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

I have raised 5 kids, and am rabidly open about firearms. I would shove this so far up the school's ass if they ever tried to pull this on anything my kids post. My son has an IG for his gun/airsoft stuff, and as long as he's not threatening anyone, I support whatever he posts. EVEN if it's edgy. I'll have a chat with him about life, but that will be private, and the school will get dealt with.
 
And I think it was more than a dumb stunt. It says "epic 1A troll" to me with the piled-on messaging/symbols. Civil disobedience is a form of trolling the government.
That possibility raises a philosophical question:

Is it unfair for a community to deny a troll
the full consequences of their action,
by coming together to give them support?

I'm not making any shit up, I asked you a question.
yes, you are. You said "so you're saying no student should EVER post a picture of themselves with a firearm or mention they're family owns firearms and regularly visit a gun range to shoot? " when I said nothing at all like that.
Calm down; he's probably confused you with me.

I probably related that linked philosophy in yet another thread,
but I can't find a sample post.

The missing context is that I was raised with the
Not One Word About Our Guns rule by my parents.

But no it's not "victim blaming", a concept which is on its face retarded.
Hey that's a microaggression.
I suspect I victim-blame all the time.
So it's a thing.
And sometimes I even do it deliberately...
 
I agree that the school admins are retarded...but my point is that people need to know their audience (both your intended audience and that any other Tom Dick or Harry can see this shit) and that this day in age you have to be a moron to not anticipate that posting a pic like that could cause you problems. It's not fair, it's not reasonable, but it's a likely outcome and any consequences that you cold face are 100% preventable.

I don't disagree with most of this, from a pragmatic sense, but at some point these f***ers gotta be fought at every turn or they will do it to everyone. Including lots of people who are a lot
less dense than this girl is. Hell they ARE doing it to everyone, see the other incidents a lot more benign than this one. It's pretty obvious to me the bar is pretty
low for what they consider a "threat" these days. Even benign lawful use of guns by children under direct supervision is 110% stink eye material for moonbat
teachers these days. In a shithole like MA or CA if your 5th grader tells a few people at school" that he shot a machine gun in the woods with dad's friends" you might as
well cue up the 99 syreens and DCF DSS LMNOPQ retards will be at your door sniffing us out over this huge transgression because a minor fired a gun under adult
supervision.

Another thing too, IMHO it's not hypocritical for this kid's parents to still be adamant about defending her rights but yet admonish her for not being a little more "careful". If it was my kid I would address rights first and stupidity/discipline/"street smarts". second. The fact that the school etc have gone full retard is a way bigger problem to me than a teenager having a lapse in
judgement. If you think about all the stupid shit a teenager could do or get in trouble on, this should be pretty boring. It's only the statist faggotry here that makes it "exciting" at all.
The latter is a fixable thing not likely to be repeated (eg, a "life lesson") the former is basically a form of societal cancer. The downstream costs to society of letting these statist
faglaroid retards run roughshod over this kid's life off a cupful of momentary stupidity that put absolutely nobody in danger, are exponentially greater if this crap is allowed to go unchecked.

ETA: Roland summed this up nicely, making a kid "eat" 100% responsibility for this is f***ing bonkers. The kid is not the main causative agent here it's the state being retarded.

I don't think she trolled the school...I think she was too dumb to even realize the school might see it. I think she though it was a funny harmless picture, which it was...but she failed to see how the liberal nitwits that run her school and have power over her life would interpret it.

She most definitely trolled them, otherwise I don't think the authorities would have sniffed it out. It's pretty obvious she wanted people to see it. The unexpected part is that she likely did not expect this full retard moron response, though. Even objectively, you would have figured the kopsch would have talked to her, determined no foul, the content disappears (if it had to be deleted at all) and then the school says "we cant tell you what to do, because 1A, but pls, for the love of god, stop that" conversation happens, the kid and her parents agree, and it goes nowhere from there. This is what happened in america not all that long ago. It worked- because the state actors and citizens acted with a heavy dose of pragmatism. Nowadays the state acts with "f*** you, no exceptions, zero tolerance faggot mcdouche policy" unless the stars align and you get a school admin type that isn't completely absurd involved.

