Boy sent home because of hat.

[CoryKS]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Andy Moynihan]

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]

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]

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]

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.[/quote]


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??
There's loads of rules and laws that many don't like, speed limits for example, up from my house is a road that has a 30 mph speed limit, it annoys many as they believe you can safely go a lot faster on it. They may be right of course so is it better to drive fast along that road or to campaign to have the speed limit changed? Driving fast up the road just incurs penalties and the council isn't inclined to change the law but presented with a good argument for changing it there's a good chance it will. Schools wherever they are tend to be autonomous beings, they have all sorts of rules many of which are weird but should we teach out children to flout them or work to change them?
The media is full of the mother's story but little from the school because it's far easier and more newsworthy to bash the school. it's worth standing back and forgetting personal prejudices to look at this story. What you will see is a mother who came up with an idea, put it into practice and sent her son to school with toy soldiers stuck on a hat. the school who has a no guns, no drugs and no depictions of either policy sent the child home. the mother instead of going to the school to discuss the issue chose to go to the media. Now what does this teach the children? It's not about patriotism or even guns, it's about the fact the school has a rule....no depictions of guns whatsoever and the child came with 'depictions' of guns on his hat. Now do you want law abiding citizens who when up against a law they don't agree with work properly to overturn that law or do you want citizens who decide that they can make execptions to those laws because of how they decide to see them?

 

[Cryozombie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Nice one!

 

[chaos1551]

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]

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]

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: