District 87- What rules apply?

By:  Diane Benjamin

More on this story:   https://blnnews.com/2018/03/31/bhs-scoundrels-liars/

The statement below is from the BHS Student Handbook, it pertains to prohibited materials:

https://www.district87.org/Domain/1755

 

Even if somebody does believe the BHS talking points about a student bringing in the document, how does it not violate the policy in the student handbook?  Mr. Moore?

Since the school copied it for students, how is the document not “endorsed” by the school?

Review the document here:

Emailing Take Action 4 Sensible Gun Reform

There is very clear different views on guns.  One side doesn’t believe in the 2nd Amendment, the other side does.  Please explain how these quotes from the document aren’t pure propaganda against the 2nd Amendment:



What is an “assault weapon”?

HR 4477 requires government to follow the law?  I didn’t know government didn’t have to follow the laws they make.  (missed teachable moment)

All of these laws limit the rights of law-abiding citizens.  Criminals don’t follow the law – hence the name “criminal”.

I bet the kids were never taught real facts about the 2nd Amendment.  If your kids are still in public school, you need to teach them:    https://blnnews.com/2018/02/28/get-scott-laughlin-some-gun-facts/

.

.

.

 

17 thoughts on “District 87- What rules apply?

  1. You are exactly right Diane – The District 87 government employees are liars and acting in an unlawful and unconstitutional manner. I say treat their “constitutionally protected” pensions in the same way they want to treat my absolutely fundamental American right to own firearms. Perhaps they should be aware and educate their students that without the teeth of the 2nd Amendment, all our other rights would be worthless.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. It’s not a binary choice — or an either-or choice — and it’s disingenuous to present it as such. And you know it. I can (and do) believe in the 2nd amendment, responsible gun ownership AND sensible gun control measures.

    Like

      1. Why would you bet that? I’ve shot plenty of times; a variety of revolvers, semi-automatic handguns and rifles. Father was in law enforcement. Friends, responsible gun owners, have let me shoot theirs. I’ve been out to CI Shooting Sports a half dozen times or so. I don’t own any, though.

        Like

      1. Because it is binary! Laws limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. Criminals don’t obey the laws and government can’t even enforce the ones on the books now. The Texas church wouldn’t have happened if the military had put the guy on the list to flag him on a background check. Florida wouldn’t have happened if law enforcement had done anything on the more than 30 times they had contact with the guy. Do I need to mention the sheriffs staying outside and listening to the shooting instead of stopping it?

        Like

      2. Connecticut was one of three States to have the most restrictive gun laws in the country when the shooting at Sandy Hook took place. Those laws did not prevent the perpetrator from killing all those children. The shooter had to have violated some of those laws. No one can predict criminal behavior.

        Like

  3. I would love to have Rich describe his idea of “responsible gun ownership” and sensible gun control measures”. Perhaps it is along the lines of regulations adopted by the UK, and if you don’t know those regulations, let’s just say they are mighty restrictive.

    Like

      1. There have even been demands to ban kitchen knives such as long utility knives, chef knives, butcher knives etc I kid you not, the argument was that NO ONE needs to have those types of knives in their home kitchens, that meat is cut at the store sufficiently to require no more than paring knives and short bladed utility knives or maybe a filet knife in the home/private kitchen.

        Like

      2. Ronin, the highjackers on 9/11 used box cutters to kill the airline personnel. Anything can be used as a weapon. Attempting to restrict any tool only reduces risks, it doesn’t eliminate possibility or probability of inappropriate use.

        Like

  4. “Ronin, the highjackers on 9/11 used box cutters to kill the airline personnel. Anything can be used as a weapon. Attempting to restrict any tool only reduces risks, it doesn’t eliminate possibility or probability of inappropriate use.”

    Exactly! – ANYTHING can be used as a weapon – any, thing, even things you can’t pick up – Gun bans, ammo bans, type of gun bans, mag capacity bans etc are useless. Somehow the “common sense gun laws” people don’t understand that bad guys don’t follow the laws – also the NRA doesn’t kill people. I would like to see the existing laws more closely attended to, no one (in their right mind) wants dangerous people to have guns – we need better health screening and ZONE CENTERS need to be reopened – these people need 24 hour care by professionals not to be foisted upon their families or wandering around loose in society on their own. Adam Lanza, James Holmes and Jared Laughner were the poster boys for that one little change that COULD have made a difference – These people are NOT “just different” or a “little strange” they are dangerous.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s