You've seen my facebook. I pretty much use it to post memes. I could post pics of myself holding guns, nuts in one hand gun pointed at the camera in the other, hell maybe rock some muslim shit on my head while doing it. Certainly my 1A right and no one SHOULD care...but I don't post shit like that because I don't want my boss or boss's boss or anyone in HR to see it (that and I have no interest in taking pics like that). The fact that they're retards if it offends them is pretty much irrelevant when I get called in to HR to explain it...."well you're being a liberal retarded snowflake" isn't going to be a good argument that helps me keep my job.

The reality is they could can you for a lot less than cultural appropriation, nuts, and a gun. I have "Seen this movie before" and one of these "movies" involved a friend who posted basic pics of all the guns he owned and testing them etc on faceplant and other places. Otherwise lawful activities that should not be "controversial" or attract notions of terrorism or not very threatening in any way. One of his employers used those posts as part of a dog and pony show to more or less drum him out of the company. They claimed that his activities were a threat to the ongoing existence of the company. (that wasn't the real reason, but they basically picked up on that and used it as an excuse to "encourage him to quit". ) I don't really post gun shit on faceplant AT ALL but I'm pretty sure anyone with a brain could probably dig up some posts from somewhere, figure out who I am and then use it to try to ruin my job etc. (would be difficult but they could try) It's not the first time I've heard of this type of BS, either.

-Mike
 

 
Last edited:
Is it unfair for a community to deny a troll
the full consequences of their action,
by coming together to give them support?
Some woman named Parks once trolled a city by deliberately sitting in the front of the bus and refusing to move. Gays trolled by taking a loud & proud approach to their lifestyle. Ditto for those who did not identify with their pudendal configuration.

It is not supporting a troll. It is supporting the right of an individual who makes a legal lifestyle choice to be free of government imposed punishment for expressing an unapproved opinion.
 
Some woman named Parks once trolled a city by deliberately sitting in the front of the bus and refusing to move.

According to the account on Wikipedia,
  • Some woman named Parks was not some protestor who boarded the bus intending to create a civil rights test case. She was commuting home from work.
  • She didn't sit in the front of the bus. She sat in the first row of the Colored section. When the White section later became SRO, the driver moved the placard back and ordered her to move behind the card; she refused.
(BTW, that used to happen to non-smokers on multi-hop flights.
People would reserve a seat in No Smoking.
And then on the next leg, a stewardess would move the placard
behind the non-smoker).

It is not supporting a troll. It is supporting the right of an individual who makes a legal lifestyle choice to be free of government imposed punishment for expressing an unapproved opinion.

Was Carrie Nation making a legal lifestyle choice
when she took a hatchet to saloons?

Think of how many years passed
before members of the Temperance movement
were freed of government-sanctioned social inebriation
by the passage of the 18th Amendment.


Was it wrong when commuters didn't unite as one
and support these bold expressers of unapproved opinion?
 
Was Carrie Nation making a legal lifestyle choice
when she took a hatchet to saloons?
No, hatchet lady was committing a crime.

Parks was an unusual case because breaking the law only becomes the right thing to do (according to society) in retrospect and only after your side wins (remember, winners write the history books).
 
Last edited:
Rosa Parks was tired when refused to give up her seat on a segregated bus in Montgomery Alabama.
But she wasn’t tired from working. Her feet didn’t hurt; her bones weren’t weary.
Rosa Parks was tired of Jim Crow and the continued oppression and brutalization of black people around the country.
 
The purpose of these actions is to demonize guns and the people that use them. There was a time when guns and the people that used them in a responsible manner were respected or at least looked upon in a positive light overall. Thanks to the efforts of those that want to change the makeup of this country over the past several decades guns and the people that use them are now more likely to be portrayed in a negative light and are more likely to be feared even though the huge majority of people still use guns responsibly. Unfortunately this has all been done under the guise of "public safety" and "it's for the children" when in reality it makes all of us less safe and they've gotten away with it because too many have fallen for what sounded right instead of standing up for what is right.
 
There was a time when guns and the people that used them in a responsible manner were respected or at least looked upon in a positive light overall.
There is an interesting scene in Telefon, a Charles Bronson classic where soviet sleeper agents are being activated to blow shit up. These sleepers are the proverbial pillars of society and there is a meeting at the mayors office when extolling the virtues of one of these individuals: .... member of the chamber of commerce and NRA member. And, it was presented in a light where NRA member was a positive. Great movie if you don'd mind the 1977 setting.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom