schools can suspend for playing with toy guns at home?

clarkeje1

In before the lock!

contingencyplan

Also, my dad and brother made us a take a hunters ed course when we were in elementary school. We didn't use any real firearms, just learned the basics of safety and had a test at the end of the 4 hour class. Would be a great requirement for children, Even if they don't live in a home with a gun, it will teach them to respect guns, know what they can do but not to fear them.

The problem there is that a big part of the viability of that comes from the prospect of using guns for just that--hunting. People who live in urban areas where they would literally have to travel hours away, possibly even crossing state lines, to hunt, can't use that valid argument. It could be argued that there's really no such thing as a "hobby" gun owner in the city.

2b_perfect00

Wow, f*cking stupid. If they brought them on the bus or to school I could sorta understand. This is going on my list of about 5000 different reasons I don't want kids. Might as well just lock them in the basement with some pillows. Thats about all they will be allowed in the future.

TwinkieDong

Also, my dad and brother made us a take a hunters ed course when we were in elementary school. We didn't use any real firearms, just learned the basics of safety and had a test at the end of the 4 hour class. Would be a great requirement for children, Even if they don't live in a home with a gun, it will teach them to respect guns, know what they can do but not to fear them.

The problem there is that a big part of the viability of that comes from the prospect of using guns for just that--hunting. People who live in urban areas where they would literally have to travel hours away, possibly even crossing state lines, to hunt, can't use that valid argument. It could be argued that there's really no such thing as a "hobby" gun owner in the city.

Well sorry to break it to you. No where in the constitution or amendments does it state a firearm is a hobby or a privilege. This is what our own citizens including some Government does not comprehend. A driver's licence is a privilege not a right. To own a firearm is a right. There is no needs explanation basis needed as it is much a right as breathing oxygen, or having the right to vote.

Myself I am a gun owner. I have made a complete 180 degree turn. In my former life (the past) I was much against ownership of guns. Well time passed, joined the military and was trained extensively on firearms. Needless to say I was much of the very same person you mentioned, in an urban area and I did not hunt. I still do not hunt.

fbmandy55

Also, my dad and brother made us a take a hunters ed course when we were in elementary school. We didn't use any real firearms, just learned the basics of safety and had a test at the end of the 4 hour class. Would be a great requirement for children, Even if they don't live in a home with a gun, it will teach them to respect guns, know what they can do but not to fear them.

The problem there is that a big part of the viability of that comes from the prospect of using guns for just that--hunting. People who live in urban areas where they would literally have to travel hours away, possibly even crossing state lines, to hunt, can't use that valid argument. It could be argued that there's really no such thing as a "hobby" gun owner in the city.

I've actually never been hunting but my family does collect guns and shoot for sport. Honestly, I don't think rules about guns at home or any kind of awareness classes should be a priority in schools right now anyway. But we live a block from a city school, have several guns and have an indoor range right in town.

Schools need to focus on kids ACTUALLY learning, reading a book and getting hands on life skills. Back off what kids do at home, wear to school and stop wasting money on smart boards and hybrid laptops (my sister and 500 of her classmates got HP Envy's rather than books this year).

contingencyplan

Also, my dad and brother made us a take a hunters ed course when we were in elementary school. We didn't use any real firearms, just learned the basics of safety and had a test at the end of the 4 hour class. Would be a great requirement for children, Even if they don't live in a home with a gun, it will teach them to respect guns, know what they can do but not to fear them.

The problem there is that a big part of the viability of that comes from the prospect of using guns for just that--hunting. People who live in urban areas where they would literally have to travel hours away, possibly even crossing state lines, to hunt, can't use that valid argument. It could be argued that there's really no such thing as a "hobby" gun owner in the city.

Well sorry to break it to you. No where in the constitution or amendments does it state a firearm is a hobby or a privilege. This is what our own citizens including some Government does not comprehend. A driver's licence is a privilege not a right. To own a firearm is a right. There is no needs explanation basis needed as it is much a right as breathing oxygen, or having the right to vote.

Myself I am a gun owner. I have made a complete 180 degree turn. In my former life (the past) I was much against ownership of guns. Well time passed, joined the military and was trained extensively on firearms. Needless to say I was much of the very same person you mentioned, in an urban area and I did not hunt. I still do not hunt.

I think you took what I said way out of context and read more into it than what I was saying.

I'm not saying about what is or isn't in the constitution. What I'm saying is that the idea of training young children to use guns in a controlled setting is something that you can generally only get away with in segments of society where you have the ability to use them for "hobby" reasons--such as hunting. People who live in urban settings where those "hobby" uses are not really a viability have a completely different animal to contend with in terms of gun legislation and education and the idea of formally educating children on proper use and safety with firearms would NOT be as well received.

TwinkieDong

Reason number 5,483 to homeschool. Gun safety is a required course in our school. And so is target practice, after the age of 10. And I think hunting will be added next year. My daughters are so excited about that one...

I think THIS ^^^^^^^^^^ should be required for EVERY student in schools. If Sex education and drivers ed, etc. Why not proper gun safety and target practice?

Do we really want to offer gun safety in school? We can't even get sex or drivers ed right.... Not sure that is such a good idea, tbh.

Yes, because it would be a NRA approved instructor. This would reduce accidental deaths and such.

Not in a 'public' school. No NRA allowed.

