or not, is a different matter of course.


 

To liberally paraphrase Tolkien:

"I love not the rifle for its accuracy, nor the shotgun for its power, nor the pistol for its round-the-clock readiness. I love only that which they defend".


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> To liberally paraphrase Tolkien:
> 
> "I love not the rifle for its accuracy, nor the shotgun for its power, nor the pistol for its round-the-clock readiness. I love only that which they defend".


 

Fair one! 

The problem I think though is one we had many years ago, that the people think 'gunboat diplomacy' works, that you can get yourself out of any situation by the use of arms. So this is where patriotism and militancy appear to be the same thing. Behind everything America says there is the shadow of it's Armed Forces. One thing I have noticed is that in many of the arguments Americans have about topics close to their hearts the phrase 'it's or you're unAmerican' comes up a lot as if you can't hold different views, that there is only one 'American' view of situations. Very rarely will you hear the people of any other country when arguing points use that sort of 'patriotic' language. I've never heard someone say oh you are 'unBritish' or 'you're unFrench' in an argument! On the subject of whther to carry arms or not this expression comes up a lot, I'm sure both sides have their pros and cons but I can't see either side being unpatriotic because of the viewes they hold tbh.


----------



## JDenver (Jun 21, 2010)

Some interesting points, and I'll come back to my central one, which is that this particular teacher found the application of the military in a project on patriotism to be inappropriate.

I won't defend the teacher but I don't find anything stupid in that.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 21, 2010)

JDenver said:


> Did the school overreact? Possibly, but we can choose to try to understand the position rather than just dismissing it as stupidity.
> 
> The project was on patriotism, not militarization. Many Americans don't understand that positioning those two importantly distinctive things together can be, well, problematic.* You don't have to support increased military action and military spending in order to support your country.* You can support the flag without the need for a soldier with it.
> 
> Frankly, many people around the world find this unabashed reverance for the military a little chilling. You find this type of meshing of national pride and military might in North Korea and China and the USA, but not in France or Germany or Denmark or Canada.


 
You also don't have to suppress someone else's desire to support the military even if you don't approve.  I find that sort of thing more than a little chilling as well.  Defense of one's country _is_ an aspect of patriotism and the fact that a kid's hat reflects that doesn't necessarily mean he wants to roll tanks into other countries.  The inability to draw the distinction between defense and aggression is what makes this a wingnut talking point rather than an objective stance.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 21, 2010)

The kid is obviously raised in a family that loves/supports our military (was dad a veteran?). The school has no place trying to "brainwash" this kid with their liberal agenda over the parents upbringing. So much for cultivating our kids individuality and ability to express it....but I guess that ship sailed (or was torpedoed by the "SS Progressive") years ago.


----------



## MJS (Jun 21, 2010)

JDenver said:


> Did the school overreact? Possibly, but we can choose to try to understand the position rather than just dismissing it as stupidity.
> 
> The project was on patriotism, not militarization. Many Americans don't understand that positioning those two importantly distinctive things together can be, well, problematic. You don't have to support increased military action and military spending in order to support your country. You can support the flag without the need for a soldier with it.
> 
> Frankly, many people around the world find this unabashed reverance for the military a little chilling. You find this type of meshing of national pride and military might in North Korea and China and the USA, but not in France or Germany or Denmark or Canada.


 
Points taken. OTOH, people often associate the two. The flag represents America, the Military fights for the freedom of America, etc., so perhaps this was the case. Either way, I still think the school over reacted. My God, its not like the kid walked with with 3 guns on his hip and ammo strung across his chest. LOL!


----------



## blink13 (Jun 21, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> The kid is obviously raised in a family that loves/supports our military (was dad a veteran?). The school has no place trying to "brainwash" this kid with their liberal agenda over the parents upbringing. So much for cultivating our kids individuality and ability to express it....but I guess that ship sailed (or was *torpedoed* by the "SS Progressive") years ago.



Torpedoes are evil, you hawk.  You should be banned from MT for the day.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2010)

As an outsider with no dog in this fight, it does look however as if it's going from one extreme to another. As was asked by JDenver, is it impossible to understand another point of view without deeming someone with an opposite point of view a nutter? Doesn't anyone actually look at these situations and think well perhaps they've a point, 'I'll have to look at it closer and in more depth before I start screaming'? Perhaps looking closer into the matter might reveal something interesting that may change your mind, it may not but how do you know until you've listened?

According to one report I read, the mother said she'd wanted to honour American troops so had decorated the hat with the soldiers and guns. Now looking at that statement there's nothing wrong with that, nice thought actually, but if asked to do a project on patriotism she's on the wrong tack as it wasn't about celebrating the Forces, it was about patriotism as a whole as seen and felt by the pupils. It seems too that the school rules say no guns, now whether that's good or bad is irrelevant, it's a school rule and one which the mother encouraged her son to break so the school has a point there.

There's a couple of arguments in there, is the school right to have such a rule? Is it right to teach children to break rules because you disagree with them or should the mother not have sent her son to school with guns on his hat? Would it have been better to obey the rules and campaign to change them instead if you feel they were wrong?

The school really had no choice, the crux of the matter is that school rules were broken so he was sent home.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 21, 2010)

Translating "no guns" to mean "no toy soldiers" is WAY out in "leftist field" IMO. It's not A GUN, its a tiny piece of plastic fer GODS SAKE!!! This is about politics and not about school safety.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 21, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Translating "no guns" to mean "no toy soldiers" is WAY out in "leftist field" IMO. It's not A GUN, its a tiny piece of plastic fer GODS SAKE!!! This is about politics and not about school safety.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Translating "no guns" to mean "no toy soldiers" is WAY out in "leftist field" IMO. It's not A GUN, its a tiny piece of plastic fer GODS SAKE!!! This is about politics and not about school safety.


 
Yes but thats a different argument to the actual case. The school has a no guns rule, the toy soldiers had guns therefore it was against the rules.The mother said the toy soldiers all had guns except one which had binoculars. The school had no choice when deciding this was against the rules. If they don't stick to the rules they made they have no hope of teaching any discipline or getting any respect for having rules, they may as well make it a free for all.

Now if you want to argue that it's a stupid rule that's a sensible debate but you can't argue that breaking school rules however stupid you think they are, and they may well be, is a good way for children to go.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 21, 2010)

No. The boy had plastic soldiers with little pointed pieces of plastic. Whats next, can't draw a gun? Can't point your finger like a gun?...oh wait THAT has already happened.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 21, 2010)

If the kid brought in a screwdriver for "tool day" would he be sent home? A screwdriver can be made into an effective weapon. A plastic soldier?

This is entirely a political correctness/groupthink/thought police situation.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> No. The boy had plastic soldiers with little pointed pieces of plastic. Whats next, can't draw a gun? Can't point your finger like a gun?...oh wait THAT has already happened.


 
I would want to know who proposed the rule, and was it generally accepted by the parents. If it was there's no argument, you don't have to like it but if parents want a no gun policy, however large or small the 'gun', in their school surely they can have it. If they can't have the rules they want in their children's schools I think as a country you could be in trouble. Don't you allow freedom of choice, does other peoples choices have to be treated with so much scorn, derision and insults? 

Looking at a photo of the hat, the toy soldiers look quite big enough to have guns clearly seen and identified. I also think the kid doesn't look as though he's honouring soldiers at all, he looks like a kid with toy soldiers stuck on his hat, pretty silly!


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> If the kid brought in a screwdriver for "tool day" would he be sent home? A screwdriver can be made into an effective weapon. A plastic soldier?
> 
> This is entirely a political correctness/groupthink/thought police situation.


 
Perhaps the parents want the school run that way, isn't it up to them in the end? Your children don't have to go there, you'd send them to somewhere that shares your views and you'd be annoyed if someone started called you names and ranting because of your choices.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 21, 2010)

They are not "guns". They are tiny shapes of plastic in representation of a gun. It's the idea of a gun they are outlawing here, not any real physical object or risk..and its moronic. But what is more idiotic is the whole "zero tolerance" concept. Zero Tolerance is simply an "easy out" for school administrators..they don't have to exercise and common sense, good judgement or discretion..all they have to do is blindly enforce the rules.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 21, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps the parents want the school run that way, isn't it up to them in the end? Your children don't have to go there, you'd send them to somewhere that shares your views and you'd be annoyed if someone started called you names and ranting because of your choices.




It's a public school funded by everybody in the district as well as FEDERAL funds. It's not a private school


----------



## crushing (Jun 21, 2010)

So the school has a no weapons policy.  A #2 pencil makes for a more dangerous weapon than those little molded plastic toys.  I certainly hope the school proxy servers block such dangerous sites as this!  http://www.instructables.com/id/Office-Weapons/

The school did have a choice.  They had the choice to see that hat for what it really was, rather than try to rationalize some tiny pieces of plastic into dangerous items to be used to destroy, defeat, or injure an enemy.

Also, had some thinking educators been on site, they could have used the hat as a 'teachable moment' to create a dialog on the differences and possible relationships between military and patriotism instead of "You did it wrong, now go home!"

As I was typing this, I wondered how much more ridiculous this could get, so I googled the terms "expelled for making gun with hands" and found the following:

Yakima kindergartner expelled for making a gun with hands
http://www.kndu.com/global/story.asp?s=11979866

Personally, I find the little green 'army men' toys to be much more dangerous than a kindergartner pointing a finger.  I have stepped on an army man or two in my time and it didn't feel very good.  I have yet to be injured by a finger being pointed at me.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 21, 2010)

http://www.heartland.org/full/27166/Zero_Tolerance_for_Federal_Mandates.html



> ...
> Every state and school district in America has strict rules against violence and drugs on campus. That&#8217;s as it should be. But that common-sense policy shouldn&#8217;t require a federal law.
> 
> Nevertheless, in 1994 Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Gun-Free Schools Act in response to a rash of school shootings. *The law required every district to establish a zero-tolerance policy for guns or risk losing federal funds*. Any student caught with a gun on campus faces a mandatory one-year expulsion and possible prosecution. Most districts toughened their rules after the Columbine High School massacre in 1999 (which in itself shows how poorly the federal law worked). Over time, zero tolerance expanded to drugs, knives, sexual assault, gang paraphernalia, and explosives&#8212;all of which were of course already illegal.
> ...



Hmmm...concern for safety or concern for $$$$?

Read the rest of this one if you want to be educated as to why we Americans get upset about this "zero tolerance" lunacy.



> Fearful of not being strict enough, many schools have gone further still, banning anything that even vaguely resembles a weapon or a drug. Students across the country have faced suspension or expulsion for wearing t-shirts with pictures of guns; bringing tiny, unrealistic toy guns to school; packing common kitchen utensils in lunch bags; and possessing candy.
> 
> Yes, candy. In 2008, school officials in New Haven, Connecticut suspended eighth-grade honor student Michael Sheridan and stripped him of his title as class vice-president after he was caught buying a bag of Skittles from a classmate. The school district had banned candy sales in 2003 as part of a district-wide &#8220;wellness&#8221; policy, so the school considered the candy contraband.



Friggin CRAZY!!! And unless you make enough money to send your child to private school, entirely inescapable!!


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2010)

crushing said:


> So the school has a no weapons policy. A #2 pencil makes for a more dangerous weapon than those little molded plastic toys. I certainly hope the school proxy servers block such dangerous sites as this! http://www.instructables.com/id/Office-Weapons/
> 
> The school did have a choice. They had the choice to see that hat for what it really was, rather than try to rationalize some tiny pieces of plastic into dangerous items to be used to destroy, defeat, or injure an enemy.
> 
> ...


 

Actually I think the kid should have been sent home and told to return with something for HIS project that *he*'d come up with and made rather than his mother.
His mother is quoted on several reports saying her son wanted to honour the Armed Services so *she* came up with the hat idea then made it. Then as an adult knowing the schools no gun policy she sent him and it to school then called all the media when he was sent home as she surely knew he would be, so fifteen minutes of fame anyone?

Technically it said it had a 'no gun' policy which also included pictures of guns on t shirts etc. not a 'no weapon' one. Legal distinction there lol!


The thing about rules though is that in places such as schools they should be obeyed, it's part of learning to be an adult. Schools have always had some odd rules, way back even when I was at school. things like skirts having to be a certain length, yes totally pointless but the thing is you learnt to keep those rules or try to change them. The kid wasn't punished because of 'candy' the child was punished because it broke the rules. Would you have children only keeping the rules they like? Sure it's a daft rule but it's a schools daft rule, you can't encourage children to break them. You can encourage them to question it and lobby to change it, thats the proper way not just break the rules then whinge because you were caught.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 21, 2010)

crushing said:


> As I was typing this, I wondered how much more ridiculous this could get, so I googled the terms "expelled for making gun with hands" and found the following:
> 
> Yakima kindergartner expelled for making a gun with hands
> http://www.kndu.com/global/story.asp?s=11979866
> ...


 
My kid didn't get expelled, but we did get a call from his teacher in kindergarten for pointing his finger and going "bang bang". We were like, "SFW? Don't call us for idiotic stuff like this."

Packed away somewhere is a picture of my 4th grade class in our Halloween costumes.  I was the Lone Ranger that year, and in the picture I am "fanning" the pistol toward the camera.  Nobody got a case of the vapors over it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> My kid didn't get expelled, but we did get a call from his teacher in kindergarten for pointing his finger and going "bang bang". We were like, "SFW? Don't call us for idiotic stuff like this."
> 
> *Packed away somewhere is a picture of my 4th grade class in our Halloween costumes. I was the Lone Ranger that year, and in the picture I am "fanning" the pistol toward the camera. Nobody got a case of the vapors over it*.


 

Post it up to prove your argument! :ultracool


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 21, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Post it up to prove your argument! :ultracool


 
You just want to make fun of me!  I was a chubby little guy back then.  

Actually, I wish I could find that photo.  It was in my mom's stuff when she died, so my sister in Michigan probably has it packed away somewhere.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 21, 2010)

And IMO, if the school wants to have that policy then use some common sense in its enforcement. What happened to the days of taking little Johnny's cork-gun and putting it in the desk drawer? Now we expel him with the "zero tolerance..sorry it's out of my hands" excuse???


