Me and my Gun

foxnews.com ^ | Tuesday, November 16, 2004 | foxnews.com

[crushelits]

Student Sues to Pose With Gun in Yearbook
CONCORD, N.H. — Where other students might pose for their senior yearbook photo with
tennis rackets or favorite cars, Blake Douglass (search) wants to be seen with his shotgun.

The 17-year-old senior filed a federal lawsuit to force Londonderry High School (search) to allow the photo and give up the policy school officials used to reject it.

"What they’re doing is basically discriminating based on content or message," said Penny Dean (search), Douglass’ lawyer and a specialist in gun cases. "You can’t do that. You might want to but you can’t — and especially you can’t with a broad policy like this."

"We want the picture in the yearbook," said Dean said after filing the lawsuit Monday in U.S. District Court.

The lawsuit seeks a temporary injunction so the picture can appear in the yearbook and a permanent injunction against the "pick-and-choose policy" of what photographs are published, Dean said.

The lawsuit names the Londonderry school board members, high school principal, school superintendent, town manager and school officials involved in the production of the yearbook.

An avid hunter and trap and skeet shooter, Douglass said he decided long ago on his senior photo — an outdoor shot in a sportsman’s pose, wearing a shooting vest and holding his broke-open shotgun over his shoulder.

continues...

[Protagoras]

Absolutely, but since they've enshrined sodomy, flag burning and abortion as rights, why not include year book photo's as well?

It doesn't matter if they enshrine things or not, they do not create rights when the "enshrine" them.

Sodomy is a disgusting act and a sin, but it does not violate rights, therefore it is between God and the sodomist. Flag burning is certainly a right, albeit an insult to many people. Abortion is murder, it violates rights, it is not a right.

Further, playing into the hands of those you oppose is a bad strategy. You concede their point when you bargain their ability to create rights out of whole cloth against yours. Not to mention that if you are going to defend rights, you would be better served to defend the legitimate ones we have which are currently being usurped or on the way to being usurped.

[Meldrim]

"Flag burning is certainly a right, albeit an insult to many people."

Bob Bork and Bill Rhenquist would disagree with you. We can safely assume Sam Adams and James Madison would laugh at the idea as well.

On the other hand, Ruthbadgirlginsberg, Steve Breyer, Dave Souter--and probably his boyfriend-- would be on your side.

I'll take the judgement of the former group over the latter. The fighting words doctrine worked fine up until 1986. There was and is no need to revise it.

[Protagoras]

Bob Bork and Bill Rhenquist would disagree with you.

Keep in mind, who cares? They don't grant rights. But nice try.

We can safely assume Sam Adams and James Madison would laugh at the idea as well.

No we can't. And it doesn't matter either, just so ya know.

On the other hand, Ruthbadgirlginsberg, Steve Breyer, Dave Souter--and probably his boyfriend-- would be on your side.

Oh, so some agree but others don't? And you think these people are wrong and others are right just because you think so? And then throw in a personal reference in lieu of anything bright to say. LOL, funny stuff.

I'll take the judgement of the former group over the latter.

And who cares who's judgement you take?

"There is all the difference in the world between defending the right to desecrate the flag and defending flag desecration itself. It is the the difference between a free society and an unfree society." ...... Roger Pilon

[Meldrim]

"Keep in mind, who cares? They don't grant rights. But nice try'

I care, primarily because unlike yourself, Bork and Rhenquist are credible legal scholars and recognized as strict constructionists. Yourself?

They are correct to dismiss the Flag Burning decision as not germane to the First Amendment. I've read extensively about Sam Adams (a relative) to know if he ever was concerned with "rights" such as flag burning, it was never noted historically. Perhaps you can point out an instance where this was so?

As regards the 3Libs, yes their collective and regularly occuring bad judgement and pointed disregard for original intent are reflected in their support for this. Yes some agree (mostly the strict constructionists), others don't (primarily those who legislate their beliefs). While nobody grants rights, some folks create them where none exist.

As for Dave Souter's boyfriend, I'm sure he'd side with Dave. Once you are in Public Office, there is no personal.

[Navy Patriot]

Lawsuit GOOD news.

[Protagoras]

Nice try. All nonsense. Many, many legal scholars disagree with your two examples. And forget the past nonsense, you haven't a clue on what they thought. If Sam Adams, your alleged relative, who never rose to any position of authority concerning the constitution, thought that there should be a prohibition against flag burning, it was never noted historically. Perhaps you can point out an instance where this was so?

As regards the 3Libs,

You brought them up to change the subject, not me. Then you started the liberal tactic of attacking one of them for personal reasons. David Souters sexuality is as irrelevant as yours. Small minds talk about people, bright minds talk about ideas.

The first amendment concerns political speech. The kind people engage in when they burn the flag. None of your rights are violated if someone burns the flag.

[Meldrim]

You're known by the company you keep. Regards to Ruth Bader, Dave and his Boyfriend. I'm off to train some small arms training for some men who'll be deploying soon...see you there? Stay well.

[Protagoras]

I don't keep company with anyone in this debate, philosophically or otherwise. And anyone as emotionally childish as you should never be training anyone.

Some people do the training and others do the real fighting. Go train.

[Meldrim]

Ah, but you do keep company with all of the above--- Protagoras. You're quick to dismiss others as childish when you can't cope with the point at hand. Your arguments are precisely those posed by Souter and Ginsberg...and really few else prior to the 1980's. You know that. It is the same creative nonsense used to wipe out prayers at high school graduations, a decision as you'll recall that was handed down the same week.

Now as for my current occupation, I've had 60+ months in hazardous fire areas, 37 months at the last whack. I am working a MK19 Training Module because I was operating one recently overseas and I'm familiar with using them in an indirect fire mode...Should I return? I'll let you go first...

Regarding training unit personnel, some do the training and others the fighting? Has that been your experience? All of my instructors had CIB's, Ranger Tabs, Senior Parachutist wings, etc. Do you remember when the Rangers had to sit out Gulf War I because they were training the National Guard Brigades from Georgia and Louisiana? Most of SWC at FBNC was similarly occupied. Should we have demeaned their training efforts in the style of your last post? You've never mentioned any service yourself, and in my experience, some very good units are left behind to train. I guess you have not seen that? Usually training the troops is reserved for folks who've served in line units. The folks at the Ranger School, the Airborne School, Twenty Nine Palms, the Amphib School and Fort Irwin come to mind. Not easy duty, but perhaps not nearly as tough as the kind you've seen?

My general impression of you was of a guy who was glad to see the other guy off to service, while you stayed stateside. Were there any service in uniform, you'd have worked it into the conversation along with your stellar financial background. You should not delve into areas where your experience is limited. Hurry and make some up for your next witty retort!

Regards to Ruth, Steve, Dave, Dave's boyfriend and your barkeep. Tip'em well. Dave's boyfriend may be looking for something more.

[Protagoras]

Another rambling post about nothing.

If Souter and Ginsberg came to the proper conclusion about the right to political speech, good for them, it's about time.

Your general impressions about me, as well as other things, are goofy and off topic. You haven't a clue about me and you never will. (and normal soldiers do their duty and don't dwell on it, it's just those for whom it is the only important thing they have done that play it up so large in their own minds)