Actually in Oklahoma after the Sandy Hook tragedy Oklahoma passed a law that teachers can conceal carry in the classroom. These teachers were instructed and taught by NRA certified range officers.

TwinkieDong

Also, my dad and brother made us a take a hunters ed course when we were in elementary school. We didn't use any real firearms, just learned the basics of safety and had a test at the end of the 4 hour class. Would be a great requirement for children, Even if they don't live in a home with a gun, it will teach them to respect guns, know what they can do but not to fear them.

The problem there is that a big part of the viability of that comes from the prospect of using guns for just that--hunting. People who live in urban areas where they would literally have to travel hours away, possibly even crossing state lines, to hunt, can't use that valid argument. It could be argued that there's really no such thing as a "hobby" gun owner in the city.

Well sorry to break it to you. No where in the constitution or amendments does it state a firearm is a hobby or a privilege. This is what our own citizens including some Government does not comprehend. A driver's licence is a privilege not a right. To own a firearm is a right. There is no needs explanation basis needed as it is much a right as breathing oxygen, or having the right to vote.

Myself I am a gun owner. I have made a complete 180 degree turn. In my former life (the past) I was much against ownership of guns. Well time passed, joined the military and was trained extensively on firearms. Needless to say I was much of the very same person you mentioned, in an urban area and I did not hunt. I still do not hunt.

I think you took what I said way out of context and read more into it than what I was saying.

I'm not saying about what is or isn't in the constitution. What I'm saying is that the idea of training young children to use guns in a controlled setting is something that you can generally only get away with in segments of society where you have the ability to use them for "hobby" reasons--such as hunting. People who live in urban settings where those "hobby" uses are not really a viability have a completely different animal to contend with in terms of gun legislation and education and the idea of formally educating children on proper use and safety with firearms would NOT be as well received.

sorry I misunderstood. While I agree with you, it would not be well received I think allot of the ignorance and fears of firearms is because of people are ignorant. I was one of them, and the more I learned about gun safety, maintenance etc the more I respected, liked, and became comfortable with.

However I wasnt bring up this topic to debate guns. I personally thought it was intrusive, abusive, and over the top.

aNewYear123

The constitution may award you rights, but individual institutions can--and often do--force you to waive those rights in order to receive their services. And the closer we come to becoming a corporate run state or a majority run state the more this will be the case.

I would have to agree with this statement. Sad fact.

I have to sadly agree as well.

I partially agree. However I don't think that the majority agree with a lot of what is going on. It is a very vocal minority who manage to have judges on their side and win lawsuits; and the people who run for public office when nobody bothers to check out what type of job they will do - simply checking the Republican or Democrat box rather than voting for the best person.

Most of the people that I know would disagree with a lot of the current behavior by public officials. Take the following example:

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/parent_arrested_for_asking_unscripted_question_at_school_meeting_20130922

Granted the parent didn't follow the rules of the meeting (the charges were ultimately dropped), however he (and other parents interviewed) said that the school board was only answering selected 'softball' questions about the new curriculum rather than the questions people were really concerned about.

contingencyplan

Also, my dad and brother made us a take a hunters ed course when we were in elementary school. We didn't use any real firearms, just learned the basics of safety and had a test at the end of the 4 hour class. Would be a great requirement for children, Even if they don't live in a home with a gun, it will teach them to respect guns, know what they can do but not to fear them.

The problem there is that a big part of the viability of that comes from the prospect of using guns for just that--hunting. People who live in urban areas where they would literally have to travel hours away, possibly even crossing state lines, to hunt, can't use that valid argument. It could be argued that there's really no such thing as a "hobby" gun owner in the city.

Well sorry to break it to you. No where in the constitution or amendments does it state a firearm is a hobby or a privilege. This is what our own citizens including some Government does not comprehend. A driver's licence is a privilege not a right. To own a firearm is a right. There is no needs explanation basis needed as it is much a right as breathing oxygen, or having the right to vote.

Myself I am a gun owner. I have made a complete 180 degree turn. In my former life (the past) I was much against ownership of guns. Well time passed, joined the military and was trained extensively on firearms. Needless to say I was much of the very same person you mentioned, in an urban area and I did not hunt. I still do not hunt.

I think you took what I said way out of context and read more into it than what I was saying.

I'm not saying about what is or isn't in the constitution. What I'm saying is that the idea of training young children to use guns in a controlled setting is something that you can generally only get away with in segments of society where you have the ability to use them for "hobby" reasons--such as hunting. People who live in urban settings where those "hobby" uses are not really a viability have a completely different animal to contend with in terms of gun legislation and education and the idea of formally educating children on proper use and safety with firearms would NOT be as well received.

sorry I misunderstood. While I agree with you, it would not be well received I think allot of the ignorance and fears of firearms is because of people are ignorant. I was one of them, and the more I learned about gun safety, maintenance etc the more I respected, liked, and became comfortable with.

However I wasnt bring up this topic to debate guns. I personally thought it was intrusive, abusive, and over the top.

I can agree with that. However the school has a policy which the parents agreed to when they signed on the dotted line. Which is the problem.

People of today are being backed into situations by corporations and/or by the moral majority to effectively waive their legal rights to be a part of society. Sign on the dotted line to receive our services, or to have your children receive our services. Of course what you're agreeing to by signing is that you are waiving your rights.