----------



## crushing (Jun 21, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> Packed away somewhere is a picture of my 4th grade class in our Halloween costumes. I was the Lone Ranger that year, and in the picture I am "fanning" the pistol toward the camera. Nobody got a case of the vapors over it.


 
Please tell me that was in 1984!!!!  The longer ago 1984 was, the closer to Nineteen Eighty-Four we get.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 21, 2010)

crushing said:


> Please tell me that was in 1984!!!! The longer ago 1984 was, the closer to Nineteen Eighty-Four we get.


 
I wish it was!  Sadly, it was closer to 1978.  I'm old.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 21, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Some of us here are Doctors of Sarcasm at Sarcasm University.



....and now you all work at a corporation called Sarcasm International.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 21, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Fair one!
> 
> The problem I think though is one we had many years ago, that the people think 'gunboat diplomacy' works, that you can get yourself out of any situation by the use of arms. So this is where patriotism and militancy appear to be the same thing. Behind everything America says there is the shadow of it's Armed Forces. One thing I have noticed is that in many of the arguments Americans have about topics close to their hearts the phrase 'it's or you're unAmerican' comes up a lot as if you can't hold different views, that there is only one 'American' view of situations. Very rarely will you hear the people of any other country when arguing points use that sort of 'patriotic' language. I've never heard someone say oh you are 'unBritish' or 'you're unFrench' in an argument! On the subject of whther to carry arms or not this expression comes up a lot, I'm sure both sides have their pros and cons but I can't see either side being unpatriotic because of the viewes they hold tbh.


 
Well, it could, unfortunately, be argued at this point in history that the kind of American I am can no longer be considered an "average" or "typical" American  but I'll try to put my thoughts out on this as clear as I can:

What we have, and ALL we have, we have because of soldiers and/or citizens willing to take up and learn use-of-arms. If not for the farmers willing to arm up and learn to fight, there'd have been no American Revolution, and thus no "America". Now, you being British and kind of our "parents" you might think of the Revolution as a temper tantrum, but nonetheless--those principles of what we were to become were felt strongly enough by those first Americans that enough were willing to die to make it happen.

Now the usual BS in school that the kids are brought up with was that the war was fought over "taxation without representation", and it happens that that *was* one of several factors.

But it wasn't until the march on Concord and Lexington with the intent to disarm the colonists that any actual *combat* began, we didn't fight, until they came to take the guns.

And think for a second about how that must have felt--to be an American colonist, and to want new government that bad that you're willing, with little to no formal military training, to stand muzzle-to-muzzle ( or early on, guerilla style) with what at that time was the best trained and equipped land army in Europe. Think for a second about how terrifying that must be. But they did it. And it was expensive and cost lots of blood, because there were a lot of things we hadn't learned( and thank god how to quit was one of 'em).

Some time later come the Civil War, which scarred us up so bad the scars are still not quite scabbed over and even in our historic landmarks from then are still visible. And let's be bluntly honest, it never really ended, this is just halftime. But once again, we couldn't have had the changes that were made without everyday people good with guns volunteering to pick a side and get to work. 

World War I I'm still not real crazy about us entering, because in that encounter we began meddling in world affairs and in that moment the unraveling began that you now see the full effect of today.

My point in all this? It may seem strange to those not brought up with it, but in many ways, an American citizenry unable to bear arms or not proud of its military *IS* "UnAmerican" for the reason that without those two concepts, we would not be. It really is just that simple.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2010)

Andy I can see your point about arms etc and the un American bit but I've _also seen and heard it used for a whole lot more than just about being armed_ which considering all the discussions we've had on here recently about Israel you might realise that America isn't the only place to have been in that situation, frankly most countries have at some point in their history needed to free themselves from another country even Britain. During the last war when the threat of invasion was very very real everyone here was willing to fight and die for their country, in the First World War, the threat of invasion was there with our cities being bombed from the airships. The history of the UK is full of fighting for our survival against invaders and you only need to look at the history of the Celtic people in the UK to find similiar stories. Europe is the same, many countries fought to rid them themselves of 'colonial' rulers but there simply isn't the love affair with guns that America seems to have. We've all seen the films, read the books etc of how the West was won, how it was criticised by doing exactly to the Native Americans you have described the British doing to you. America no less than Britain built it's country and it's wealth on the backs of other people, you claimed America as your own and dispossessed the people there to do it. You can't pick out the bits you consider 'noble' and ignore the rest, you used guns to kill off the opposition who actually had the land before you. Sure they were attacking the settlers, but as you said the settlers had fought off the British for their 'freedom'! 

Everyone has a natural affinity with their own country, most love their country and will fight and die for it just as the Native Americans did. Modern Americans are the only ones who seem to think they have to show their patriotism so noisily to the rest of the world. I bet nowhere else would a small child turn up in school with a naff hat on made by his mother, be sent home for breaking school rules and everyone reads so much more into it. The kid broke the school rules, it was all his mothers idea, none of it his and everyone starts ranting and name calling, amazing.

