School Overreach



See this photo? yea, well this photo got me and my gf suspended from our high school for 10 days. possible expulsion too. Today we were taken right before the Cross Country states meet. We were asked, “why would you post something like that?” when we tried saying something, they told us to be quiet and they separated us. I was sent to a room and my bag was searched, along with my clothes and locker. The school called the police and they had a cop speak to us without reading our rights and without our parents permission. We had no say in what happened and we never got a chance to defend ourselves. We are both out of school now, in a school that only allows 4½ days absent. Which means if they don’t expel us, we pay for overpriced saturday school and winter school. I understand it was wrong to take a picture with guns but come on. My dad took the photos, in my house. The guns were pointed at the floor, on safety, mock mags in, and our fingers weren’t on the trigger. We had a responsible adult and he isnt againts airsoft. He knows gun safety and he keeps my guns, i dont have them unless im out at the fields. Well the dance was friday, and it went perfectly fine. No fights or anything. Today is monday, and now were both defenseless. The school took away whatever rights we had about speech. Our parents didnt have a say either. In 10 days we will have to have a conference with the school board, they will decide if we get suspended or not. I think its bullshit that we get suspended over a photo taken at my house because it was “threatening”. If my school wanted to suspend everyone who posted a “threatening” photo, then i couldnt have a photo with a car because cars kill people. honestly i think its unfair and its not right. My school could care less if you post a picture of you smoking or getting drunk. but you post a photo of a gun and everyone loses their mind. So right now im trying to get this story out to people to try to show that the school is wrong and that it wasnt a threat to anyone. The school is Bristol-Plymouth Voc/Tech in Taunton, MA. Please help me out guys., thanks.

Show your support:

Founders Intended Limits On Gun Rights

This is so wrong it makes my head hurt…

The National Rifle Association and their fellow gun enthusiasts continue to misconstrue the founders’ original intent in creating the Second Amendment to the Constitution. A recently published NRA comment states that “Guns save lives, stop crime and protect you. This is why we arm police, why people arm themselves and why the Founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution.”

The amendment reads as follows: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” A total of 27 words.

The NRA’s comment in the first paragraph would be accurate if these first 13 words of the Second Amendment concerning the role of a militia had not been included in this simple statement. The first 13 words have meaning. The founders were much concerned about the power of a standing army and the possibility of overt military control of the fledgling country.

In 1791 the members of the Virginia legislature elaborated on the importance of a militia in a letter accompanying their ratification of the first 10 amendments (1791). They stated that, “…a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty…: and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.” 1791 was a time when less than 15 percent of the white male population, mostly untrained in the military use of weapons, possessed guns.

The requirement for a well trained militia rather than a standing army was further emphasized in several issues of the Federalist Papers authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. In fact, Federalist No. 29 was exclusively dedicated to the need for a militia.

Of course, the issue of no standing army was short-lived. The War of 1812 proved that a standing army and navy were essential to our survival as an independent nation. The concern, however, about undue influence of the military remains today.

Over the years Supreme Court rulings have essentially ignored the first half of the Second Amendment, opting instead for easy access to weapons. A major question: How did the founders’ intent to provide for a militia evolve into a nation with over 300 million guns in circulation?

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in his recent book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” proposes the addition of five words to the Second Amendment. As so amended, it would read: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

There is no Second Amendment right to own guns! So intended the founders!


Ultimate Hypocrite

The National Rifle Association has struck back at former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, dinging him as the “ultimate hypocrite” for lobbying against Second Amendment rights for average Americans while maintaining his own personal armed security force.

He is one that believes that the rules should apply to the little people. We are a nation of laws, not men — so all laws should apply equally, regardless of who they are applied to.

Read the rest of the article:

Pennsylvania Could Give The NRA The Right To Sue Cities

Cities in Pennsylvania may have to think carefully before passing ordinances relating to guns and gun control in future years: Doing so could land them in legal trouble with the National Rifle Association.

The Pennsylvania state House last week passed a measure that would give anyone who may legally own a firearm, or a membership organization like the NRA, the legal standing to sue any municipality that enacts gun laws that are more stringent than the state’s.

The measure could make enhanced gun laws a financial risk for the cities themselves: It could require cities on the losing end of lawsuits to pay the legal bills of the plaintiff.

Read the rest of the article: