Guns

Colorado School Suspends 17-Year-Old After She Posted a Non-Threatening Gun Photo With Her Older Brother

She didn't break the law or threaten anybody, but her school still panicked.

|

A tongue-in-cheek post from a Colorado teen about a trip to a shooting range got her suspended from high school.

On Oct. 11, Endeavor Academy, a public school in Centennial, Colo., suspended 17-year-old senior Alexandria Keyes for five days after she posted a picture of herself and her older brother on the social media app Snapchat. The two are shown holding guns and the photo is captioned, "Me and my legal guardian are going to the gun range to practice gun safety and responsible gun ownership while getting better so we can protect ourselves while also using the First Amendment to practice our Second Amendment."

The picture in question depicts Alexandria and her older brother, an Army veteran, wearing shemaghs (scarves popular in Middle Eastern cultures that are also used by some members of the military) posing in front of a Confederate flag and flipping off the camera while holding guns. In a statement to The Gun Writer, Kelley Moyer, Alexandria's mother, said that the shemagh her daughter wore was a gift from her brother.

Alexandria tells Reason that she never anticipated being suspended for taking the picture.

"Guns are huge in my family, they're normal to us," Alexandria said. It was a big surprise to her and her mother when police showed up at their house to investigate her as a potential threat.

Abbe Smith, Chief Communications Officer for Cherry Creek School District, told me that the decision to suspend Keyes "involved multiple social media posts that concerned the school community and resulted in multiple parents keeping their kids home from school out of concern for safety." Smith said that federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act protections prevent her from discussing the details of the case, including disclosing the other photos the district allegedly considered in Keyes' suspension.

Keyes and her mother believe the other posts the district references are a picture and video of Alexandria shooting at Centennial Gun Club that she had posted on Facebook and Snapchat about 8 months ago.

Alexandria Keyes practicing her marksmanship at Centennial Gun Club in Centennial, Colorado.

Endeavor Academy's student handbook for the 2019-2020 school year gives the school broad discretionary power when choosing to suspend students for weapon-related instances. The handbook states that when a student's behavior involving a weapon off school property is thought to "[have] a reasonable connection to school or any district curricular or non-curricular event" and is "detrimental to the safety and welfare of the student, other students and school personnel," that the school may refer a student for "appropriate disciplinary proceedings."

The school's policy references Colorado law, which defines the grounds for suspension as "behavior on or off school property that is detrimental to the welfare or safety of other pupils or of school personnel, including behavior that creates a threat of physical harm to the child or to other children."

Why would a picture of a student legally visiting a gun range and practicing her marksmanship fall into this category? According to Cherry Creek School Board policy, the  school district reserves the right to suspend students who "[repeatedly interfere] with a school's ability to provide educational opportunities to other students." Over the phone, Smith noted that since multiple parents kept their children home after becoming aware of the post, Keyes' photo could be viewed as an impediment to the school's ability to educate, even if the district didn't ultimately make its decision based on the chances that Keyes posed a physical threat. Does this mean parental fears can be a mechanism for the school district to veto a teen's extracurricular activities?

Keyes does not have a history of causing educational disruptions at the school, according to her family. Moyer told me that her daughter was disciplined for violating school policy only once before when she brought vape paraphernalia to school.

Moyer also says that Endeavor Academy's principal, Caroll Duran, explicitly told her that her daughter did not violate any policies but that "when [they] see pictures of a 17-year-old holding an assault rifle it sends panic through [their] building." In actuality, Alexandria was holding a pistol, not an "assault" rifle, in the photo of her and her brother (and was exercising excellent trigger discipline for that matter).

Moyer also contacted the Aurora and Arapahoe Police Departments about her daughter's suspension, and both agencies told her that Keyes did not violate any laws by posting the photo.

Keyes' experience reflects just one of many instances of schools overreacting to fears of gun violence even when there's no evidence of a threat. Reason's Robby Soave reported on the arrest of a 12-year-old in Kansas City after she pointed finger guns at other students just last week. That child now faces a felony charge of threatening to commit violence. Soave noted that school authority figures "clearly have the Parkland shootings in their minds as they overreact to mundane disciplinary issues involving students." Overland Police Chief Frank Donchez told The Kansas City Star that he'd "take the heat all day long for arresting a [12]-year-old" since he's "not willing to take the heat for not preventing a school tragedy."

For students caught up in administrators' hysteria, the impacts of poorly applied disciplinary policies have lasting impacts on a student's future. Keyes doesn't face any legal repercussions for her photo, but the suspension will go on her record and got her kicked off the school's volleyball team. She told Reason that "college is definitely on [her] mind" since "[she] want[s] to go to med school" and that she's afraid that all the drama and rumors surrounding the event will reflect negatively on her in the admissions process.

Keyes can return to school tomorrow, but her mother says that her daughter is "terrified to go back because she is getting death threats, hate mail, and [negative] comments on her [S]napchat."

NEXT: Congress Tortures the Constitution To Obtain Permission for a Federal Animal Cruelty Law

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Keyes can return to school tomorrow, but her mother says that her daughter is “terrified to go back because she is getting death threats, hate mail, and [negative] comments on her [S]napchat.”

    Fine, get names and report them to the school. Insist on the rules being followed or threaten to sue.

    1. Oh no, the school does not handle off school grounds conduct by students…unless it involves guns.

    2. “terrified to go back because she is getting death threats, hate mail, and [negative] comments on her [S]napchat.”

      Sounds like she has a great reason to own a gun for self-defense.

      1. Yup. Nothing like a non-violent video to get the nutjob gun grabbers and their brainwashed kids to violently threaten you with bodily injury where a gun would come in handy for self-defense.

        1. These democrat cowards should be sent to Gitmo and left there to rot.

      2. Not only that, but I think I’d sue the fuck out of the goddamn school.

        1. And add as co-defendents all the soy-boy parents that kept their kids out of school because they’re not adult enough to tell what is and isn’t a threat.

          1. Assuming the school officials weren’t lying about that…

    3. I feel like this is lawsuit worthy, the government is suppressing an individual’s rights, namely the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I’d think the 4th could be called into play too, if it wasn’t effectively dead already.

      1. That’s the whole point! Showing a picture (1A) of Americans keeping and bearing arms (2A) comprise twin evil manifestations of the hated U.S. Constitution which government school officials are bound by solemn oath to tear down. What the hell else did you _expect_ them to do… stand up for the Bill of Rights?!

    4. Every person in the entire administration of that school should be fired and fined $10K.

      Then hang them by their thumbs until they can recite the entire Bill of Rights perfectly… 100 times.

    5. Schools think they can do whatever they want………until they get into a courtroom as the defendant to a lawsuit.

      1. We as a society have stood by and let the public schools become a law unto themselves. They pretty much have ZERO accountability to anyone. Notice even the cops don’t buck the school system.

        1. That won’t help them when a vicious p,aimtiff’s attorney comes after them with multimillion dollar claims.

        2. Perhaps a nice, big, fat lawsuit bankrupting the entire city and/or county might help pull their heads out of their a…

          The parents may not know it, yet, but they have the school staff, board, district officials, and even the city and/or county over a barrel. The excerpt from the handbook is a heinous and unlawful overreach by school officials and administrators. It stands in stark contrast to the clear and unambiguous provision of Colorado State Law (C.R.S.) that limits suspension authority to school grounds, vehicles, activities and events. Contrary to obviously popular misconception, school officials DO NOT have authority over the private lives of its students.

          READ MORE, and good luck with your lawsuit!!!

          https://ryoc.us/heinous-and-unlawful-overreach-by-school-officials-and-administrators/

    6. This is nothing but the liberals running Colorado exerting their power to oppress our freedoms, because they hate the freedom to bear arms and the freedom of speech.

      Note, the real threats are to the person being threatened by police visits, being harmed by suspension, and now by liberals threatening her. Yes, the police AND SCHOOL, should go after those making threats to others. Keys didn’t threaten anyone – the school officials are making it up and stretching the laws to further their political agenda. They should be removed from government employment for violating Keys’ rights, and prosecuted for doing it.

    7. The parents may not know it, yet, but they have the school staff, board, district officials, and even the city and/or county over a barrel. The excerpt from the handbook is a heinous and unlawful overreach by school officials and administrators. It stands in stark contrast to the clear and unambiguous provision of Colorado State Law (C.R.S.) that limits suspension authority to school grounds, vehicles, activities and events. Contrary to obviously popular misconception, school officials DO NOT have authority over the private lives of its students.

      READ MORE, and good luck with your lawsuit!!!

      https://ryoc.us/heinous-and-unlawful-overreach-by-school-officials-and-administrators/

  2. “behavior on or off school property that is detrimental to the welfare or safety of other pupils or of school personnel, including behavior that creates a threat of physical harm to the child or to other children.”

    So, no democrat talking points at all? Because everything they do creates a threat to every individual in the country.

  3. “she is getting death threats, hate mail, and [negative] comments on her [S]napchat.”

    That’s called tolerance. Tolerant people don’t tolerate intolerance, and people who like guns are intolerant. So in the name of tolerance, gun nuts need to be subjected to hatred and threats, because that’s how tolerant people treat intolerant people.

    1. Seems she’s getting the attention she wanted.

      1. Yah, she posted this picture because she wanted attention from irrational, intolerant cowards who post anonymous death threats while hiding behind fake usernames like Eric.

        1. Ok LiborCon. Is that a family name?

          1. So attacking a kid and suspending her for her 1A and 2A actions is okay in your book?

            1. OK? No. Unexpected? Also no.

              1. Eric seems to be attempting to excuse the school districts actions and engaging in rampant Whataboutism.

                1. maybe a chick shot him once?

            2. “ So attacking a kid and suspending her for her 1A and 2A actions is okay in your book?”

              No. It’s not ok at all I’m my book. But It is completely understandable given today’s culture.
              If she had posted a pic of herself shitting on an American flag with a poster of Che Guevara in the background and a firearm shoved up her transgendered partner’s asshole that would be perfectly Constitutional as well. And I would also understand when she was suspended from the same school and received death threats from conservatives in that case.

              1. If it is constitutional then it isn’t understandable nor acceptable for the school to punish her for hurting someone’s feelings. It isn’t understandable at all. Nor should it be acceptable.

              2. So you think female circumcision is OK for Muslims in the US because it’s their “culture”?

                Whiny fuckhead parents that have infantile reactions to guns need to grow the fuck up.

              3. “…But It is completely understandable given today’s culture…”

                So is outlawing ‘hate-speech’, but I wouldn’t ‘understand’ a kid being suspended or receiving death threats for engaging in it.
                I’d be pissed.

          2. It’s actually Liborconstein.

    2. Look, you morons, she brought fucking VAPE PARAPHANELIA to a school!

      She deserves nothing less than literal crucifixion.

      Or maybe stoning, I dunno, ask the local Mullahs.

  4. The handbook states that when a student’s behavior involving a weapon off school property is thought to “[have] a reasonable connection to school or any district curricular or non-curricular event” and is “detrimental to the safety and welfare of the student, other students and school personnel,” that the school may refer a student for “appropriate disciplinary proceedings.”

    Emphases added. Oh, FFS! Let the lawsuits begin!

      1. They didn’t infringe on them. They pissed all over them.

        1. was it at least magical unicorn piss?

    1. Waitaminnit… it your plan is to try to use evidence to convince a judge under oath in a court of law that those cowardly pants-pissing collectivized government school officials are guilty of THINKING… you have my pity.

  5. How is conduct performed off school grounds any concern of a school?

    I smell a lawsuit.

      1. Yup. Not Thomas’ finest judicial opinion.

        Roberts loves the big state, so adding power to school districts is right up his alley.

  6. Is…Is that a confederate flag in the background?

    Somebody please fetch my fainting couch.

    1. I didn’t even notice it until he pointed it out. There was a time and there are still large parts of *this country* where flying that flag in the background like that isn’t any different than flying the Union Jack, the Jolly Roger, a state flag, sports pennants, or one’s School/University colors. Little different than if they were standing in front of the Gadsden Flag or the ‘Come And Take It’ flag.

      1. +1 Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers

  7. We really haven’t made any progress at all since the days of To Kill A Mockingbird. We just get hysterical over different things and punish random members of a different out-group.

    1. And the reactionary members from said “outgroup” get hysterical in kind, prompting more outrage. It’s a beautiful dance really.

      1. Because being upset a minor is being punished for a lawful activity, protected by the Constitution, by a state agency is reactionary?

    2. John, incredibly astute observation.

  8. see pictures of a 17-year-old holding an assault rifle it sends panic through [their] building

    So the suspension is entirely based on irrational fear? Great.

    1. I call BS on that anyway. I bet a few idiot parents and anti-gun students made a stink and most people didn’t give a fuck.

      1. But it feels better to attribute the actions of a few to the whole. This girl represents every gun owner to the entire left, and those who said something mean to her on social media represent the entire left to to the right.

        1. “…the decision to suspend Keyes “involved multiple social media posts that concerned the school community and resulted in multiple parents keeping their kids home from school out of concern for safety.” Smith said that federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act protections prevent her from discussing the details of the case, including disclosing the other photos the district allegedly considered in Keyes’ suspension.”

          Translation: We can suspend you for the most subjective and tenuous reasons but don’t really have to tell you why. Have a nice day or five at home.

        2. The layers deep ‘both sides’ projection bullshit would be funny if it weren’t tired and idiotic.

          I mean FFS, if you look past the perceived threats vs. actual threats, who broke the rules and the law and who didn’t, and who got investigated and punished vs. who isn’t even going to get investigated; the girl didn’t claim to stand for anyone but the school administrators’ jobs are to represent other parents, the school, the school district, and, arguably, the state and they overtly said as much. The right isn’t projecting from a rogue and punitive administrator to the larger community, the punitive administrator overtly took action on behalf of the larger community de facto.

        3. Not the entire left, it is a representation of how the state doesn’t respect the Bill of Rights, period. But nice attempt at Whataboutism.

    2. I have to disagree. Posing armed and masked in front of a known hate symbol while making a rude gesture is not “nothing”. I thought “there is no way they actually did that”. I was hoping it was more stock footage.

      If you were wearing that while carrying a weapon, walking down the street. You would be stopped by the police in 50 out of 50 states and most countries on the planet. There is a reason why we have anti-masking laws. So, no, it’s not nothing.

      However, while I do think that it’s in incredibly bad taste, the school’s punishment is excessive. There seems to be no allowance for what was obviously comedy, given the message that it was paired with.

      1. You gotta read the caption that goes with it. Then it has a much more satirical political context.

      2. Known hate symbol?

        Go fuck yourself, idiot.

        You want hate? You deserve to be hated and mocked for being a fucking drooling idiot.

        1. Look at my Username.
          Governor Houston died in 1863, thrown out of office for refusing to swear allegiance to the confederacy. He died with his life’s work in ruins around him as the country raged in civil war. It’s said he died of a broken heart.

          That flag murdered the father of my state and namesake of my city.

          It’s personal.

        2. Finrod, are you saying that the Confederate is not used as a hate symbol, is not used as a hate symbol, or that people should not see it as a hate symbol? Your argument-free profanity makes it hard for me to see exactly how you are incorrect.

  9. posing in front of a Confederate flag

    Even when defending the 1A, Reason’s got to drop trou and ‘to be sure’ all over the 1A.

    1. Or they thought it was part of the reason for the outrage, and therefore worth mentioning.

      1. I have no doubt that’s what they thought. The part that’s missing is where somebody in the story actually took offense to the symbol and Reason is just factually reporting the response.

        As it stands, there appears to be absolutely zero outrage about the flag and, for no apparent reason, Shepardson sees it as worth mentioning. Is there a copy of J.S. Mill’s On Liberty on the shelf too? Maybe Shepardson could highlight that as something somebody might be able to take offense to and more firmly shoot himself in his libertarian credentials while he’s at it.

  10. According to Cherry Creek School Board policy, the school district reserves the right to suspend students who “[repeatedly interfere] with a school’s ability to provide educational opportunities to other students.” Over the phone, Smith noted that since multiple parents kept their children home after becoming aware of the post, Keyes’ photo could be viewed as an impediment to the school’s ability to educate

    If the school’s ability (such as it is) was interfered with, it was by the parents who kept their kids home in an effort to undermine the 2A.

    1. “”multiple parents kept their children home”‘

      I wonder how of these kids thought their parents were going overboard by keeping them home?

      Of course kids general like any school day they don’t have to attend.

      1. The kids with parents like this are already Thunberg’d in to their politics.

      2. Of course kids general like any school day they don’t have to attend.

        The fact that the entire Senior class hasn’t already set up a scheme to take turns posting and fainting on this every Friday for the rest of the school year severely undermines my faith in our nation’s youth.

      3. No mention of truancy charges against the lot the stay-at-homers.

        1. Or better, child abuse charges against their parents, with mandatory treatment for the parents’ irrational phobias.

          But first, find out if there _were_ any parents that saw the posting itself and decided to keep their kids home by themselves. My suspicions are that either the school officials made this up, or they sent a hysterical and grossly inaccurate description of the post out to the parents and are thus responsible for any kids who missed school.

  11. the decision to suspend Keyes “involved multiple social media posts that concerned the school community and resulted in multiple parents keeping their kids home from school out of concern for safety.”

    Cool! In order to impeach Trump, or do anything else, simply get a few parents to keep their kids home from school.

  12. “involved multiple social media posts that concerned the school community and resulted in multiple parents keeping their kids home from school out of concern for safety.”

    Ahh, the C-word. Concern. It doesn’t have to be rational. It doesn’t have to be based on fact. And it’s serious business. The cause of the concern must be dealt with, swiftly. Emotions must be acted upon immediately! No debate or conversation, there ain’t time for that. People are concerned.

  13. Denver’s Front Range is becoming increasingly emasculated by suburban housewife salt-sniffers.

    1. Move please. And change your name to something more appropriate that doesn’t conflate that fine venue with your horribleness. How bout “Rainbow Music Hall White Privilege”?

      1. Piss off, and take all of your Californicating friends with you.

        I hear Austin’s nice.

        1. not. Texas. pleaseandthankyou.

      2. Your exasperation is the best reason to stay. Also, “Ludlow White Privilege” is looking mighty appealing.

        You’re more than welcome to step in front of the Auraria light rail if you wish.

      3. Oh, I didn’t know it was a music venue. Just looked up some pics. The acoustics must be amazing.

        1. The funny part is that Ben Stapleton didn’t want it to be an amphitheater, he was just looking to make it a rock garden as part of Denver Parks. George Cranmer basically defied his own boss and got CCC money to get it constructed, since it had been used for small concerts before then.

          Yes, the acoustics are incredible. The place is always crowded now with various yuppie scumbags, but 25 years ago, you could go there on a typically empty weekday and clearly hear people talking on the stage area from the top of the amphitheater.

