• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

My son took a gun to school yesterday...

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

BabyGlock wrote:
Let me set the record straight....

I never said men can not teach children..,

I obviously struck a major nerve...

I apologize if the response to your posts has been less supportive than you might have hoped. Perhaps coming at someone you have never met and know nothing about, out of the blue, and calling them names might have had something to do with the reaction you got. I don't wish to discourage you from posting, but if you attack, you will have to expect people to defend.

I don't expect to change your opinions on this issue, and you certainly are not going to move me closer to yours. But as far as a man staying home to school the kids, and "Letting the wife work" as you put it.You might want to consider that it is possible in THIS century for a woman to have a better paying job than her husband. Maybe she went to college and he didn't or whatever. A lot of things might cause that. Neither you nor I know the life conditions of the Original poster, but he asked for advice.

So lets see. We will have the office managerquit her$60,000 a year job and stay home so the husband can keep his $40,000 a year job as a mechanic at the local Chevy dealer. Why would we do that? Because with any other arrangement someone might view the husband as a "metrosexual" wimp who can't control his wife?

I suppose a man should not let his wife carry a firearm either. After all it is the MANS place to protect the wife and children, and if he lets her protect herself or the kids he is letting her wear the pants in the family. That is logically where we wind up following the concepts in your posts.

While you are getting a clue, you might consider that a MAN does what he must to take care of his family. Sometime that might include letting the person who can bring in the most resources do that.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Squid13 wrote:
Slayer of Paper wrote:
marshaul wrote:
Does that mean my personal hero Thomas Jefferson possessed a divinely inspired mental disorder? :lol:

You know, him having been a liberal and all... :quirky
Those who use the term "liberal" in a derisive manner don't know what it actually means, they just know what they have been told it means: the current cultural meaning of it: (aka, "neo-liberal").

They never will either, unless they are educated. I will give them a hint to start: the root-word basis for "liberal" is "liberty" (or both words are based in the same root word, if you want to get really technical).

+1!!!

I hate hearing liberal used as a four letter word. My views for the most part are way left. The far left end of the political spectrum is a total lack of government, and thus total individual freedom. Nowdays, and on this board, people use liberal to imply a government that takes away all of our individual rights. Though that may be how the modern American liberal leans, it isn't indicative of the origins of the word.
+1 to both of you. Exactly right.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Babyglock 2 wrote:
That is why the term, "partnership" is commonly found in liberal relationships, where the man is emasculated.
This is particularly hilarious.

I guess that implies Jefferson was also a metrosexual! :lol:
 

BabyGlock

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
26
Location
Ashland (I delete what my friend wrote), Oregon, U
imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:
BabyGlock wrote:
Let me set the record straight....

I never said men can not teach children..,

I obviously struck a major nerve...

I apologize if the response to your posts has been less supportive than you might have hoped. Perhaps coming at someone you have never met and know nothing about, out of the blue, and calling them names might have had something to do with the reaction you got. I don't wish to discourage you from posting, but if you attack, you will have to expect people to defend.

I don't expect to change your opinions on this issue, and you certainly are not going to move me closer to yours. But as far as a man staying home to school the kids, and "Letting the wife work" as you put it.You might want to consider that it is possible in THIS century for a woman to have a better paying job than her husband. Maybe she went to college and he didn't or whatever. A lot of things might cause that. Neither you nor I know the life conditions of the Original poster, but he asked for advice.

So lets see. We will have the office managerquit her$60,000 a year job and stay home so the husband can keep his $40,000 a year job as a mechanic at the local Chevy dealer. Why would we do that? Because with any other arrangement someone might view the husband as a "metrosexual" wimp who can't control his wife?

I suppose a man should not let his wife carry a firearm either. After all it is the MANS place to protect the wife and children, and if he lets her protect herself or the kids he is letting her wear the pants in the family. That is logically where we wind up following the concepts in your posts.