 I can't think of anywhere else where a child's mother would glue toy soldiers to a kid's hat and think it represented patriotism ( look under the  soldiers, it'll say 'made in China'), here he'd be called a chav! It represents not patriotism but a mother, doing something she knew would be banned and then seeking publicity. All the kid did was wear the hat which is a shame for him, he didn't even think of it. 

so heres a question....if you were the child asked to represent patriotism what would you chose? Your own ideas please no asking mums!

Here's one from our side of the pond, not exclusively British but a reminder that many love their countries enough to take enormous risks and to die for them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8289847.stm


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 22, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> According to one report I read, the mother said she'd wanted to honour American troops so had decorated the hat with the soldiers and guns. Now looking at that statement there's nothing wrong with that, nice thought actually, but if asked to do a project on patriotism she's on the wrong tack as it wasn't about celebrating the Forces, it was about patriotism as a whole as seen and felt by the pupils. It seems too that the school rules say no guns, now whether that's good or bad is irrelevant, it's a school rule and one which the mother encouraged her son to break so the school has a point there.



Two things come to mind.  

1) Unlike most nations of the world, the U.S. is a nation that in the fairly recent past was *founded* on the blood of its militia, created, tamed and conquered by the gun.  To say that feeling for the soldier in the U.S. is separate from Patriotism is a concept that I think is Foreign to the US, (at least until recently) and difficult to understand by outsiders who don't share that background.  

2) A policy of "No Guns" to me would mean I couldnt send my kid to school with this:







I wouldn't think of it to include this:






THAT to me is common sense.  One is a* gun*, the other is an *action figure*. If our educators cannot understand the definition of the terms, perhaps they need to find a new line of work.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Two things come to mind.
> 
> 1) Unlike most nations of the world, the U.S. is a nation that in the fairly recent past was *founded* on the blood of its militia, created, tamed and conquered by the gun. To say that feeling for the soldier in the U.S. is separate from Patriotism is a concept that I think is Foreign to the US, (at least until recently) and difficult to understand by outsiders who don't share that background.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 22, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> That's a fair argument of course, but if for whatever reason the school authorities decide that action figures/toy soldiers with guns are banned, is it better to flout the school rules or work to overturn them? Should a mother send her child to school knowing she's flouting the rules or should she campaign to change those rules using all the tools a modern democracy provides instead??



I hear you... But what I am driving at is does the school have a "No Guns" Policy, or a "No Plastic Soldiers" policy?  And if the school's policy said "No Guns" would one automatically assume that applied to Toy soldiers?  I doubt I would have.  

But then again, I wouldn't have assumed the no knife policy would apply to a plastic "picnic" knife and fork like you get in any take-out or fast food place.  But the schools do.  

Maybe I feel that way because I can apply common sense to the rule, not a knee-jerk panic reaction.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 22, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> It's not about patriotism or even guns, it's about the fact the school has a rule...._no depictions of guns whatsoever_



Oh, and if this is true... I'd love to see their History textbooks, and the content regarding any of the Wars fought throught history.  Cuz if there was ONE Illustration or photo of a soldier with a gun, well, someone needs to be suspended from the Administration for bringing that depiction into the organization, right?  After all, it is ZERO tolerance.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 22, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Andy I can see your point about arms etc and the un American bit but I've _also seen and heard it used for a whole lot more than just about being armed_ which considering all the discussions we've had on here recently about Israel you might realise that America isn't the only place to have been in that situation, frankly most countries have at some point in their history needed to free themselves from another country even Britain. During the last war when the threat of invasion was very very real everyone here was willing to fight and die for their country, in the First World War, the threat of invasion was there with our cities being bombed from the airships. The history of the UK is full of fighting for our survival against invaders and you only need to look at the history of the Celtic people in the UK to find similiar stories. Europe is the same, many countries fought to rid them themselves of 'colonial' rulers but there simply isn't the love affair with guns that America seems to have. We've all seen the films, read the books etc of how the West was won, how it was criticised by doing exactly to the Native Americans you have described the British doing to you. America no less than Britain built it's country and it's wealth on the backs of other people, you claimed America as your own and dispossessed the people there to do it. You can't pick out the bits you consider 'noble' and ignore the rest, you used guns to kill off the opposition who actually had the land before you. Sure they were attacking the settlers, but as you said the settlers had fought off the British for their 'freedom'!


 
I'm not denying any of that. Things were most definitely done that should not have been. That's half of the misundersntnding right there, I think, even between Americans, is what I'm championing are the *ideals* not any administration or government that came after. Some of us can't separate the two, or just weren't taught/weren't motivated to learn the truth of what went on beyond the glossed over school textbooks.



> Everyone has a natural affinity with their own country, most love their country and will fight and die for it just as the Native Americans did. Modern Americans are the only ones who seem to think they have to show their patriotism so noisily to the rest of the world.


