Nothing FANATICAL About anti-Bill of Rights Repressionists, right??

Forums: Free Speech, Anti-Authoritarianism, Politics, U S Constitution
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In years past, zero-tolerance weapons policies in overzealous school districts
have ensnared students for "weapons" such as a Cub Scout camping utensil,
a 2-inch Lego toy gun and even a misappropriated chicken finger,
but last week, Grand Island Public Schools officials in Grand Island, Neb.
went for the record in zero-tolerance hysteria when they sought
to bar a three-year-old deaf student from using his name.

The student is Hunter Spanjer, who communicates using a modified
version of American Sign Language called Signing Exact English or
S.E.E., which is often used with young children to help bolster their
English skills. The registered S.E.E. sign for Hunter's name is the
forefinger and middle fingers crossed and extended, slightly
resembling the ASL sign for gun, or a finger gun children might
make during a game of cops and robbers.

Hunter's parents were told by school administrators that the name
sign would need to be changed, as it violated the school's weapons
policy that forbids students "to knowingly and voluntarily possess,
handle, transmit or use any instrument in school, on school grounds
or at school functions that is a firearm, weapon, or looks like a
weapon." Further, Grand Island Public Schools Marketing and
Communication Coordinator Jack Sheard told the New York Daily
News that the sign was "not an appropriate thing to do in school."

After taking their story to the local media, the Spanjers have received
a nationwide outpouring of support. Thousands have taken to Facebook
and online petition sites to register their disgust, and hundreds of
others have contacted the school district by phone and email.

Additionally, the National Association of the Deaf came to Hunter's defense,
stating, "The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) condemns the
actions of Grand Island Public School in Nebraska to require that a
3-year-old deaf boy change the way he signs his name. The NAD is
prepared to assist the family in responding to Grand Island Public
Schools including through legal action." The NAD press release added,
"The NAD is not aware of any other schools that have banned a name sign;
Grand Island Public Schools is likely the first to ever to do so."
The ACLU has also made clear its disapproval, raising questions
about whether the school district's decision violates Hunter's right
to practice his chosen form of speech.

Following the public outcry and threats of legal action, the school
system appears to be backing away from its original position.
In response to a media request, the school district stated, "Grand Island
Public Schools is not requiring any current student with a hearing
impairment to change his or her sign language name."

Hopefully this issue will be resolved so that Hunter can keep signing
his name and the taxpayers of Grand Island are spared the expense
of defending a mindless overreaction.

[All emfasis has been added by David.]

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,826 • Replies: 14

[+3] - engineer - 08/31/2012These efforts around the country are not aimed at voter integrity, they are aimed at voter suppression. Voting is as sacred a right as gun ownership. You clearly do not feel that gun ownership...

@OmSigDAVID,

I don't understand your persistent outrage about this contrasted to your consistent support of voter suppression efforts. How do you choose what parts of the Constitution you support and what parts you allow to be trampled?

2 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I don't understand your persistent outrage about this contrasted to your consistent support of voter suppression efforts.
How do you choose what parts of the Constitution you support and what parts you allow to be trampled?

Your question is falsely predicated.
Requiring voters' pictures on their voter id. cards is perfectly OK.
Their is nothing rong with that, as there is nothing rong with requiring
those pictures on their driver's licenses or on their gun licenses,
the LATTER, being much more important in that thay relate
to emergency equipment to keep the bearer ALIVE, which a voting card does not.

IF having pictures put on their voters' id. cards is so horribly burdensome,
then where were the shrieks of anguish & of excruciating pain
when we had to get our pictures on our gun licenses???????????

Will u explain THAT to me ????????
Gun possession is literally a question of LIFE or death, whereas voter id cards are not.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

These efforts around the country are not aimed at voter integrity, they are aimed at voter suppression. Voting is as sacred a right as gun ownership. You clearly do not feel that gun ownership suppression in any way, no matter how small and no matter the reason should be tolerated so why to you champion voter suppression? Why would you tolerate even "reasonable" (as defined by Republicans) obstructions to the right to vote when you dismiss "reasonable" (as defined by others) restrictions to gun ownership? It seems a true Constitutionalist would be as adamant in defending one as the other.

3 Replies

@engineer,

I already asked him that, and he stuck his fingers in his ears and blew raspberries at me.

consistency is not one of dave's virtues, I'm afraid...

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I don't understand your persistent outrage about this contrasted to your consistent support of voter suppression efforts. How do you choose what parts of the Constitution you support and what parts you allow to be trampled?

I assume you are referring to Republican efforts to prevent people from cheating in elections.

The only voters who are suppressed by such efforts are those who try to vote when they have no right to do so, or those who try to vote multiple times in the same election.

I find no violation of the Constitution in the suppression of such fraudulent votes.

As far as suppressing legitimate voters, I have first hand experience (the 2008 Michigan Presidential Primary) that says that it is the Democratic Party who goes around disenfranchising legitimate voters.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

These efforts around the country are not aimed at voter integrity, they are aimed at voter suppression.

That is incorrect. The goal is to prevent Democrats from cheating in elections.

engineer wrote:

Voting is as sacred a right as gun ownership.

The Democratic Party doesn't think the right to vote is particularly sacred. They run around violating it every chance they get.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

These efforts around the country are not aimed at voter integrity,
they are aimed at voter suppression.

That statement is FALSE and of no value.

engineer wrote:

Voting is as sacred [Jesus said to buy a sword, if u don't have one. Luke 22:36] a right as gun ownership.

That allegation of yours is also FALSE. The right to defend your life from predatory violence
is far, far more important (or sacred, as u say [1O Commandments])
than merely voting in an election, and no one has any right to vote
without first REGISTERING; anti-fraud fotografy shud be included in the Registration Process,
the same as it is qua gun licenses, or qua driver's licenses.
Please tell us what the Bible says about the sacredness
of VOTING REGISTRATION!??

engineer wrote:

You clearly do not feel that gun ownership suppression in any way,
no matter how small and no matter the reason

The right to bear arms in defense of life & property was explicitly put beyond the reach of any jurisdiction
of government; not so qua Registration & fotografy against voting fraud.
There is NO Constitutional Right against being subjected to anti-fraud Registration.

I TOLD U! Your question is FALSELY PREDICATED.
Registration is not voter suppression.

engineer wrote:

should be tolerated so why to you champion voter suppression?

The purpose of an election is to discriminate between winners n losers.
The result shud suppress more Democratic voter fraud.

engineer wrote:

Why would you tolerate even "reasonable" (as defined by Republicans) obstructions to the right to vote
when you dismiss "reasonable" (as defined by others) restrictions to gun ownership?

Anti-fraud fotografy is the CORRECT Registration procedure; shud take fingerprints too.
I did not use the word: "reasonable". That 's your word.

engineer wrote:

It seems a true Constitutionalist would be as adamant in defending one as the other.

NO! Not at all; U have merely HALLUCINATED
a Constitutional right to cast multiple fraudulent Democratic votes.

Your post sounds like u r panicking.

David

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

I already asked him that, and he stuck his fingers in his ears and blew raspberries at me.

consistency is not one of dave's virtues, I'm afraid...

That 's a LIE!

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

following for later read s as the thread will undoubredly grow.

DAve has always been a "Constitutional Segmentist".

The immorlity of free brndishment of guns as countenanced by the Constitution is similar to the way slavery was first handled. Slavery was legal under the original Constitution, it took some national trauma and redrafting to end it. I suppose that anarchistic gun ownerhip will have to be "evolved away" in the same fashion.
As it stands, many legislators are in the pockets of gun manufacturers and their lobby, the NRA.

We are killing each other to death out there and Dave and his minions sit around with their thumbs up their asses countenancing this constututionally supported evil

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

following for later read s as the thread will undoubredly grow.

DAve has always been a "Constitutional Segmentist".

What 's that ??

farmerman wrote:

The immorlity of free brndishment of guns as countenanced by the Constitution is similar to the way slavery was first handled. Slavery was legal under the original Constitution, it took some national trauma and redrafting to end it. I suppose that anarchistic gun ownerhip will have to be "evolved away" in the same fashion.

I recognize your right to SUPPOSE, even tho that is not demonstrably in the Bill of Rights, nor in the Constitution of 1787.

farmerman wrote:

As it stands, many legislators are in the pockets of gun manufacturers and their lobby, the NRA.