While you are getting a clue, you might consider that a MAN does what he must to take care of his family. Sometime that might include letting the person who can bring in the most resources do that.
May we call a truce? Take the most offensive language and toss it in the trash and then we will be friends. Ok?
babyglock
 

cynicist

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
506
Location
Yakima County, ,
imported post

Don't take this wrong, but all he got was a letter home?
When I was in school, during the Columbine era, I remember those stories of GI Joe guns, pictures of guns, tshirts with guns, CD artwork with guns (in my case Green Day's Kerplunk) or anything that insinuated a gun was an automatic "emergency expulsion."
 

oilfieldtrash11

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
155
Location
Woodland, California, USA
imported post

im only 21 and we were playing with cap guns at school, sure it was a private school (the worse than CA public schools, private school), but still. and we had a history week and made fake rifles that looked extremely close to a break action 12 gauge. its not the kids that play with toy guns at school that end up using real ones to shoot people, its the kids that watched people play cops and robbers or whatever at school. its really a shame what this world has come to, i feel bad for the kids in school nowadays.
 

.40 Cal

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
1,379
Location
COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
imported post

cynicist wrote:
Don't take this wrong, but all he got was a letter home?
When I was in school, during the Columbine era, I remember those stories of GI Joe guns, pictures of guns, tshirts with guns, CD artwork with guns (in my case Green Day's Kerplunk) or anything that insinuated a gun was an automatic "emergency expulsion."
I guesslosing $300 a month for three days a week is not something they are ready to do.
 

SteveInAshand

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
267
Location
Ass-land (Ashland) OR, , USA
imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:
marshaul wrote:
Does that mean my personal hero Thomas Jefferson possessed a divinely inspired mental disorder? :lol:

You know, him having been a liberal and all... :quirky
Those who use the term "liberal" in a derisive manner don't know what it actually means, they just know what they have been told it means: the current cultural meaning of it: (aka, "neo-liberal").

They never will either, unless they are educated. I will give them a hint to start: the root-word basis for "liberal" is "liberty" (or both words are based in the same root word, if you want to get really technical).
LIBERAL: Hellooooooo wake up Rumpelstiltskin , Rumpol of the Baily take off your wig party cloak and jump into the "now" lol.

I am speaking of liberal in the modern context not the early American or old Anglo Saxon.

( my version of Shakespeare): "Old pooch doth lay and toil not under arms of my own voliton but dream a dream of flaxen fields and fox, faux jumping paws running twitter & twitch but tarry spot not.

New tricks not learned nor commands never heard ; let old dogs lay.

Let them lay for they not want to learn nor is there real deed in there heels, as masters words pass as a fox back tracked as not seen, alas i am want for a new new hound to hunt and hear the clarion call of the present moment.
 

SteveInAshand

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
267
Location
Ass-land (Ashland) OR, , USA
imported post

Aran wrote:
Aww, poor gay baby.
Arian, ( You left out the "i" in Your name dude )

Sorry I used such hi falootin words there bubba, what with bill shakspere and all.

I was thinkin yal was a select fire, perhaps a semi auto thinker at least perhaps yal had a double action intellect, sorry I over gunned you there pardner.

Keep scratching the flint pal maybe one day you can get that muskatoon of a brain to burn and shoot back few salient words of wisdom or perhaps even something funny

Heil __________ <---- insert your favorite national socialist
 

Aran

Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
674
Location
Indiana, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

How cute, you edited out what I replied to, to try and make me look stupid.

Fortunately, it was you posting, so you just spewed some crazy.


And I hate to break it to you, but I have no interest in Christian theology, but I THINK what you were going for was "Aryan," with a Y.
 

SteveInAshand

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
267
Location
Ass-land (Ashland) OR, , USA
imported post

Aran wrote:
How cute, you edited out what I replied to, to try and make me look stupid.

Fortunately, it was you posting, so you just spewed some crazy.


And I hate to break it to you, but I have no interest in Christian theology, but I THINK what you were going for was "Aryan," with a Y.
;)
 

dukenukum

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
270
Location
Lansing, Michigan, USA
imported post

This really nothing new around here . when I was young my father enrolled me in the NRA junior shooting program as I excelled and earned more patches I started wearing them to school . One Communist teacher I had decided my first amendment rights were hers to dictate and I was forbidden from that bit of attire until my dad " talked " to the principle ( seems they were in the same Army unit ) .
The teacher got told real quick the school board could not afford a first amendment lawsuit because of her stupidity . that was in the late 70's
 

darthmord

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
998
Location
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
imported post

The little bit of prying we've had from the school as of late has been annoying but as we told them... 'What we do with our children after school hours or on days where school is NOT in session is none of your concern.'

The schools don't like being told to GTFO but that's just how it is.

Unfortunately, I've also had to explain to my children that telling people that Mom & Dad have firearms and that we take them (the kids and the firearms) to the range will likely cause unnecessary headaches. My 3rd daughter (ever the sharp one) said "Yeah that's because not everyone likes guns. Some people want to take them away (and she put on such an angry look too)." The 3rd daughter wants to go shooting with me as soon as her hands will fit a gun.

Apparently I'm a role model. :shock:No one told me about that responsibility. Wasn't in the struction manual unless it falls under 'Other duties as required'. :D
 

shad0wfax

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,069
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

darthmord wrote:
[SNIP]
Unfortunately, I've also had to explain to my children that telling people that Mom & Dad have firearms and that we take them (the kids and the firearms) to the range will likely cause unnecessary headaches. My 3rd daughter (ever the sharp one) said "Yeah that's because not everyone likes guns. Some people want to take them away (and she put on such an angry look too)." The 3rd daughter wants to go shooting with me as soon as her hands will fit a gun.

Apparently I'm a role model. :shock:No one told me about that responsibility. Wasn't in the struction manual unless it falls under 'Other duties as required'. :D

Hahah! Apparently you are a good role model.I hope your daughter keeps it up. We need younger generations to be as fiercely protective of our sport, lifestyle and most importantly our rightsas we are or we won't have anything left.

My parents had the same rules for me when I was a school-boy: Don't touch the guns without permission. Don't tell your friends about the guns. Don't tell your teachers about the guns. If your teachers ask about guns in the home, tell us and we'll have a chat with the principal.
 

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
imported post

I guess we are real lucky where we are, at our last gun club's dinner, I sat next to our district's superintendent. Not too much hoplophobia here.
 

unreconstructed1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
695
Location
Tennessee, ,
imported post

as for the OP, I would suggest that you stand your ground on the matter and confront the teacher with logic and reasoning. confront their superiors with the same and stick by your guns. you may feel that this will somehow be unfair to your child, but consider the fact that your child will watch as his parent stands up for what he believes in, and it may instill in him the same values as time goes on.

now for what seems to have become the main attraction of this thread:

this thread began as a gun enthusiast reaching out for advice from like minded individuals regarding discrimination and prejudice aimed at a child due to his fondness for guns. this thread has since devolved into yet another liberal/conservative debate...

"liberal"... "conservative"... does it really matter? honestly?

in full disclosure, I could be classified as neither, and I know or work with members of both mindsets, and the main thing that sticks out is how remarkably similar both groups are (both groups meaning the "neo-" variety of each).

in my experience, both groups are absolutely willing to trade essential liberty for temporary security, something that we have been forewarned about.

neo-liberals wish to trade in the natural human right of self defense in order to protect the false idea of a utopian paradise where everyone can be rahabilitated and no one should be held accountable for their actions or punished for crimes. In reality some people simply can not be rehabilitated, and regardless of the "value of human life", If a man decides to break into my home and threaten me or my family, or to steal from me those things which I earned by the sweat of my brow, THEY have set the value of their life at approximately $ 0.00, not me.

neo-conservatives wish to trade in the natural human right of freedom in order to protect the false idea of "national security". they will praise the FED for their use of torture and their complete disregard for the laws of man and of nature, just because it is "them" that they are doing it to ( "them" currently being "terrorists", "radicals" and "dissenters", just as in Nazi Germany it was "communists", "gypsies" and "homosexuals") all the while ignoring the fact that the official description of "them" continues to expand until "them" becomes "us".

the whole while both groups will throw insults at the other and blame the other for every problem that they face, all the while drawing attention away from the true source of the problem.

don't blame the problems that we are experiencing on "them" or on "those damned liberals" or "those damned neo-cons". If you want to know the source of the problem, look no farther than a mirror. it is us, the American people who continue to let things get out of hand. we squabble over petty issues such as the ones that I described while we should be more focused on working towards fixing the problems, not blaming someone for them.

I realize that I may not be the most popular member of this forum, and that this opinion will probably serve to make me even less popular, but this had to be said.
 