 
Speaking for myself, I don't generally make a production of patriotism out in public HERE, much less to show to the "rest of the world".




> I bet nowhere else would a small child turn up in school with a naff hat on made by his mother, be sent home for breaking school rules and everyone reads so much more into it. The kid broke the school rules, it was all his mothers idea, none of it his and everyone starts ranting and name calling, amazing.


 
That has more to do with the fact that in no other country are the school systems so useless and bound by zero intelligence( I'm sorry, "Zero tolerance( for thinking") policies.




> so heres a question....if you were the child asked to represent patriotism what would you chose? Your own ideas please no asking mums!


 
I'd have worn my dad's dog tags.



> Here's one from our side of the pond, not exclusively British but a reminder that many love their countries enough to take enormous risks and to die for them.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8289847.stm


 
Great link, thanks for that.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Oh, and if this is true... I'd love to see their History textbooks, and the content regarding any of the Wars fought throught history. Cuz if there was ONE Illustration or photo of a soldier with a gun, well, someone needs to be suspended from the Administration for bringing that depiction into the organization, right? After all, it is ZERO tolerance.


 

Well the school has a no depictions of guns rule and I never said it was right or proper that it should, merely that this school has this rule and rather than flout it one should be working democratically to have it removed if one disagrees with it. It may be a lunatic rule, may not in others eyes but the fact is it is a rule in the school so instead of whinging to the media, a visit to the head of the school (I don't know your school structures) to work it out would have been more appropriate. If they have depictions of guns in books ( I suspect not as people who have this type of rules tend to be meticulous in their censorship)  it would be a good move to point this out and have the rule overturned, going to the media and having your 15 minutes of fame at the expense of your child really isn't the way to go.


----------



## blink13 (Jun 22, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> 2) A policy of "No Guns" to me would mean I couldnt send my kid to school with this:



Well, at LEAST put that thing on "safe" before sending Johnny out the door.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2010)

Dave699 said:


> Well, at LEAST put that thing on "safe" before sending Johnny out the door.


 

Nice one!


----------



## chaos1551 (Jun 22, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> so heres a question....if you were the child asked to represent patriotism what would you chose? Your own ideas please no asking mums!



My first thought was of the American Revolution.  Then I thought, wait.. if I didn't do something with guns, what (as an American) would I do?  First thing that came to mind then was to make a model of Francis Scott Key on a boat writing a poem while all manner of.. er.. guns.. were, uh.. going off in the background... hm.  Come on, I can think of something.  Innovation?  Hm.. the Statue of Liberty!  Then I got silly.  MC-friggin-DONALDS!  Freedom fries!  Exportation of democracy!  

Point was, whether I like it or not, my thoughts on patriotism instantly made me think of situations involving guns.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2010)

chaos1551 said:


> My first thought was of the American Revolution. Then I thought, wait.. if I didn't do something with guns, what (as an American) would I do? First thing that came to mind then was to make a model of Francis Scott Key on a boat writing a poem while all manner of.. er.. guns.. were, uh.. going off in the background... hm. Come on, I can think of something. Innovation? Hm.. the Statue of Liberty! Then I got silly. MC-friggin-DONALDS! Freedom fries! Exportation of democracy!
> 
> Point was, whether I like it or not, my thoughts on patriotism instantly made me think of situations involving guns.


 

You don't have anyone then who did something for his/her country that didn't involve guns and killing people like the natives? Was there no one who made peace with the Native Americans and treated them like humans or was the saying the only good Indian was a dead one something to be proud of? Was there anyone who did anything to help the poor or the sick? Anyone who made your country a better one without actually killing someone else ( and that includes McDs I'm afraid)


----------



## elder999 (Jun 22, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> You don't have anyone then who did something for his/her country that didn't involve guns and killing people like the natives? Was there no one who made peace with the Native Americans and treated them like humans or was the saying the only good Indian was a dead one something to be proud of?


 
There were those who certainly tried, but they didn't make much difference, now, did they?

From our Declaration of Indpendence:



> He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, *the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.*


 
From _The Indian Wars of the West_:



> _The Indian [was thought] as less than human and worthy only of extermination. We did shoot down defenseless men, and women and children at places like Camp Grant, Sand Creek, and Wounded Knee. We did feed strychnine to red warriors. We did set whole villages of people out naked to freeze in the iron cold of Montana winters. And we did confine thousands in what amounted to concentration camps._


 
I won't even go on with various individual quotes. An examination of history shows that right up until the very beginning of the twentieth century, wherever there was anything resembling a policy of coexistence, it wasn't long at all before there was a policy of extermination. Right up to the beginning of the twentieth century,almost wherever there were Indian people told that a plot of land was theirs, that plot was taken away for one reason or another. 


