Jawohl!
ALLES IN ORDNUNG!
This was not Naziism -- it is following the rules or the law. In America, if we instituted a law or rule that is not satisfactory or commonly agreed, we change it. Ignoring or disobeying the rules or the law, or flouting it, is lawlessness. In my Bible, it is the word "Sin."
Deliberately, or unintentionally, the boy disobeyed the rule, hence the penalty: (1) partly to fix the rule in his mind; (2) partly to emphasize the rule in the minds of other students, their parents, and the staff; and (3) demonstrating the cost that to make rules stick, the consequence must be at least a bit more expensive than the cost of consequences from the unacceptable activity.
The boy expected that revealing his culpability, he must pay the cost. That is a golden demonstration of integrity, which the lack of the penalty negates his integrity.
You are coaching others to disregard the rule of law in American life and call insistence upon it Naziism?
I reject your approach.
If you don't like the law, change it if you can, but obey it if you can't.
That is Scriptural.
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king as supreme; or unto governors as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise if them that do well, for such is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, anf not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God." (1 Peter 2:13-16)
You mean, somehow the boy "forgot" he had the gun? You want me to "forget" that I am carrying a concealed deadly weapon (and have a license to do so)(and I do)(and I'm getting ready to go to church in a few moments, where my pastor also carries)(but not to a Post Office, the VA, or a public school, for instance)?
Take your mindset back to Obama, who forgets who he is, and lies.
Sorry, I can't respect your reply to this article.
Whoa, hold it. You're starting with a bad premise: that this 'rule' is legitimate.
Here in America we have Constitutions which are the supreme laws of the jurisdiction to which they apply (US Constitution for federal government, State Constitution for state government).
So let's see what the State's Constitution says:
ARTICLE I, SECTION I, Paragraph VIII. -- Arms, right to keep and bear.So, the state cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms, and by claiming the pellet-gun was a 'gun' they are admitting that it is a weapon and therefore arms.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.
Further, the federal constitution says:
Amendment IIThere is a lot of smoke, lies and misdirection about this amendment, mostly because it's very simple and following the simplicity would erode a big chunk of power the government has amassed for itself, in short: the government may not restrict people from owning, storing, or using weapons. (The results of using weapons is different because it's the action that's punished; i.e. using a weapon doesn't make murder, manslaughter, etc worse.)
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.
Lastly, let us turn to the Supreme Court to see what they have said on the issue:
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)
This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.
So then, your entire argument is null and void because the very law wherein he is accused prohibits that very accusation from being legitimate.
While one of these days you will find yourself at the edge of an open mass grave staring down at dozens if not hundreds of corpses wondering how you got there just before a single pistol shot to the back of your head rings out.
The apparatchiks of the state are not your friend ,the open mass grave that is the history of the 20th century prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
As your reply was both thoughtful and detailed, I shall attempt to reply with both thought and detail.
I posted the following: “He absolutely did the right thing by reporting it immediately. But a rule was still broken: A gun was brought to school. And there are mandatory consequences for that,”
Jawohl!
ALLES IN ORDNUNG!”
You seem to have conflated Prussian militaristic behavior with the Third Reich. It is a very common mistake, However, the Prussians would have despised the Nazis.
Next, your: “This was not Naziism — it is following the rules or the law. In America, if we instituted a law or rule that is not satisfactory or commonly agreed, we change it. Ignoring or disobeying the rules or the law, or flouting it, is lawlessness. In my Bible, it is the word “Sin.”
Law, unless that of a totalitarian state, is tempered with “judgment”. “Es La Ley” (Spanish for “It’s the law”) has been the excuse for some of history’s scoundrels. Worse, I would like to suggest is that you seem to have overlooked the American tradition of rejection of legal perfectionism Legal perfectionism is the theory that law must treat all alike under the same circumstances. It was a theory when the Greek City States were home to their ancient philosophers. Said philosophers rejected legal perfectionism as impossible. Why - because the Greek City/State was too large for mere Man to write laws capable of fairness for all. Thus the 40,000 voting citizens agreed with their leading intellectuals that human judgment was essential.