SteveInAshand

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
267
Location
Ass-land (Ashland) OR, , USA
imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:
as for the OP, I would suggest that you stand your ground on the matter and confront the teacher with logic and reasoning. confront their superiors with the same and stick by your guns. you may feel that this will somehow be unfair to your child, but consider the fact that your child will watch as his parent stands up for what he believes in, and it may instill in him the same values as time goes on.

now for what seems to have become the main attraction of this thread:

this thread began as a gun enthusiast reaching out for advice from like minded individuals regarding discrimination and prejudice aimed at a child due to his fondness for guns. this thread has since devolved into yet another liberal/conservative debate...

"liberal"... "conservative"... does it really matter? honestly?

in full disclosure, I could be classified as neither, and I know or work with members of both mindsets, and the main thing that sticks out is how remarkably similar both groups are (both groups meaning the "neo-" variety of each).

in my experience, both groups are absolutely willing to trade essential liberty for temporary security, something that we have been forewarned about.

neo-liberals wish to trade in the natural human right of self defense in order to protect the false idea of a utopian paradise where everyone can be rahabilitated and no one should be held accountable for their actions or punished for crimes. In reality some people simply can not be rehabilitated, and regardless of the "value of human life", If a man decides to break into my home and threaten me or my family, or to steal from me those things which I earned by the sweat of my brow, THEY have set the value of their life at approximately $ 0.00, not me.

neo-conservatives wish to trade in the natural human right of freedom in order to protect the false idea of "national security". they will praise the FED for their use of torture and their complete disregard for the laws of man and of nature, just because it is "them" that they are doing it to ( "them" currently being "terrorists", "radicals" and "dissenters", just as in Nazi Germany it was "communists", "gypsies" and "homosexuals") all the while ignoring the fact that the official description of "them" continues to expand until "them" becomes "us".

the whole while both groups will throw insults at the other and blame the other for every problem that they face, all the while drawing attention away from the true source of the problem.

don't blame the problems that we are experiencing on "them" or on "those damned liberals" or "those damned neo-cons". If you want to know the source of the problem, look no farther than a mirror. it is us, the American people who continue to let things get out of hand. we squabble over petty issues such as the ones that I described while we should be more focused on working towards fixing the problems, not blaming someone for them.

I realize that I may not be the most popular member of this forum, and that this opinion will probably serve to make me even less popular, but this had to be said.
MY REPLY: Correct me if I got this wrong, ( I am conservative, & Judeo Christian in spiritual belief ) but do you think we are one big brotherhood of man ?

Are you trying to put the morals of decent average hard working patriotic Americans who see what is wrong with our fellow un-moral misguided Americans with te ugly horrific lack of morals of Nazi Germany ?

I am getting to the "you vs them" part of your post, and to your saying we have to fix a problem by all getting together in one big group of Americans and working on our problem.

The is nice and sweet and NOT reality my gun totin friend.

Yes I understand the saying of Ghandi: "Change in yorself what you want to see chaning in the world", I understand that you cannot go around being angry pointing fingers UNLESS you are clean yourself, but if you are right ( there is an ultimate right & wrong ) then you CAN point finger and can challenge those who are wrong and you in fact can draw guns and escrt them out of our country or shoot them dead even if they are your neighboor or a politician.

Your example of "getting along" is nt applicable, Ghandi was talking about a personal internal change for the better , and that is no defence for sitting back and watching imoral anti good anti common sense ideologies take over our neighborhoods and political system.

To me your statements and mindset are childish and spiritually dull, sociologically inept and frankly lacking any sort of common sense.

I will tell you why; the rabid dog that is chewing on my leg even tho it is an American rabid dog and once domestic and tranquil did not listen to my warring, does not care about my pain as it chews on my leg., I was just minding my own business and a rabid dg apeared in my political front yard and assaulted me

What would you do in your form of logic with this dog as it chews and rips into your leg ?

Liberal/ Conservative, they are just words to try to give a basic face book description to how a person thinks , acts and has their being; a shallow definition but it is basic and fast on how to know where a person is coming from.

In case you were on vacation , asleep or out hunting in the woods for the last 50 years we have been at war, a moral war with anti Christ anit freedom anti liberty atheists who call themselves Communists, we have been very covertly assaulted, assimilated whereby our intituitons even Chrstian churches have goton in by our own lack of tru moral goodness , we have been hypocrits and our children of the 60's rebelled, and were open to new alien idologies and communism was one.

It was a well designed ush to de-moralize us away from God and into the arms of Karl Marx idiology, now we have 2nd and 3rd generation communists they are our children and porfessors now morphed into a new word called socialists, repackadged by public relations media into progressive.

The 2nd and 3rd generation of Marxists are very very mentaly ill ( hypnotized) intellectualy washed of there ground of moral sense ( brain washed ) they are very psychotic they act in the best interest of no one to the exclusion of everyone.

They do not head logic nor have any moral foundation from which to base there pagan ideloligy , at the same time they see that most Chrstian conservative types are psychotic themselves so actaully my friend there is no one who is sane and rational to steer the wheel of the ship America.

There seems to be a few athiests Marxist at the top who are truly sane , evil and know exactly what they want ---> POWER.

There seems to be a very few trully good Americans who also know exacly who they are and what they want ( Ronald Regan types ) and they want GOODNESS.

Everyone else is subject to persuation, subject to authority, subject to doubt, subject to temptation, subject to anger etc....

There are very very few people who are there of person who do not need laws to be good and wise.

Myself , I am as anti homosexual as you can get and NOT be a Nazi.

Yes I rant about liberals, and liberal homosexuals I sure do , and I know the difference between a conservative homosexual who is 2A friendly and a liberal, to me they are both very ill people, but one type has an intransigent ego that hates me and thee other does not, he is mild mannered , tho ill but not "rabid".

I dont hate them, I dont want to kill them , I dont fear them, I dont scape goat them nor do I want to send the off to reducation camps, so the Nazi comparison does not wash.

I want to restrain them, I do not want them marching naked down main street USA.

Unlike Christians I dont want to save them , but I do want them to find salvation thru Jesus which is a different proccess of enlightenment without my ego getting in the way.

I want to beat them at the polls, not with my fist, but beat them with my moral strength, with my brightness, my truly grounded imorality, with my resoned argument, my peace loving nature all the while with my gun in my belt as I am like a rattle snake if attacked by a rabid dog.

It all comes down to there is a true and real right , and a true and real wrong, ther IS evil and there is Good and both come thru humans, both act and have there spiritual being thru humans and there must be a line in the sand, and when that line is crossed there must be imediate and real defiance and defence.
 

unreconstructed1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
695
Location
Tennessee, ,
imported post

SteveInAshand wrote:
MY REPLY:

wow....

so I'm assuming that you are one of those people who can read something, not understand it at all, and then think that you have all the answers, right?

my mention of "communists", "gypsies", and "homosexuals" ( did you notice the quotation marks there? pay attention, they'll come in handy in just a minute) was in reference to a common practice in Germany during that time. all three groups were marked for the concentration camps, just as the jews were. the difference being, that there were no ethnic identifiers to differentiate who was and who wasn't. If you made too much rattle at that time and got noticed, you were labeled as one of those groups ( regardless of whether you really were or not) and then sent on a one way trip to Aushwitz.

currently, the FED is working towards being able to do the same thing. first it was terrorists. now they are attempting to open the door towards "domestic terrorists", or political dissenters.

now recently I came across an FBI brochure that was aimed at helping agents identify such "domestic terrorists" and among the classes of domestic terrorist was one labeled "super patriot", which was one who "energetically defended teh constitution

so my 2A friendly neo-con, how much will you support the torture of terrorists when you are named as one for defending the second ammendment?

won't happen? tell that one to Martin Niemoller( don't worry, I posted a link to the relevant info ). originally he was a supporter because he didn't like communists, just like most were supporters of Bush's "PATRIOT ACT" because they didn't like islamic fundamentalist terrorists. but when those Nazis realized that Hitler was going to abuse that power and make those former supporters subject to that treatment, suddenly they saw how wrong they were.

do I like communists, Gays, etc? no, not really. Do I want the FED to have an unchallenged precedent for outright torture? no, because if they would use it against them, who's to stop them from using it against us? morals?

you call my beliefs childish and yet you are willing to give the FED the authority to torture and kill without substantiated evidence and expect them to not abuse that power? do you still believe in Santa Clause too?
 
Top