As for the main question-this country would not exist, were it not for the gun, and for our right to them. It would not exist were it not for our fighting men (and women!) over both centuries of our existence-we might still be a colony of _your_ country, or, at the very least, enjoying the same sort of confounding and confusing relationships with you that Australia and Canada do, rather than a nation that has enjoyed 236 years of independence *if not for the gun.....*

....and the _French_. :lfao:


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 22, 2010)

elder999 said:


> ....and the _French_. :lfao:



Well, the French of old.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 22, 2010)

elder999 said:


> the same sort of confounding and confusing relationships with you that Australia and Canada do,


 


Huh??
How so?
Both nations are completely independent, in everyway.  
Our Governor Generals, (our executive branch), may in theory be appointed by the Queen, but that hasnt happened in damn near 100 years. The last time a GG went against the advice of our PM was about 80 years ago. 
All you Mercians had to do was wait around just a little bit longer and the Brits would have been more then happy to legislate you away. No need to fight.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 22, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Huh??
> How so?
> Both nations are completely independent, in everyway.




I didn't mean any differently, however this:





Ken Morgan said:


> Our Governor Generals, (our executive branch), may in theory be appointed by the Queen, but that hasnt happened in damn near 100 years. The last time a GG went against the advice of our PM was about 80 years ago.


 
Is complicated and confounding...:lfao:



Ken Morgan said:


> All you Mercians had to do was wait around just a little bit longer and the Brits would have been more then happy to legislate you away. No need to fight.


 

Yah, but we did it with the gun earlier, instead.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2010)

We invented America! (Btw my house is older than your country by almost hundred years or so lol!)

Ken, that's the truth of it!


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 22, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> We invented America! (Btw my house is older than your country by almost hundred years or so lol!)
> 
> Ken, that's the truth of it!


 
Well that's how it always goes.

Americans think 100 years is a long time, and Brits think 100 miles is a long way


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 22, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Huh??
> How so?
> Both nations are completely independent, in everyway.
> Our Governor Generals, (our executive branch), may in theory be appointed by the Queen, but that hasnt happened in damn near 100 years. The last time a GG went against the advice of our PM was about 80 years ago.
> All you Mercians had to do was wait around just a little bit longer and the Brits would have been more then happy to legislate you away. No need to fight.



I was going to answer this. But Ken did it for me. Whew.  Thanks ken.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 22, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> I was going to answer this. But Ken did it for me. Whew.  Thanks ken.


 
We don't have anyone "appointed by the Queen,"  _in theory_, or otherwise.

I mean, whatever the _practice_ is, in theory the Monarch still retains all executive, legislative and judicial power over your country, in the person of the governor general, whom they (she) has the sole right to appoint-though they've been appointed, quite conveniently, by your Prime Minister.

Like I said, complicated and confounding-though I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you....:lfao:


I mean, we don't have any depictions of British royalty on _our_ currency, current or otherwise:


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2010)

Why would anyone think a hundred miles is a long way? thats a bit odd.

Having the Queen as head of state however saves having politicians think they are, much, much safer. All oaths of loyal are to the monarch and country rather than to a politician. Anytime Canada or Australia or any other country want to declare themselves republics they are free to do so, it's up to then, while it's talked about it hasn't happened yet.


----------



## crushing (Jun 23, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> You don't have anyone then who did something for his/her country that didn't involve guns and killing people like the natives? Was there no one who made peace with the Native Americans and treated them like humans or was the saying the only good Indian was a dead one something to be proud of? *Was there anyone who did anything to help the poor or the sick? Anyone who made your country a better one without actually killing someone else* ( and that includes McDs I'm afraid)


 
Yes, millions of people every day do these things.  They are parents, doctors, social workers, scientists and others.  They come from all walks of life to make the world a better place.  If you want a specific name, how about Mr. Rushing?  He is my father and a 'polio pioneer'.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 23, 2010)

It amazes me that with all the non-profits, charities, and public service announcements out there that the worst problem to ever plague this planet is being overlooked and ignored. 

A problem that impacts every single life on this lump of rock we call Earth, one that can and will lead to the eventual extinction of our species at the very least if left unchecked is not and has not had any attention shown to it at all...

What is this problem? 

What is this epidemic that's infected every aspect of our world today? 

What is this scurge that threatens to destroy the entire world? 

It's called... 






*IDIOCY!* 

And folks are slap-dab ate up with it! LOL... you have to laugh about it or else the reality of how sad our current state is would surely send an otherwise sane person into a suicidal fit of depression.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 23, 2010)

elder999 said:


> We don't have anyone "appointed by the Queen,"  _in theory_, or otherwise.
> 
> I mean, whatever the _practice_ is, in theory the Monarch still retains all executive, legislative and judicial power over your country, in the person of the governor general, whom they (she) has the sole right to appoint-though they've been appointed, quite conveniently, by your Prime Minister.
> 
> ...



How does that make it confusing though?