That judgment was to be exercised by the Pooblik Skruel Collective employees - instead, judgment was replaced by a edumacator blabbering platitudes.
As for your application of “sin” in this case, perhaps thou standeth on thin ice. Consider that sin requires knowledge of doing wrong and willingly so doing. Lawyers call this “Mens Rea”. I suggest that mere forgetfulness does not rise to the level of either “sin” or “mens rea”.
As for your recitation of Liberal education ‘principles’, if I may be forgive using such a word to describe the usually principle-deficient acts of edumacators in the Collective, fixing the rule smacks of “brain washing, wouldn’t you agree? Remembering a rule is one thing, making blind acceptance of it the habit of tyrants.
Emphasis is one thing, but since you used the abuses of the Third Reich, isn’t what the edumacator response was relative to the “offense’ and the student attempt to do the right thing - somehow doesn’t that excess remind you of how the Nazi’s executed 100 of the nearest villagers in the case of a partisan killing a Nazi solder? Technically, I am trying to raise the issue of disproportionate response.
“demonstrating the cost that to make rules stick, the consequence must be at least a bit more expensive than the cost of consequences from the unacceptable activity.”
If you meant “the cost of the consequences must be more expensive than the cost of the consequences, I am puzzled by this redundancy which seemingly you found significant.
“You are coaching others to disregard the rule of law in American life and call insistence upon it Naziism?”
What you claim I wrote is only what you wanted to read into it. Law is to be followed by teh citizen, and executed by teh courts, with judgment. I objected to the rigid and judgment averse behavior of the minor level mind in a tax payer supported position. Rather than concern with what was best for the student, Mr/MS/It Edumacator merely cowered behind the most restrictive view and penalized, Penalized, Penalized!!! what was clearly a case with little to no mens rea. Typical edumacator behavior, unless the offense is aprt of the Pooblik Skruel Collective Agenda. Had the student been caught ‘fisting’ on campus after a “sex ed” class one can’t help thing that such a student would be “counseled” rather than penalized.
Such is the edumacator mentality in all too many of America’s public schools.
Back to your post. Regarding theological demands for submission to the King, Are you familiar with teh thought that Americans are unique in the world in that we consider ourselves “sovereign citizens” and that we are the beneficiaries of rejection of the Medieval iron fisted rule of Church and King?
We do expect to judge the facts, the laws, and their application. That is our right, and the concept of the Jury being the final authority in the court is based upon the American concept of the supremacy of a jury of sovereign citizens exercising their judgment.
Blind submission to law is not the American way.
Whpooer toime, Good Sir. You posted:
“You mean, somehow the boy “forgot” he had the gun?
Could well be - many responsible adults have.
“You want me to “forget” that I am carrying a concealed deadly weapon (and have a license to do so)(and I do)(and I’m getting ready to go to church in a few moments, where my pastor also carries)(but not to a Post Office, the VA, or a public school, for instance)?
I would hope a fellow FReeper would not forget Concealed Carry regs, but should you so do, I also hope (and expect) the authorities would remember the issue of intent and not mindlessly penalize you for being human and forgetting.
” Take your mindset back to Obama, who forgets who he is, and lies.
Sorry, I can’t respect your reply to this article.”
Might I inquire as to what is the reason for such seemingly deeply felt animosity?
Are you perhaps a public school employee? If so, please remember that a primary rule of all polite discourse is that present company is always excepted from the discussion. This is particularly necessary in FR discussions regarding education as I am aware that some very conservative, even strict construction advocate FR members are employees of the Pooblik Skruewl Collective.
Nothing I post in this thread was meant personally.
Lastly, I come from a family of educators, was once a Liberal in my 20’s, and am now somewhat beyond my 40’s. And I did read Churchill, the education community has read my papers, and while I reread Churchill and left Liberals, educators read my papers (tripped over truth) and also did as Churchill predicted - got up and proceeded on with no change in behavior.
So, in regards to your suggestion regarding my return to Liberalism:
1. I can’t (they won’t have me). ;-) ;-) ;-)
2. I won’t (there are things no gentleman ever does).
Sorry.