Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr X
However, what was not positive was everyone prefaced their argument saying that because this happened in Beaver Dam, WI, this whole thing was OK. They suggest that this is acceptable in what they implicitly called redneck Beaver Dam but not in a civilized place like Milwaukee. Some callers said this was fine in Beaver Dam but if it was a Milwaukee or suburban teacher, than this may have been unacceptable.
Plenty of the people I work with though thought that she deserved punishment because as a teacher, she should be held to higher standard of conduct and not play with guns. Sigh, that is quite a prevalent mentality here.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Why is it a concern that students can print such a picture? It is not the school's business unless you accept that she is doing something bad.
|
I think that,
for some people, they see it as a
morals issue. They equate guns with "bad things and bad people" due to the demonization of guns in America by the Bradys and the media. Thus, if she handles and is familiar with guns, she must be morally corrupt. Q.E.D.
Let's suppose that instead of holding the rifle, we saw a completely different photo of her. What
else would cause parental complaints in a community?
- She posed with a joint in her hand or mouth.
- Photographed sloppy drunk at a party?
- A picture of her in a bikini hugging a teenage boy
- Participating in a wet t-shirt contest at Hooters?
Any of the above would usually be sufficient to warrant a school district to look into a teacher's background. Drug use, excessive alcohol consumption, potential sexual interest in student-aged boys, and public exhibitionism could all be used as part of a "moral turpitude" allegation that she was unfit and/or posed a risk as a teacher.
To liberal-leaning minds, guns equate to people who are criminals, have criminal desires, are beer-swizzling rednecks or violent schitzes ready to "go off". Thus they see this as "morally corrupt" in their belief system.
It's true that
a picture is worth a thousand words and a "photograph tells a story". But the viewer can hear the wrong words or get the wrong story from a photograph too. A bikini-clad teacher hugging a 13-15 y/o boy or posing in a "fond embrace" would certainly raise eyebrows today. Unless the caption says "Betsy hugging nephew Danny at his summer birthday BBQ".
Likewise, the rifle photograph tells a story. The question is whether or not the viewer is listening to ESPN or NPR.
That her "behavior" (what little we can tell of it in the photo) is acceptable in a rural setting but not in "the big city" is preposterous. If we turn this around and say "being openly gay in public is okay in the big city, but will get you fired in rural America" the gay rights activists, the ACLU and liberal nitwits would descend on that like locusts.
The Bradyites get free press when they refer to guns as "killing machines", "weapons of war" or that "so many of our children die because of guns". Unfortunately we stand on our "Constitutional Rights" as a moral high ground, something that has an intangible feel to most people.
We - the firearms community - should be putting forth images and/or advertisements that show family recreational shooting or cowboy shooting, happy responsible adults urging safety or training classes both for education and fun. The only way to counter the "bad moral image" the anti-gun propagandists have spread is to show positive images of gun ownership.