        2. The acoustics are pretty good, but the atmosphere is incredible. If you ever get a chance to see a concert there sit in the back. If you’re lucky, a summer thunderstorm at dusk over the plains beyond Denver will give you a light show to go along with the concert.

      4. Go throw yourself into a running woodchipper feet first, soyboy.

  14. The problem was the confederate flag, which triggers the left, and the shemagh which triggers the right. In the modern era when FEELZ trump the rule of law, it’s a mistake to be triggering people. Doesn’t matter if the law and the constitution is on your side, because the law and the constitution don’t matter any more.

    1. And the Shema, which triggers Mizek.

    2. the shemagh which triggers the right

      Her skin is too pale for the shemagh desert tactical scarf she’s wearing to trigger the right.

      1. Pale just means she’s an Antifa chick.

  15. While this story is guaranteed to get some people’s dander up, and rightly so, it’s also enormous bad taste to post a photo of yourself in face-hiding paramilitary gear while flipping people off holding your guns.

    Should one have the right to do so? I’d say yes, it seems to easily fall within the 1st amendment and there are no obvious direct threats to anyone.

    Is it pretty damn foolish to do so as a high school student, especially in Colorado? You bet.

    And before you get your panties in a bunch, consider that Colorado has a tiny fraction of population yet has had more than a few school shootings including the first big one in the U.S. that garnered national attention. People in Colorado are, shall we say, exceptionally sensitive to this type of thing and this is absolutely expected as a result even if it’s also pretty irrational.

    The part that is truly sick though are the death threats and hate mail this kid is getting. And not just because it’s moronic to send death threats to someone you know for a fact is armed and knows how to shoot, but also because it’s usually way worse form to threaten actual harm and violence than it is just to post a photo of your hobby. I’d love to find out how many of those violent threats were issued by anti-gun ‘peace and love’ types.

    1. And before you get your panties in a bunch, consider that Colorado has a tiny fraction of population yet has had more than a few school shootings including the first big one in the U.S. that garnered national attention.

      The University of Texas tower shooting was national news before almost everyone involved in ‘the first big one’ was born. I myself, never having been to California, can remember the Stockton Schoolyard shootings.

      The issue isn’t that it was the first to garner national attention but that it was the first to garner national attention over something more relatively common like the Brown’s Chicken Massacre.

      1. Like I said, irrational for any number of reasons but Colorado’s entire population is less than a handful of Texas cities combined so it’s not surprising that folks here are reactionary when it comes to students and guns. Especially given the high profile shootings that seem to happen here.

        Maybe one day the anti-psychotics these kids are on will be vilified more than the guns, but I’m not holding my breath on that point.

        1. Ah. You meant, “scarequotes”historic first school shooting to garner national attention in the modern era!!!”/scarequotes” and not a more literal ‘first big school shooting to garner national attention’.

          1. Exactly. Has the Bath School disaster been upstaged in death toll yet? Hell, that happened in the 1920’s.

            Oddly enough, I never see it included in school violence listings. I guess it’s only a bad thing if it involves a gun instead of bombs.

            The fact remains that Colorado is expected to be a bit more harsh when students post images like this, and it’s precisely because of recent Colorado history combined with panic mongering and misplaced blame.

            That doesn’t excuse this girl from being suspended for a photo that is pretty obviously in bad taste, nor is that a violation of her rights. It does give the school a chance to investigate the incident, and I’d expect nothing less in today’s climate.

            That makes this girl stupid and ‘edgy’, not a martyr. Maybe if they took her guns or forced her photo off the internet, but it doesn’t appear either of those things happened.

            1. Why is it expected? So the state punishing someone for posting something they don’t like isn’t an infringement. Bring on the aliens and Seditious acts.

            2. You seem to think punishment for her speech is okay and not a violation of her rights. That is a weird interpretation of rights.

              1. I don’t think he’s saying it’s OK. Face-covered, flipping someone off while holding a gun is an intentionally offensive statement or message. Especially for a minor who may not exactly have free speech protections even by some pretty libertarian or libertarian-orthogonal standards. On top of that, if there were any state where the particular authorities and community were specifically attuned against such an intentionally offensive message, it would be Colorado.

                It might not all be predictably clear to a 17-yr.-old but if it had been something more James Damore-like I would’ve agreed that punishing her was wrong, but that she was asking for it.


                1. I don’t think he’s saying it’s OK. Face-covered, flipping someone off while holding a gun is an intentionally offensive statement or message. Especially for a minor who may not exactly have free speech protections even by some pretty libertarian or libertarian-orthogonal standards

                  This is a pretty good summation of the point I was trying to make.

                  These kids weren’t necessarily being punished for what they posted (although there is an argument that they were) but rather the way they posted it. Or, said another way, it’s my opinion they should be punished for how they did it. Not necessarily for what they posted.

                  If I were a parent and I saw a picture like that on my kids fellow students Facebook page, I can see (at least as a human being) how that could cause concern. To be perfectly frank, it’s more the headgear that would give me pause versus the weapons themselves. Hidden faces holding guns while flipping the bird is the kind of shit wannabe gangsters pull, no matter their race, and you can bet I’d report it in a heartbeat.

                  Although I do laugh since this girl was smarter than 99% of gangster wannabe’s that shoot themselves. The author was right about her trigger discipline, and it was an amusing point.

                  1. It was snapchat not Facebook.

                    1. And I don’t care about the distinction.

                    2. You should because Snapchat meant it wasn’t broadcast to the world, just to select friends so she had some expectation of privacy, also.

                    3. You should because Snapchat meant it wasn’t broadcast to the world, just to select friends so she had some expectation of privacy, also.

                      You have a very unique interpretation of the meaning of the terms ‘broadcast’ and ‘expectation of privacy’. It’s akin to the 1A in that your protection is from the government not (exactly) other people. If nobody knew who sent the post and the police were hounding snapchat, what you’re suggesting might make sense, but the indication seems to be that this girl sent the photo to at least a few people who she either didn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy for/with, who took offense to it directly, or both.

                    4. She sent it to a group of friends, not expecting them to share it beyond that group. Someone within that group shared it and caused a problem she didn’t intend to cause was my point.

                  2. You have to read the accompanying text they sent with it. It is clearly political satire. “Screw you, powers that be who want to take our rights!” is the message.

                    “No, screw YOU!” is the response from the state.

                  3. Or, said another way, it’s my opinion they should be punished for how they did it. Not necessarily for what they posted.

                    If I were a parent and I saw a picture like that on my kids fellow students Facebook page, I can see (at least as a human being) how that could cause concern. To be perfectly frank, it’s more the headgear that would give me pause versus the weapons themselves. Hidden faces holding guns while flipping the bird is the kind of shit wannabe gangsters pull, no matter their race, and you can bet I’d report it in a heartbeat.

                    This is where I think at least our middle ground is to be had. I’ve heard kids talking secondhand about a snapchat post a friend sent them and, a little while later, come across the friend actively sharing the chat with someone else. The post was offensive, pretty directly targeted, and, if the “victim” found out, wouldn’t know who was responsible but would be able to identify some responsible parties (of which I was part). It wasn’t my kid but I told him the pic and the chats need to go away and told the kid that I would have to inform whomever’s responsible for the phone bill.

                    Getting the police and the school involved was a dickhead move.

                    1. What did she do that was threatening or even close to being threatening? Post a politically incorrect post? An unpopular political beliefs? Because she obvious meant for only a select few to see it and her accompanying text make it obvious she was stating a political beliefs and yes she was doing it in a dramatic fashion but hardly even close being threatening.

    2. “…enormous bad taste”

      Yes, protected, but be prepared to weather the consequences.

      For the life of me I just do not understand why “kids these days” have to post every fucking detail of their lives. Unless of course you want to flip off the assholes you anticipate will give you grief.

      1. Indeed. And I also am forced to note that their guns weren’t taken and they faced a temporary suspension that would be expected of something in such poor taste. Nor was her ‘speech’ taken down or otherwise censored even while she is being punished for it.

        I don’t consider it necessarily a bad thing to suspend kids from school based on things they do outside of the classroom, although in my personal opinion this particular response wasn’t warranted. Maybe if she threatened someone in particular, but it’s far from obvious that was the case here.

        That said, I would absolutely expect an investigation if you post a picture of yourself with your face hidden while sporting weapons as a high school student in Colorado. Or really anywhere. Fear of things that look like terrorists is rampant in the U.S., and if you combine that with high school shootings you get next-level pearl clutching.

        In short, this isn’t a hill worth dying on.

        1. So punishing her in no way infringed on her rights? Maybe we should just jail temporarily journalist for their speech? It’s just temporary and we won’t make them take down their speech just throw them in jail temporarily. I can’t see any problems with that.


          1. So punishing her in no way infringed on her rights?

            Lets flip that. What right was infringed?

            1. Punishing her for excercicing her rights is an infringement of her rights. This wasn’t a private organization it was a state organization. The message it sends is if the school disagrees with your speech you will be suspended. How do you not see that as a violation? And I notice you sidestepped my question.


              1. The message it sends is if the school disagrees with your speech you will be suspended.

                Yes, this is true and has been true for a very long time in many myriad ways. Not just when it comes to guns.

                Tell any children you have to insult their teachers every chance they get and see how that works out for them.

                Students and ‘the youth’ and not considered to have the same rights and privileges as adults. You’ll note their right to vote is infringed, they can’t drink even while they can fight wars, and aren’t even allowed to drive! Oh, the humanity.

                1. Insulting the teacher in the classroom is different then posting on Facebook my teacher is a meant. The first is arguably disruptive the second is protected and any punishment is wrong period and worth fighting. Period. It is an infringement and there is no getting around that.

                  1. Unsurprisingly, if you post a bunch of insults and derogatory remarks about your teachers where everyone can see them you’ll probably get punished for that too.

                    I note you don’t want to talk about the fact that kids don’t have the right to vote or many other basic rights. Past that point, are you really dying on the correct hill here?

                    1. The right to vote is specifically addressed in the Constitution and the age is 18. The rights of free speech and to bear arms have no age restriction. Yes, because if we allow the schools to punish kids for wrong speak we raise kids who think it is acceptable for the state to punish wrong speak. This is exactly the hill that free speech advocates should be willing to die on.


                    2. The right to vote is specifically addressed in the Constitution and the age is 18.

                      Very good. Now read the part of the 1st amendment that bars school administrators from suspending students from class based on edge-lord status.

                      My guess is you’ll discover that Congress is barred from making laws that infringe on freedom of speech (which, notably, they already got around outside of the amendment process.)

                      At that point, you’d need to ask yourself if Congress was the one punishing this girl.

                    3. Read the 14A and get back to me about your point about Congress. The USSC has ruled that the 14A extends prohibition of government restriction on speech to all forms of government agencies.

                    4. So, by your logic, all public school dress code policies are de facto unconstitutional as they represent prior restraint on speech?

                      A curious position.

                      It would also be unconstitutional to punish a student for calling their teachers ‘nigger’ or ‘faggot’ or a host of much worse. I see that flying in conservative districts, yessiree.

                      A brief tutorial on student dress codes

                      The first school dress code law was established in 1969 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case, known as Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District, involved several high school students who wore black armbands to school in a planned protest against the Vietnam War. In a far-reaching decision, the Court essentially decided that schools may limit student expression (such as enforcing dress codes) if there is a legitimate concern that such expression will be disruptive to the learning environment or violate the rights of others.

                      Which, notably, is exactly what they claimed here and it seems there is some truth to that claim. It would even be expected, if one was rational, that this would be the end result in Colorado specifically.

                      Basically you’re bitching that parents in Colorado are reactionary, which seems like a fair point but that speaks to the disruption this could potentially cause in this state.

                      If you want to actually change opinion to your side of the argument, you’re doing a piss poor job of it by defending every edge case out there as a gross violation of rights. You won’t get cases like the one referenced above thrown out by this method.

                    5. Yes all dress codes are unconstitutional. Next question.

                    6. And the difference between a dress code in school and this act was this was done off campus during non school hours. To make your point valid you would have to argue schools can enforce dress codes off campus.

                    7. Calling a teacher a faggot or nigger on a private post is protected speech.

                    8. And if she is being punished because parents are reactionary that makes it excusable? Where do you draw the line? What was illegal about her post? Nothing. She is being punished for saying something someone else disagreed with. Period. Why is that so hard for you to understand. It is exactly situations like this, yes she was being provocative, but that is the whole point of the 1A.

                    9. @Soldiermedic76

                      Yes all dress codes are unconstitutional. Next question.

                      This is the point where you really should realize you aren’t discussing the law, but what you want the law to be.

                      Which is a perfectly fine conversation to have, but you shouldn’t confuse it for a conversation of what the law is.

                  2. Escher which was my fucking point. The law is in contradiction with the Constitution. For fuck sake how hard is that to understand?

                    1. To quote myself…

                      […] but you shouldn’t confuse [what you want the law to be] for a conversation of what the law is.

                    2. Since the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land I am arguing what the law is, they’re the ones arguing what they want the law to be.

      2. How is this different than a kid wearing a Bong Hits For Jesus shirt in public?

        1. I worked with a guy who got fired for putting a KILL A QUEER FETUS FOR JESUS sticker on his car.

          1. Was it a private company or state? If the latter it was definitely wrong, the former it is the companies right but still not definsible.

            1. It’s indefensible for a company to fire someone that’s bringing disrepute to the company and intentionally causing conflict with other employees?

              1. Morally I find it questionable to fire people for their beliefs and speech. I misworded it. Yes it is definsible but still morally questionable. Is that better?

                1. No, it’s really not.

                  This is like John’s “economic terrorism” nonsense, where if you don’t gild the pockets of people actively antagonizing you, you’re the bad-guy.

                  1. No, it is morally questionable because a republic can’t work if we, even as private citizens, punish people for unpopular beliefs. Therefore it isn’t morally right to do so.

        2. No one used a bong hits for Jesus t-shirt to murder dozens of their fellow classmates.

          1. So? It is okay to punish speech and a constitutionally protected act, possessing firearms, because some dickhead killed people?
            How many people have been killed in gang fights over drug selling turf? How many people have been hurt and or killed by people protecting their illegal marijuana farms? How many people have the cartels killed and enslaved? So by your reasoning, celebrating marijuana smoking must also be punished because people have been killed as a result of the marijuana trade.

            1. A t-shirt is much more clearly speech than a gun for one thing. Guns are a 2nd amendment thing, posting pictures of guns is a 1st amendment thing. You get that, I’m just putting it in writing.

              Obviously, this all revolves around a picture of a gun. That gun was a real gun that she owned, and yes that caused an over-reaction by the school district in response to fairly wide spread community concern. This is the very thing school administrators are there to handle, albeit in a ham-handed reactionary way.

              I’m a Colorado transplant from Texas, and I’ll tell you that most of my fellow 2nd amendment supporters here are VERY careful precisely because Colorado has recent reason (if specious) to distrust guns.

              It’s correctly a mental health issue that directly relates to putting kids on anti-psychotics in with the general population, but rather than admit that drugging kids and putting them in with normies might be a bad idea, they demonize the guns instead. We solve the mental health issue, and Colorado will probably be more like Texas with gun law rather than California or New York.

              1. The act of posting is the speech part. How hard is that. She also mentioned the fucking 1A in her post. Referencing her right to post the picture. Keep reaching.

                1. I see you read the first sentence and nothing else.

                  1. You did mention the 1A that should have been your thesis statement. Rather you want to admit it or not, you are defending the schools action rather and trying to state suspension is not a punishment. You are all over the board. I am very much consistent on my stance. This is a blatant abuse of power and exactly what we should be fighting.

              2. Posting a picture to a private account is definitely an act of speech.
                And in no way is this anywhere near the administrator’s job. Policing the private actions of students away from school is in no way the schools right nor job. The fact that you think that they have any right to police the actions of students speech and other activities away from school shows why cases like this are exactly the hill we should be willing to die upon. You are accepting the idea that the state ran school is able to police student activity (and in this case legal and Constitionally protected activity) and that that isn’t a violation of any rights. By punishing her they are telling other students that they have no right to post pictures of themselves with guns. You can’t get around that fact.


                1. The fact that you think that they have any right to police the actions of students speech and other activities away from school shows why cases like this are exactly the hill we should be willing to die upon.

                  Last I checked there can indeed be repercussions for actions or words students engage in off campus. All the time, in fact, and most people agree with at least some of those reasons.

                  Because we’re talking about children without the rights of an adult as established fact. And because they routinely do stupid or cruel things without thinking, and negative reinforcement is something our society seems to believe in.

                  1. “most people agree with at least some of those reasons…
                    something our society seems to believe in.”

                    So you have surrendered to the collective, expect others to do the same, and argue that being cowed by consensus is the appropriate attitude.

                    You are essentially livestock. Your opinions carry no weight with free men.

                    1. +1 feeding trough.

                  2. There can be, that is the problem. What the kids do off campus should never be the purview of the school administration. Unless she actually threatened to kill someone and even then it is very gray.

                    1. To make sense out of that assertion, you would have to get rid of mandatory schooling. While going to school remains mandatory, things which kids do out of school to attack one another will bring the combatants together in the school, and disrupt the school.

          2. That gun she was holding hasn’t killed anyone.

            Oh, because other guns have killed people, it’s ok to piss all over her rights? I’m sure someone somewhere has used a T-shirt to strangle someone.

    3. It’s almost like rights come with responsibilities. Her actions can reasonably be seen as irresponsible. It’s part of this dumbass over-sharing culture we have now. She could have taken the picture and kept it for herself as a memory of a fun time she had with her brother, but instead she blasted it out to everyone, probably knowing it would at least cause somewhat of a stir. People post pictures on social media for attention, and she got that attention. She has no right to expect that attention to be positive, but she should have the right to be treated fairly by the government’s school system.

      She shouldn’t have been punished because the punishment is arbitrary and partially politically-driven. I hope her family wins a big lawsuit and those that have sent her true death threats are prosecuted.

      1. The point of free speech is create a stir. She was making that point, e.g. her reference to the 1A and 2A.

        1. By this logic, Harriot Beecher Stowe should never have published Uncle Tom’s Cabin using the mechanized printing press, because of the stir it would create.

          1. That’s fine. She’s welcome to create a stir and people are welcome to react negatively to it. She’s welcome to cry about it and I’m perfectly content to have no sympathy for her.

            1. Because standing up for your rights is crying about it?

                1. So standing up for your rights is crying? I ask once again.

                  1. Indeed you did ask once again.

                    1. But you haven’t answered, so you obviously would rather demonize her then answer a straight forward question. So I’ll ask a third time to establish the fact that you prefer attacking a 17 yo girl for practicing her 1A rights, so you think standing up for your rights is the same thing as crying?

                    2. I get it, you’re a typical shallow libertarian that demands the right to do anything you want but you cry whenever anyone demands that you take responsibility for the way you use those rights.

                      No one is going to convince you otherwise, so I’m not going to try.

                    3. Taking responsibility means accepting the state punishing her for wrong speak?
                      You keep avoiding the fact she was punished by a state entity for speech they disagreed with. There is no getting around that. And pointing it out is not crying but pointing out an abuse of power.

                    4. Taking responsibility would be bearing up under social consequences, or having your friends with pearl clutching moms barred from association with you. Maybe even negative comments in an opinion piece.

                      State sanctions are an infringement of her rights.

      2. I’m not so sure the punishment was arbitrary, even while all laws and moral systems are essentially arbitrary and subjective. You’d have to drill pretty deep into ‘arbitrary’ to find in favor of her behavior, I feel, nor can I see a large award for such a temporary (5 day) suspension.

        That said, the parents suing is probably a good method to keep the school in check when it jerks it’s knee. I’m just not so sure that will ever counter-balance the potential flack an administrator will take for dead children in a shooting.

        I’d also be heavily in favor of finding and prosecuting anyone that sent death threats to this girl. That is something that is actually illegal, after all, whereas this girls action was just in bad taste.

        1. She referenced her 1A rights, so it doesn’t take much to conclude she was intentionally being crude to demonstrate her rights and protest some people’s willingness to infringed on the 1 and 2 amendments. It is no different than a homosexual kid posting an Anti-Christian meme.

          1. Was it an semi-automatic meme?

            1. You’re full of semi-automatic stupidity.

          2. Last I checked, a teen being crude is often followed by a punishment.

            I note you’re constantly trying to conflate a five day public school suspension to a jail sentence, but those things aren’t even remotely analogous.

            1. So suspension, which can impact her job prospects and college admissions and scholarship eligibilities is just a minor thing? It is the state punishing her. Period.

              1. So you’re telling me she posted a picture knowing it could result in harming her chances with colleges who are specifically hostile to the 2nd amendment and guns, and now she’s crying because of the absolutely predictable results of her actions?

                Sorry, but she is not the poster child you are looking for. She was stupid, and was slapped on the wrist for that stupidity. If she wants to apply to a college like Hillsdale and write an essay on her experience, I wager she’d get in.

                1. So you are now moving the goal posts. Is suspension a punishment or not? And if it is doesn’t that make it an infringement of her rights? You were the one who claimed that suspension was only minor and temporary. I was pointing out it wasn’t. You want to blame her for excercicing her rights because someone was offended. Well that is fucking authoritarian bullshit. Her actions were in no way wrong. Period. Nothing she did was wrong. She can post her with a gun, there is nothing wrong with that. Period. Get that through your head. She did nothing wrong here. Other than hurt someone’s feelings.

                  1. I’m not moving anything, I responded to your non-sequitur.

                    Nowhere have I claimed a suspension isn’t a punishment. Rather it’s a question of what she should be punished for specifically.

                    The ‘punishment’ in question was a temporary suspension of 5 days from class. What a college chooses to do with that is their business, which is why it’s a non-sequitur.

                    That isn’t punishment the government metes out, that’s punishment society metes out. Classic socialist fallacy, although in this case I’d admit it can be interpreted as either or even both. Unsurprising given how socialist of a thing public education is that it is so easy to mistake it in this way.

                    The action she took was posting a photo that makes her look like a terrorist or nut-job, even if inadvertently.

                    Sorry, but a lot of people aren’t going to read your caption when the first things they see are two people wearing face-covering garb and brandishing weapons. You know, one of those things that school shooters apparently like to do just before they shoot up a school.

                    This is, essentially, a form of victim blaming but in this scenario it seems warranted. Students are at the forefront of this social civil war, and if she wanted to play with fire she certainly should have known there was a chance of being burned. That she was so careless with her message is either intentional, or stupid, and knowing how teens are I suspect intentional. Either way, stupid behavior by teens should be punished.

                    Maybe if American’s stopped outsourcing their parenting to administrators this wouldn’t be an issue in the first place and we wouldn’t be so confused on the issue of are schools government, or are they acting in loco parentis.

                    1. She says she was using her 1A rights, no terrorist threat. If it were a Muslim student wearing the garb would you be okay with them suspending him/her for looking like a terrorist?

                    2. Suspension, especially in her senior year can impact her dramatically it isn’t temporary. And nothing she did was wrong or illegal.

                    3. Besides on Snapchat you have to be friends with her to see her pictures, therefore she had some expectation of privacy. What if my son shoots a deer this weekend and posts a picture to Facebook holding a rifle and posing with the deer? How is that different?

                    4. And the school isn’t society it is a government agency so yes it is the government meting out the punishment.

                    5. Explain why it is warranted? Because someone else disliked it? That is the only reason she is in trouble, someone else disagreed with it. Why are you okay with that?

                2. Also, a private University denying her entry would be a justified though still wrong (but not legally prohibited) consequence. A state ran University who denied her entry based upon this post would be illegal and unconstitutional. See the difference?

                  1. Which, of course, means that state schools can’t reject anyone on any basis but nevermind reality.

                    1. They can on grades or for past criminal history or for low test scores, not for protected speech. Much like they can’t reject people for skin color or religion. See the difference?

                    2. Can a university enroll a prospective student based on their protected speech?

                      If so, then obviously they can also refuse to enroll prospective students based on their protected speech.

                    3. Not according to the Constitution if they are a state ran organization.

                    4. You are, once again, confusing the difference between what you want the law to be and what the law is.

                      Admissions essays and other “discretion” criteria are perfectly legal.

                    5. Admission essays are not the same as punishing someone for a post. You are the one confusing the issue. If they were found to require an admissions essay as to why Christianity should be banned and you argued it shouldn’t be, and they blocked your admissions they would have conducted an illegal act. False analogy on your part.

        2. I’d also be heavily in favor of finding and prosecuting anyone that sent death threats to this girl. That is something that is actually illegal, after all […]

          Only on paper is it illegal. In practice, police and courts have zero interest in 99% of death threats, particularly when they’re delivered digitally.

    4. “It’s my right to flip off the cops!”

      Sure it is, and I’m sure your rights will comfort you greatly as you spend the next months in jail awaiting trial. Reality trumps [sic] reality, and the reality is that the cops can do whatever the fuck they want. This is the thin blue line y’all been clamoring for.

      1. Freedom isnt free.

        If cops think they can arrest people for giving the finger, then not enough people are giving the cops the finger.

        Sometimes you need an unlawful arrest to set the system straight.

      2. Actually, the USSC has ruled the cops can’t arrest you for flipping them the bird. Next stupid statement supporting this 1984 type thinking.

        1. One of the fundamental rules for any member of the public dealing with cops is do not disrespect them. Even if they’re in the wrong, that can be handled in court. But disrespecting them during the initial confrontation dramatically increases your risk of arrest and/or murder.

          Which is to say, you’re right. And you’d still be an idiot for going out and testing your “right”.

          1. So a right you can’t practice is no right at all.

              1. Somehow you don’t seem to be all that broke up about that.

        2. Actually, the USSC has ruled the cops can’t arrest you for flipping them the bird.

          Cops can arrest you for sending a photo of yourself masked, with a gun, flipping someone off to someone. Your claims of satire may or may not be an adequate defense, that would/could be up to a jury to decide. Obviously, not everyone involved in this case was thinking with 20/20 libertarian clarity but, in this case, nobody spent a night in jail for satire and we didn’t send a message about pop-tart guns to a 6-yr.-old. It seems at least some of us learned or could stand to learn a lesson about ‘expectations of privacy’ with regard to social(ly irresponsible) media.

          1. They can arrest you, but you can in turn sue them for false imprisonment. They know this and are thus less likely to arrest you for a post specifically saying you are excercising your 1A rights.

  16. Wearing a shemagh?

    A what?

    You know– those ‘shemaghs that all the middle eastern militaries like so much.

    A shemagh? Do you mean a keffiyeh? Those things made famous by Palestinian terrorists?

    umm…..yeah.

    Why’d you say ‘shemagh’ then?

    …….uhhhh—fascist!! (runs off)

    Wearing a keffiyeh, holding an ‘assault’ weapon, standing in front of a confederate flag, and flipping everyone off.

    Huh.

    Sounds like they were aiming at everyone.

    1. The teenage faux-edginess was almost as exceptional as the school’s reaction to it.

    2. Using the wrong name for a Middle Eastern scarf is triggering. Can’t get more unwoke than that.

  17. Don’t these people realize that without armed Colorado schoolkids, the Russians could just waltz right in and take us over?

    1. Wolverines!

    2. 10/10.

      Should the “Red Dawn” defense be brought up constantly given the recent hysterics related to Russia?

      I think so!

  18. And before you get your panties in a bunch, consider that Colorado has a tiny fraction of population yet has had more than a few school shootings including the first big one in the U.S. that garnered national attention.

    The University of Texas tower shooting was national news before almost everyone involved in ‘the first big one’ was born. I myself, never having been to California, can remember the Stockton Schoolyard shootings.

    The issue isn’t that it was the first to garner national attention but that it was the first to garner national attention over something more relatively common like the Brown’s Chicken Massacre.

  19. So that’s what the government schools are teaching the children: how to panic and shit yourself. We’ve finally found something they do right.

  20. Overland Police Chief Frank Donchez told The Kansas City Star that he’d “take the heat all day long for arresting a [12]-year-old” since he’s “not willing to take the heat for not preventing a school tragedy.”

    Says every C.O.P., school board president, principal, teacher, police officer, security guard, dog catcher and any one with any semblance of authority who sees “signs”

    1. The FF felt it more noble and just that 100 guilty men go free than an innocent man be punished and effaced or distanced themselves from making such an administrative decision from such a remote position.

      These public service workers, OTOH, see themselves as heroes for rigorously molding these kids futures even if it means they have to legally and administratively grind a few innocent ones into dust and scatter the ashes.

      1. But BYODB thinks it’s justified because she flipped the bird and or wore a mask and was holding a gun in a picture on a site that she had some expectation of privacy on. Because people’s feelings were hurt. I know he will deny this but that is the only reason she is in troj le, because people’s feelings were hurt.

        1. In trouble for hurting people’s feelings. If no one had complained there would be nothing the school would have done.

        2. Justified is the wrong word. There are larger, more libertarian hills to die on and/or retake. I don’t disagree that it’s not the best outcome, but outside intervention much beyond tsk-tsking rather foreseeably opens a can of worms some of which are even more anti-liberty/less libertarian.

          She’s a senior and it’s a suspension. If she’d lost a scholarship or were DQed for admissions somewhere I might agree that the admins were more literally grinding her future into dust and my hyperbole not hyperbolic. The admins shouldn’t be the ones punishing her, but if these were nudes instead of gun photos, she would rightly be at fault for taking the photos and sharing them *without* the expectation of privacy (which only applies to/from the government and not private recipients).

          1. How is a state organization punishing a minor for a legal activity, protected by the Constitution not a hill worth dying on? Oh it was just a suspension is a bullshit argument. They suspended her and sent a clear message to other students that wrong speech will be met with punishment as well.

            1. How is a state organization punishing a minor for a legal activity, protected by the Constitution not a hill worth dying on?

              Would you rather Keyes’ suspension be expunged or the ACA be repealed? Suspension expunged or replace RBG with another Gorsuch? Suspension expunged or viable 3rd party polling above 5% in the next election?

              My own kid got a one day suspension for a playground slight. It was clearly in violation of the school’s policy. We threatened to go to the district and raked the principal over the coals for it. It was expunged and it ended up just being a day off for my kid. A federally involved alternative is almost certainly not going to leave a smaller footprint.

  21. Minor bit of context:
    Centennial is next to Aurora.
    And 20 mins from Columbine.

    I’d suspend them for stupidity.

    1. This same shit happened a couple weeks ago to a kid from Loveland High School, which is nowhere near Aurora or Columbine.

      As I said above, this is just the end result of the Front Range becoming increasingly dominated by the hyper-sensitivities of suburban housewives.

    2. Off campus means that the school has zero authority to do anything.

      Fuck these tyrant school administrators.

  22. Why would a picture of a student legally visiting a gun range and practicing her marksmanship fall into this category?

    Columbine.

    That said, the photo and text is obviously intended to be provocative. So their claims of “surprise” are hard to swallow.

    1. the picture was intentionally provocative. the text is what clued people in that they weren’t threatening, at all (exercising their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights)

      1. I’d compare it to posting a bunch of pictures of slaughtered babies with teachers faces photoshopped onto it then putting a caption under it that says ‘1st Amendment LOL’ then whining about it when you’re suspended over it.

        Yeah, they’d be technically right that it’s protected speech but since they’re a teen you slap them on the wrist to tell them that’s shitty public behavior.

        1. Because shooting in a safe manner and holding a gun in a safe matter is the same as dead babies? Fuck you. There is nothing wrong with her posting pictures of her shooting a gun. There is nothing, no action that should be taken for that. She did nothing wrong. I don’t care if some people were provoked. Oh well. Where does it end?


          1. Because shooting in a safe manner and holding a gun in a safe matter is the same as dead babies?

            Is that the picture of her and her brother flipping off the camera wearing head scarves you’re talking about there?

            Oh, sorry. I didn’t notice you were using the video I have no problem with as your example. Carry on with your righteous indignation.

            1. So flipping people off is not protected speech? Where do you draw the line?

            2. Or is it because she wore clothes you disagree with? Which isn’t protected her choice in clothing or using profanity off campus?

          2. Where does it end?

            In this case? Depending on how it goes, either in a week when the school apologizes, or in five years after a long drawn-out court case in which she tries to argue for millions of damages because she didn’t get into some prestigious university on account of the suspension.

            More broadly, it ends when gun violence is no longer seen as a major issue in America. But so long as (rightly or wrongly) it is seen as such, intentionally provocative pictures involving guns are going to see disproportionate reactions.

            Alternatively, it’ll end when schools are restricted from addressing out-of-school behavior of students. But that’s unlikely, as many of the issues that parents demand that schools address stem from out-of-school behavior, and as such parents want schools to do so, and empower them to do so.

            It’s like the whole bit with universities taking extra-judicial action against students for sexual harassment matters. So long as schools aren’t just places of learning, but also “community”, and the school itself is seen as a curator of that “community”, they will go beyond what the police are willing to do.

            In both cases, the “problem” (in your eyes) is that the schools/universities are doing more then you want them to do, but are acting broadly in line with the mandate they’ve been given by the relevant parties.

            1. No the problem is is they are punishing protected speech because some people’s feelings were hurt.

              1. As the social and literal contract with their jurisdiction expects them to.

                1. Can’t legally use a contract to negate the Bill of Rights.

                  1. What a ludicrous statement.

                    Also missing the point.

                    1. No, you’re missing the point. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land. Yes, some think they can go around it and you seem to be arguing that we should accept this because society (in this case a small number) decide so.

                2. When did she sign a contract saying she gave up her freedom of speech?

  23. I don’t feel bad for her. Rights come with responsibilities and sharing this photo was irresponsible, especially given the proximity to communities that have had school shootings. She’s a dumbass. Should she have been punished? Probably not, but I don’t really care that she did get punished.

    People sending death threats should be investigated though.

    1. You think free speech should only be nice things or things you agree with? Because that can be your only explanation for not feeling sorry for her. You consider it stupid I would argue the schools reactions is exactly why she needed to post it. Free speech fights usually involve less polite speech. And she did reference the 1 and 2 amendment so it can be concluded that at least part of her actions involved her standing up for those rights.
      I wander how sorry you would have felt if it had been a homosexual kid blasting Christianity using vulgarity and had been suspended.

      1. You think free speech should only be nice things or things you agree with?

        Na.

        Because that can be your only explanation for not feeling sorry for her.

        Na, I don’t feel sorry for her because she’s a moron that knew this could get her in trouble and now she’s crying about it.

        Free speech fights usually involve less polite speech. And she did reference the 1 and 2 amendment so it can be concluded that at least part of her actions involved her standing up for those rights.

        Hell yeah, I agree she should have every right to post this photo.

        I wander how sorry you would have felt if it had been a homosexual kid blasting Christianity using vulgarity and had been suspended.

        That’s hilarious.

        1. First how is she crying about it? And secondly, if she knew she could get in trouble for speech the school didn’t like off school grounds, how is her protest not exactly what the 1A was created for? Third, why was my scenario hilarious? Because of feels?

          1. why was my scenario hilarious?

            Because its such a bad analogy. When given that to work with, you just have to laugh.

            Have a good one!

            1. How is it a bad analogy because you can’t answer? Or you have to admit it’s because the analogy would be different because you agree with the activity I received but her activity is a form of wrong speak? I suspect it is the latter in your case.

        2. TripK2
          October.24.2019 at 4:24 pm
          ‘You think free speech should only be nice things or things you agree with?’
          “Na”
          Yeah, liar, acording to your post.

          ‘Because that can be your only explanation for not feeling sorry for her.’
          “Na, I don’t feel sorry for her because she’s a moron that knew this could get her in trouble and now she’s crying about it.”
          So it IS the reason; you support free speech, BUT…
          IOWs you do not support free speech.

          ‘Free speech fights usually involve less polite speech. And she did reference the 1 and 2 amendment so it can be concluded that at least part of her actions involved her standing up for those rights.’
          “Hell yeah, I agree she should have every right to post this photo.”
          But shame on her and she deserves it for doing so?
          Fuck off, slaver.

  24. Defining what is acceptable by the reaction to a thing, rather than the thing itself is really pretty damn stupid. By that reasoning, threats have no definition. The gun control crowd really is going out of their way to be their own worst enemy.

  25. A lot of these problems would go away if people just took their kids out of school permanently and started voting against bond measures.

  26. When the administrators involved are dragged into the street and summarily executed, I don’t want to hear any crying about their rights being violated. Sure, it might seem an excessive punishment, but they had a responsibility not to exercise their power tyrannically, and so shouldn’t be surprised when they meet the proper fate of tyrants.

      1. Amusingly while looking up that phrase to make sure I had it right, I learned that our 10th President, John Tyler, when he was a boy, led a revolt against his abusive schoolmaster, knocked him down, beat him up, tied him up, threw him in the closet, and left him there.

        When the schoolmaster was finally freed hours later by a neighbor who heard him screaming, he went to young John Tyler’s house and told the story to Tyler Sr., who dismissed him with: Sic Semper Tyrannis.

        History is fun!

  27. “She didn’t break the law or threaten anybody, but her school still panicked.”