The queen is a figurehead, in theory you correct, but  as ken said, we're independent country and the last time a monarch appointed a GG was at a time when very large animals roamed the earth. =]


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 23, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> You don't have anyone then who did something for his/her country that didn't involve guns and killing people like the natives? Was there no one who made peace with the Native Americans and treated them like humans or was the saying the only good Indian was a dead one something to be proud of? Was there anyone who did anything to help the poor or the sick? Anyone who made your country a better one without actually killing someone else ( and that includes McDs I'm afraid)


 
It's a pretty large glass house you live in across the pond... perhaps you should consider that before picking up another stone.


----------



## chaos1551 (Jun 23, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> You don't have anyone then who did something for his/her country that didn't involve guns and killing people like the natives? Was there no one who made peace with the Native Americans and treated them like humans or was the saying the only good Indian was a dead one something to be proud of? Was there anyone who did anything to help the poor or the sick? Anyone who made your country a better one without actually killing someone else ( and that includes McDs I'm afraid)



Yes, we have those people but they're all immigrants.  

No, seriously though.  There are lots of people that did lots of good stuff that didn't involve guns.  Indoctrinated as I might be, my patriotism seems linked to guns on a substantial level.  

However, I'm really proud that our country attracted people like Nikola Tesla (discoverer of AC power) Benjamin Franklin (inventor of all sorts of neat things) and, hell, we have Bill Gates!  All sarcasm aside, I get a quelling of patriotism when I think about folks like that.  But freedom is a huge theme in our country and it was gained through violent liberation--and it was honestly not all that long ago.  I'm not too proud of how we treated the people we conquered over here (the natives).  Though I'm proud of our armed forces and support them in the ways that I can, I'm not too proud of some of the military conflicts we've gotten involved in.  But these conflicts made us who we are and I'm proud of that.  I don't sit back and think about guns or pray to them or anything ludicrous like that--I revel in our freedoms regardless of how we got them and that is from where my patriotism comes.  It's just really tied in with guns.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2010)

celtic_crippler said:


> It's a pretty large glass house you live in across the pond... perhaps you should consider that before picking up another stone.


 

Well you can get off your high horse because I have always said in my posts, if you actually read them properly, that Britain is culpable for a great deal, I've never denied that.
And I will pick up another stone, the one that says the world being lectured by America on freedom and democracy goes a long way to account for the hostility you may encounter from the world.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 23, 2010)

Look, if we want to go that route, we can go down it long enough and find _everyone_ owes apologies to _someone,_ okay?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 24, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Look, if we want to go that route, we can go down it long enough and find _everyone_ owes apologies to _someone,_ okay?


 
Vraiment!


----------



## elder999 (Mar 15, 2017)

9-year-old boy banned from wearing Trump hat to school


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 15, 2017)

Is this thread resurrected to annoy a certain Kiwi?


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 16, 2017)

elder999 said:


> 9-year-old boy banned from wearing Trump hat to school



I would be careful wearing a Trump hat in public. Being banned from school could be the least of your problems. People have gotten jumped for wearing Trump hats or for otherwise openly being Trump fans.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 16, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> I would be careful wearing a Trump hat in public. Being banned from school could be the least of your problems. People have gotten jumped for wearing Trump hats or for otherwise openly being Trump fans.




You say that like it's a bad thing........................

This thread is next to get locked down isn't it?


----------



## Buka (Mar 16, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> This thread is next to get locked down isn't it?



That would be my guess, yes.

I gotta' get me a hat. For no other reason than to tick folks off.


----------



## Steve (Mar 16, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> People have gotten jumped for wearing Trump hats or for otherwise openly being Trump fans.





Tez3 said:


> You say that like it's a bad thing........................
> 
> This thread is next to get locked down isn't it?


whoa.   If you continue saying things like this, then yeah!  People getting jumped for wearing a hat is a bad thing.  Yes!


----------



## elder999 (Mar 16, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> I would be careful wearing a Trump hat in public. Being banned from school could be the least of your problems. People have gotten jumped for wearing Trump hats or for otherwise openly being Trump fans.


I'd be careful wearing a Yankees jersey in public, or a Manchester United jersey in public, or a Boston Celtics  hat in public, or a Dalai Lama T-shirt..........

People have been jumped for wearing all of those things as well....first order of self defense: situational awareness.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 16, 2017)

Cryozombie said:


> Two things come to mind.
> 
> 1) Unlike most nations of the world, the U.S. is a nation that in the fairly recent past was *founded* on the blood of its militia, created, tamed and conquered by the gun.  To say that feeling for the soldier in the U.S. is separate from Patriotism is a concept that I think is Foreign to the US, (at least until recently) and difficult to understand by outsiders who don't share that background.
> 
> ...



I owned that Gi joe. He was awesome.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 16, 2017)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Well that's how it always goes.
> 
> Americans think 100 years is a long time, and Brits think 100 miles is a long way



And both of you think a hundred beers is a big night.


----------