That is an irrational remark, which is un-related to factual reality.
The entire American Gun Industry is smaller than Toys R Us.

farmerman wrote:

We are killing each other to death out there and Dave and his minions sit around with their thumbs up their asses countenancing this constututionally supported evil

The farmer implies that this was not so ` B4 guns were invented.
He suggests that, in ancient times, all the murderers were just WAITING around
for guns to be invented, pacing back n forth, forth & back. (Julius Caesar remains alive, along with Goliath.)

Sovereignty is in nothing so LOW & foul as a government; it inheres in the Individual citizen.

David

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The immorlity of free brndishment of guns as countenanced by the Constitution is similar to the way slavery was first handled. Slavery was legal under the original Constitution, it took some national trauma and redrafting to end it. I suppose that anarchistic gun ownerhip will have to be "evolved away" in the same fashion.

The carrying of guns for self defense is neither "free brandishment" nor "anarchistic". The same also for militiamen keeping military weapons in their homes.

Ending slavery was the granting of freedom. It is not a good model for a hypothetical effort to revoke freedom.

The only time the Constitution has ever been amended to remove freedom (Prohibition), is also the only time an amendment to the Constitution was later repealed.

America won't be giving up our freedom. The Second Amendment will still be law at the end of time.

farmerman wrote:

As it stands, many legislators are in the pockets of gun manufacturers and their lobby, the NRA.

The NRA is not controlled by the gun manufacturers. Rather, the gun manufacturers try to suck up to us so we don't boycott them into bankruptcy.

The legislators are not so much in our pocket as they are terrified that we will vote them out of office if they cross us.

farmerman wrote:

We are killing each other to death out there

Gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

farmerman wrote:

and Dave and his minions sit around with their thumbs up their asses countenancing this constututionally supported evil

Freedom is not evil. Freedom is good.

0 Replies

Too bad you restrict your rant about the loss of freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights only to the 2nd.

Nothing about the demands of some modern evangelists weirding claims that the US is a Xtian nation and that the practice of Islam should be outlawed, Nothing about the modern claim that all citizens should prove their innocence against a claim of supposed drug use by peeing in a bottle, Nothing about the government seizing property without full process of law---no these rights don't involve anything that is remotely associated with armed bears.

Sorry bub, but your fanatism about Bill of Rights expression is much much too limited! You've forgotten that there are 10, not one.

Rap

1 Reply

@raprap,

raprap wrote:

Too bad you restrict your rant about the loss of freedoms
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights only to the 2nd.

U post as if u knew me, but u don 't.

raprap wrote:

Nothing about the demands of some modern evangelists weirding claims
that the US is a Xtian nation and that the practice of Islam should be outlawed,

U 'd have me attack their 1st Amendment rights ???????
I disagree with what u posted, but I seldom or never
complain qua citizens' "demands".

raprap wrote:

Nothing about the modern claim that all citizens should prove their innocence
against a claim of supposed drug use by peeing in a bottle,

I have posted JURISDICTIONAL attacks against the War on Drugs. I remain a pacifist in that war.
I defend any citizen 's right to engage in SELF-destructive conduct,
including the right to ingest poison ( tho I abstain therefrom personally ).

raprap wrote:

Nothing about the government seizing property without full process of law

No. I HAVE posted against DEA pirates grabbing ships or boats.

raprap wrote:

---no these rights don't involve anything that is remotely associated with armed bears.

Contrary to your false representations of my position,
I have posted in support of those different freedoms.

raprap wrote:

Sorry bub, but your fanatism about Bill of Rights expression is much much too limited!
You've forgotten that there are 10, not one.

Rap

BALONEY !
Your allegations r factually un-justified.

David

0 Replies

IF it had been up to ME,
I 'd have made it shorter, easier & more to the point, to wit:
no citizen shall be held to answer in any forum, for his or her
possession of defensive personal weapons, in private or in public.

Such possession shall remain beyond the reach of the jurisdiction of any government,
nor shall guns nor ammunition be subject to any taxation, nor to any control nor to any influence
(however great or slight) of any government, be it local, state, federal or international.

Each citizen shall remain fully immune from the interference
of any government whatsoever, concerning his or her bearing of loaded guns or bladed weapons.

David

0 Replies

Nothing FANATICAL About anti-Bill of Rights Repressionists, right??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know