    Nonsense.
    She did break the law by believing she had the right to draw a gun on a social media site. Such actions only trigger other people into violent rages against people and society. It is such insane characterizations that results in mass shootings, incomprehensible attacks on other people and wars between nations.
    Fortunately for everyone involved, cooler heads prevailed at the school and these obviously sick individuals will find out why our beloved socialist slave state brooks no image, thought or writing about guns, freedom, capitalism, personal responsibility in our lovely country.
    Now is the time to take pens, pencils and other nefarious instruments of violence from the populace in order to preserve the quiet and harmony we all enjoy thanks to our ruling elites who take the time and trouble to steal our civil rights away.

  28. Waiting for some kid to post (text only) something like: “I may or may not have touched a firearm recently. Go ahead, [school], suspend me.”

  29. If I were this girl’s parent, first, she’d never be IN that school to start with. Second, if she were, and something as insane as this came down, she’d be not returning after those five days. Let the school lose the state money they get for her deigning to derken their door. Third, she’d likeluy be spending more time at the range, and have HER OWN firearms to get familiar with. And fourth, anyone issuing any credible threats in her direction would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
    Let her stay home for the next fifteen months or so, finish her high school coursework at home, probably also begin Running Start at a junior college as well. Take some training for a viable good paying trade or skill, and begin working in the real world five or ten years on, if she NEEDS a degree for something in particular, there ARE ways of making that happen.

    I’d also be taking up an action at law to get this record expunged from her school history. She has every right to go off to the range, with her brother friends, anyone else. She can’t legally transport a loaded firearm in a car herself, but I’ll bet she CAN transport one taken down and secured in a TSA style hard case to a shooting range. She broke NO laws.

    1. I’d be contacting FIRE and asking them to sue the pants off this school and take it as far as the USSC if necessary.

  30. Endeavor Academy needs to change names to something better befitting a rights-crushing, subsidized, government diploma mill peopled via truancy press-gangs.

    1. Pantswetting Academy?

      1. I would be soooo proud to have her as a daughter-in-law!

  31. I am really stunned at the number of people on here who are taking the “what did you expect, posting such a rude photo online” tack on this one and insisting that she’s a miscreant who deserves whatever comes to her because of it.

    So let me underline the salient information….. Here’s the text they posted with the photo:

    “Me and my legal guardian are going to the gun range to practice gun safety and responsible gun ownership while getting better so we can protect ourselves while also using the First Amendment to practice our Second Amendment.

    So, there’s your context. This is an explicitly political statement. By adopting a bunch of “offensive” imagery, they are exercising their first amendment rights. It really couldn’t be more clear.

    This is absolutely not a posting that could be interpreted as any sort of threat of imminent violence against innocent 3rd parties.

    This isn’t an “overreaction” or “just punishment for a miscreant”. This is a very explicit violation of a very explicit exercise of her right to free speech. She hung a great big sign on it to let them know. She literally says she’s posting a photo demonstrating her 1st amendment rights. And in the photo she tweaks the progressive left in a number of ways. “Look at us, we are wearing Arab garb (speech), posing in front of a confederate flag (speech), flipping the bird (speech), and sharing our love for practicing safe marksmanship (speech). “ All of that posted online with a tagline that says “Hey, look! We made a photo (speech) of our various expressions (speech) and we are sharing it to demonstrate that we have the right to free speech and self defense! (speech)”

    This is open and shut. If she sues the school system, she wins this one easy.

    (someone cue Volokh to come explain why this is completely wrong)

    1. But someone’s feelings were hurt, didn’t you see BYODB’s multiple defense and it was “just a temporary suspension” so no harm no foul, don’t you know?

    2. And to be clear it is mainly three people, BYODB, Eric and TripK making the she wore provocative clothing so she deserved to be raped style argument. I can’t even believe it. BYODB even admits it violates her 1A rights but it isn’t worth getting worked up about. Yes it was rape but come on she wore such a short skirt so she must have expected it. The difference between the hyperbole of the previous sentence and his defense of the school are so miniscule that it almost isn’t hyperbole.

      1. Addendum: he even argued about dress codes as to excuse this behavior (though, as I pointed out that analogy only works if the school can enforce dress codes off campus, and can suspend kids for posting pictures of dress code violations that occurred off campus).

      2. Eric:

        No. It’s not ok at all I’m my book. But It is completely understandable given today’s culture.

        TripK2:

        She shouldn’t have been punished because the punishment is arbitrary and partially politically-driven. I hope her family wins a big lawsuit and those that have sent her true death threats are prosecuted.

        BYODB:

        Should one have the right to do so? I’d say yes, it seems to easily fall within the 1st amendment and there are no obvious direct threats to anyone.

        Is it pretty damn foolish to do so as a high school student, especially in Colorado? You bet.

        You are confusing understanding with approving. The two are not synonyms.

        1. He continued to blame the student for her activity with his “understanding” that moves it into the category of approving. He always added a but statement. It was a defense of the school, period.

    3. If she sues the school system, she wins this one easy.

      Yeah, probably.

      And her claim of “surprise”, if sincere, still means she’s an idiot.

      1. As I said above she shared it on Snapchat with a select group of friends, someone else shared it beyond that, so naive may be in order but not stupidity. Kids often don’t think out long term impacts, not out of stupidity but out of naivety.

        1. Obviously not that select, otherwise we wouldn’t be discussing it. That said, forwarding and saving photos on SnapChat and similar apps is a time honored hobby among kids, as evidence by that big Colorado scandal a few years back in which some 300 students at one high school were trading nude selfies like baseball cards.

          And again, senior in high school. Old enough to die for your country, old enough to know better then to make a photo where you dress up like a terrorist.

          1. You seem to be going out of your way to blame her for a legal and Constitionally protected act. Your whole arguement is victim blaming.

          2. Somehow I think if she had been photographed burning a flag and the school had suspended her, or flipping off a picture of Trump, while wearing Antifa black and a mask you would not be nearly so willing to blame her actions.

            1. Note to foreign readers: this argument from prophecy, of the form “yeah but if reality were different you’d be wrong and God would punish that arrogant girl, nana nanny boo boo” is repeated by American victims of ineptitude, just as in more backward nations.

              1. Note to readers US and foreign: Hank is logically-challenged.

          3. “And again, senior in high school. Old enough to die for your country, old enough to know better then to make a photo where you dress up like a terrorist.”

            Every hear of A-1?
            I have a feeling you’ve heard of it, but it’s one of those ‘haven’t really read up on it’ things in your case.

      2. Blaming a kid for her naivety and normal lack of mature understanding of long term consequences, something all teens have in common as an idiot is pure fucking victim blaming. She was asking for it right?

        1. She’s a senior. Old enough to hold a job, drive a car, sign up for the military. Almost old enough to smoke and vote.

          That’s the age where “immaturity” stops being a reason and starts being an excuse.

          She was asking for it right?

          Nope. But she’s still an idiot.

          1. Science would argue that you are a complete idiot. Multiple studies confirm that 17 yo do not consider long term consequences. She isn’t even old enough to sign a contract, and she can only serve in the military with her parents permission, not her own. Try another fucking argument. You are going out of her way to blame her because you didn’t like her message. That is pure authoritarianism. What she did was legal, Constitutional and obviously prompted by her personal political beliefs as evidenced by the accompanying text. Oh but she stated something you think is crude. Grow a fucking pair of balls and realize she did nothing wrong and you are the fucking prude here. Period. Nothing she did is not her right and what the other parents, the school and you are doing is blaming her for her beliefs. Fuck you!!!!

    4. Cyto, what you leave out is the part about how pro-gun advocates are developing a program to leverage the 1A to get armed intimidation recognized as a routine feature in politics. Down that road, and not very far down it, lies tyranny. It is not a change which bystanders ought to accept with equanimity.

  32. Masks aren’t good internet security.

    1. Rob Misek
      October.25.2019 at 6:05 am
      “Masks aren’t good internet security.”

      OFFS, we have the scumbag bigot here to post more bullshit.
      Is she a ‘jewess’, you pathetic piece of shit?

      1. You define “troll”.

        There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss the actions of Jews when it becomes relevant.

  33. Over the phone, Smith noted that since multiple parents kept their children home after becoming aware of the post, Keyes’ photo could be viewed as an impediment to the school’s ability to educate…

    Seems as though it’s the parents keeping their children home who are interfering with the education process.

  34. Incidents such as this will become more frequent as people flee coastal California and move to America. Clash of Cultures and all that.

  35. “In actuality, Alexandria was holding a pistol, not an “assault” rifle, in the photo”

    I’m waiting for the sound of millions of liberal heads exploding at the realization that there are “pistols” made from the AR platform.

  36. Smith said that federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act protections prevent her from discussing the details of the case

    Then drop the fuckin’ case.

  37. Like cigarettes and alcohol, kids shouldn’t have access to guns.

    1. “Like cigarettes and alcohol, kids shouldn’t have access to guns.”

      Don’t recognize the handle; sarc or stupidity?

  38. Pusat layanan Jasa Seo terbaik dan berkualitas yang bekerja secara efektif menggunakan teknik white SEO. Kami mampu mendorong website Anda ke halaman 1 Google dengan peringkat yang tinggi. Silahkan kunjungi kami di https://seojasa.com/

  39. Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ
    pop over to this website ……… Read More

  40. If the school felt threatened by the photo, why didn’t the principal just call the parents and, you know..discuss it.

  41. They’d shit themselves if they gazed at our high school yearbook. Skeet & trap teams, in the sports section, leaning on shotguns, with a regional trophy at their feet. And yes, it’s a letter sport.
    Small blessings received by living in the outer edges.

  42. This is part of a progressive drive to treat guns like tobacco, to use heavy handed government coercion, and to shame and shun people into abandoning their traditional and lawful firearms and firearms related activities. It’s our “betters” forcing their idea of progress on us inferior fly over backwards bitter clingers.

    Robby Soave, “High School Suspends 2 Students for Posting Gun Range Photos on Snapchat, ACLU Files Suit”, Reason, 11 Apr 2019.
    “Sharing our completely legal weekend activities on Snapchat should not result three days of in-school suspensions,” Cody Conroy told Reason.

    When the law becomes unreasonable, it becomes reasonable to choose to become an outlaw.

  43. “going to the gun range to practice gun safety and responsible gun ownership”
    is
    “detrimental to the safety and welfare of the student”

    Sex? Educate them and teach them safety.
    Drugs? Educate them and teach them safety.
    Lighters and fire? Educate them and teach them safety.
    Knives? Educate them and teach them safety.
    Power tools? Educate then and teach them safety.
    Firearms? MAKE IT TABOO AND FORBID KNOWLEDGE OF THEM.

    The American education system is a leftist sewer flowing with ideological stupidity that defies reason.

    1. Actually they’re as flipped out today about knives as they are about guns.

      I carried a boy scout knife from age of ten onward (1958), and never once considered using it as a weapon against another person.

    2. SVT, what if this incident had stopped short of a deliberately intimidating publication, and been confined instead to her education and safety training? Nobody would be saying a thing, right?

  44. Why would a picture of a student legally visiting a gun range and practicing her marksmanship fall into this category?

    Because that is not the picture in question. The picture in question shows a person trying to look like an intended terrorist nut case, and doing a convincing job of it.

    1. And in that picture Alexandria and her older brother (an Army veteran) were wearing shemaghs adopted by our military members as a practical protective scarf. Their Caption: “Me and my legal guardian are going to the gun range to practice gun safety and responsible gun ownership while getting better so we can protect ourselves while also using the First Amendment to practice our Second Amendment.”

      Stephen Lathrop: “The picture in question shows a person trying to look like an intended terrorist nut case, and doing a convincing job of it.”

      Your conviction is that you think you know her intents and what she was trying to do. Rorschach test. Or projection.

      A person should only be punished for overt acts, not what people think the person’s speech implies to them.

      1. Sorry, Naaman. That’s the old pro-racist dodge: the only way to know if I am a racist, is to know the contents of my heart. And you can’t do that, so you have no idea what this klan hood means to me.

        The retort is that it does not matter in the slightest what your intent is, if your behavior is objectively racist. That is what a racist needs to be condemned for—the behavior, and its predictable result—not the inward state which nobody can know. It is the behavior which does the damage, regardless of what is in the racist’s heart.

        The damage in this case is not racism. It is using a gun for the purpose of disrupting the school, and for the purpose of political intimidation. Pretty much only gun nuts, and a few bill of rights extremists, would see it otherwise.

        The image has content, regardless of the claimed intent. Bystanders are entitled to attribute the content to the intent of the person publishing the image. The constitution says you cannot ban the activity, or the publication, and that was not done. The disruption you can punish, and the intimidation should be within the power of law enforcement to prevent.

        The nation is increasingly in need of a gun-free-politics law. We are right at the cusp of seeing widespread armed intimidation become a normal feature in political activity and advocacy. That cannot be permitted. But it is pretty clear that potential has become one that many pro-gun advocates value, look for, and would like to see expanded.

  45. Honestly, she’s probably better off not going to that school. It sounds like it’s being run by buffoons who should not have children under their authority.

  46. My understanding is, based on Tinker v. Des Moines, that students do not have the same rights as citizens outside the schoolhouse door. By the Tinker standard, if a reasonable adult believes it will cause a disturbance, the school has to balance individual rights against protecting the learning environment. A disturbance was caused – kids stayed home whether reasonably or not – so it would be hard to argue in court that the administration was wrong about it possibly creating a disturbance. I personally don’t like this heckler’s veto standard – that standard leads to different treatments based on a group’s likelihood of causing a disturbance – a “be happy not gay” t-shirt is pretty offensive to an lgbt kid, but since lgbt kids don’t typically respond by disturbing the school, the anti-gay kid gets more protection than the kid waving the Confederate flag – because he is likely to get punched in the mouth.
    I’m also not happy with the school being in a position of regulating out of school conduct, but the Bong Hits For Jesus case has opened that can of worms.
    So, for all the people arguing that the punishment is unconstitutional, perhaps you ought to bone up on case law. The Constitution is not always interpreted the way we wish it would be.

  47. So the police investigate her for a non-threatening posting, but she gets real threats and nothing is done about it?

  48. Lots of butthurt guntards dribbling over their AK-97s b/c some dope-smoking cracker hillbilly gun fetishist got suspended.

    1. The ONLY thing that will protect a 90 lb woman from a determined 300 lb rapist is her .357.

  49. By the Tinker standard, if a reasonable adult believes it will cause a disturbance, the school has to balance individual rights against protecting the learning environment.
    https://www.google.co.uz/url?q=https://situsqqpkv.com/

  50. A central problem is the notion of “public” education and “federal” intrusion into it. No issue is as important as this one. It’s a colossal problem and it’s public education itself. Public schools are in fact government schools, indoctrination centers if you will. Currently, the Education Savings Account (ESA) is a viable solution but Florida’s “universal” education savings account program promises to replace all other alternatives that are being tried all over the nation.

    In spite of the recent Supreme Court ruling that unions no longer may force public employees to pay fees, they remain a major underpinning of this problem. Government continues to dominate education in spite of reduced monetary support by unions. They still transfer almost all the teacher contributions to democrats. Democrats take from the union and give to the teachers such entitlements as tenure, favorable salaries, short work schedules, etc. Taxpayers, parents and students are totally excluded from the political equation.

    Public teaching has been fundamentally transformed into an enormous entitlement, and dispensing entitlements is the heart of the democrat strategy. It cannot be said too many times: the absence of competition is the problem. According to a recent study, the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship program, now being made universally available, increased college enrollment rates by about six percentage points for students who participated, even minimally.

    A free enterprise education system eliminates the ability to trample one civil right by supporting an opposing civil right. Perhaps more importantly, it precludes indoctrination of students to unwelcome political agendas. For these immature minds, public education suggests a powerful preference for a system that’s totally alien to a constitutional republic. The public school system is very persuasive with its mandatory system. Currently, it feeds the masses at food courts that would make any commercial mall proud — with really bad food that kids hate and few would buy.

    It transports everyone to everywhere on the largest mass transit system in the world consisting of half a million buses, that cost about $50 billion. By the way, due to rising costs, a number of schools now charge $300-$500 per pupil, annually to ride on these “taxpayer funded” vehicles. It funds exotic musical instruments used only by a handful of kids who often already have plenty of private money. It provides expert and very expensive facilities and training for the professional sports industry that later employs only an infinitesimally small percentage of students who often don’t graduate.

    Expelled students currently have nothing to lose because the cost is assessed whether they learn, graduate or ever return. The primary problem with our current system is it faces no competition. It’s a monopoly in a nation where monopoly is considered a criminal enterprise for everyone else. In America, pupils are forced to attend at the point of a gun but are not protected with equivalent force. Parents, non-parents and businesses are forced to pay or lose their homes and businesses. Additionally all are required by the state to pay forever, long after their kids are grown and even if they had no children, and none are allowed to opine on the system chosen by the federal government.

    School taxes, based on per-student allocations, should be awarded to parents in the form of a state credit or voucher, spendable in any accredited school by parents according to their choice. Every student would receive the same amount regardless of school taxes paid. Such a system would remove the tyranny, drugs, crime, bullying and bias because no business would survive if it tolerated such behavior. Florida’s Universal ESA looks like America’s future system.

    The solution is privatization, school choice if you will. Not the teachers’ idea of choice and certainly not the union’s idea. Most know what’s needed is a robust free market filled with all kinds of accredited schools, able to deliver general subjects as well as all kinds of specialties, including athletics and the arts. Bottom line, it’s a very bad idea for any government to educate its children.

    1. This is fake news. Charter schools, private schools, and religious schools exist for parents who want their children indoctrinated in their parents’ belief systems. Real education exposes you to multiple viewpoints and prepares you to evaluate critically the information, sources, and perspectives you hear. Some will be offensive to traditional beliefs. Students will come home with questions parents will have trouble answering. But in the end they will be prepared to find their own truth, and not follow demagogues like lemmings. The proof? Nearly all the best Libertarian thinkers were educated in public schools!

  51. Snapchat is more than popular now and it has be the bigger players in social media here at http://fewhacks.com/ online.

  52. As Paul Harvey would say, it’s important to know the rest of the story. EHS is in Centennial, CO – a very conservative town. It’s an alternative school for students who have been unsuccessful in the district’s regular schools. It ranks in the bottom 20 percent. Many students have experienced trauma and face emotional/behavioral challenges. Another student at EHS recently made threats of violence and was arrested. In the photo which is the subject of the article, the pair’s faces are masked by Arab shemaghs. They look like terrorists, and thus the apparent message is, “screw you, we’re coming for you.” The school cites other communications from this student that provide additional context and explain why students feared coming to school after this post. In Colorado, the home of the Columbine massacre, schools are very vigilant. Even in conservative Centennial, we react strongly to any threat of violence. Here, we protect our children and this student’s message is not considered “fun” or “responsible.” A five-day suspension sends a message of responsibility that most posters here have failed to learn. If this student wants to go to medical school, she would do well to temper her messages. I support the First and Second Amendments but like all civil rights, they are not absolute.

Please to post comments