School tells Missouri boy his 9/11 souvenir violates school weapons policy

Fox News | Sep 19, 2014

[Lazamataz]

As for the rest of your post, I’m grateful to be here, but Jim can pull my membership any time I go over the line

This account has been banned or suspended. Okay

[Lazamataz]

We also live in a world where crazy nuts shoot up schools and irresponsible parents let their kids carry all kinds of dangerous things to school. That’s where these “pantywaist” policies come from.

There's a reason you're unemployed. It has nothing to do with H1B's. It has to do with the fact that you are a blithering moron.

You are so far gone, it is pointless to unravel your above.

[MeganC]

What you say is true but the issue with the spent shell casing itself is not a matter of the 2nd Amendment. I can see 1st and 4th Amendment issues here but where the shell casing itself is harmless then the object is equal to any other harmless object. Then the question is best considered by determining what purpose is accomplished in punishing a child for possessing a demonstrably harmless object.

That purpose being to advance a political narrative on the part of the school.

Therefore the child’s freedom of speech and right to be secure in his possessions have been violated. But his 2nd Amendment rights have not been violated as it is generally accepted by the courts that children do not hold such rights.

[Hulka]

It is a Second Amendment issue as I explained. Part of an agenda.

[Klemper]

Well I’ll be! Corned Beef Hash had the same opening mechanism! Guaranteed to slice open a finger after hand fatigue starts to set in!

[lacrew]

My memory of the typical chain of events - halfway through, the key would break, and then you were left trying to pry open a half open can.

Which usually cut your finger.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

My son was/is a Marine...I gave one to him...he immediately knew it as a ‘P-38’.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Imagine how little that would have meant to somebody like George Washington, John Adams, or Patrick Henry."

Belated reply: I can't resurrect them to ask them their opinion (of course, photographic technology would first need to be explained to them), but for about 200 years the 1st Amendment was almost universally NOT considered to protect vulgar or obscene speech or images; it was considered to protect political speech and criticism of the government and/or elected officials. I therefore feel pretty certain that the Founding Fathers would not consider it a constitutional right to take photographs up women's skirts.

[Houmatt]

AAH! I yelped when I saw you brought Overly Attached Girlfriend to the party! I love it!

[Col Freeper]

LOL, yea, She’s definitely the one to send Zottees on their way on down the road (or to warn Blog Pimps).

[Clintonfatigued]

But it would be OK if the boy wore a dress or brought a sex toy in to school. It’s mind-boggling.