School student suspended for NRA pro-2nd Amendment T-shirt

"The problem with this is that there was no violation with the dress code that Grand Island High School enforces."The district code of conduct policy also contains a clause that says clothing should "Not promote and/or endorse... illegal or violent activities." As I explained, guns are inherently violent- they are designed to inflict damage (violent is defined as "using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something"). This shirt depicting guns was encouraging violence; it supported the sale/ownership of firearms, under protection of the 2nd Amendment. Again, I am not against gun ownership, but I do recognize their violent nature. I don't understand how you can think that the shirt did not encourage violence when it clearly depicted two rifles. "The gun is not the problem, it"s the person behind that gun."This doesn't prove a point either. Of course the person using the gun is liable, but the point is that a gun is being used. You could use that argument for any inanimate object in the world, but it does not change the nature of the object."Say a student wears a shirt with a pit bull or some other dog that it inherently portrayed as a "bad" dog. It is not the dog, but the people who raise it."This is a faulty analogy, as dogs can be used for many reasons, including companionship or to help disabled people. Guns are only used to damage people, animals, or targets. Yes, target shooting is violent. Not harmful, but violent- it inflicts damage. There is no legitimate use for a gun that doesn't involve violence (by legitimate I mean real- not like using it as a paperweight or something similar). "A gun is not a violent saying. It is not violent nor a saying."Of course it is not a saying, but it is still violent, and the code states that clothes shouldn't promote or endorse violent activities. Using a gun is a violent activity. Plus, the saying about the 2nd Amendment is obviously about guns, and is, of course, a saying."The request should not have even been presented. This is the problem. He never did anything wrong, as I have obviously mentioned earlier. Another thing I mentioned before is that the student did not violate any rules in the handbook."I explained already that it was a valid request, and you will most likely dispute it again, so I will now address his insubordination. Did the vice principal make a reasonable request? I don't see how it was unreasonable; it did not compel the student to do anything morally questionable or obscure. Did the student refuse to comply with the request? Yes. That is the definition of insubordination, which carries punishment up to a one-day suspension. You could argue that the request was unreasonable. However, the student "had worn the shirt to school before, along with others that were similar, and had been asked to put duct tape over the writing. He said he complied because he didn't want to make waves." Obviously, he did not see the request as unreasonable before, as he complied, but he decided to object this time, and suffered the consequences. Again, these rules exist to enforce an educational model promoting discipline. I still don't understand how the student could be so thick as to wear the shirt multiple times and still not learn from the past.My references to children buying guns and the Supreme Court case were made to pre-counter an argument based on the 1st Amendment. I didn't mean to digress from the topic at hand, but simply to make sure that you would not make a dead-end argument on expression or Constitutional rights."May I mention that the school actually wasn"t even worried about the guns on his shirt, but the words on his shirt."I agree that this was a strange route to take, but it still was not an unreasonable request and therefore is subject to the rules on insubordination."Also, he had worn shirts before with guns on them and no one said a thing."This is untrue, as mentioned above quote from the Fox News article. He had worn this shirt before, and similar ones, and had complied with requests before.I did not use any new sources except for the Google Dictionary to define 'violent.' All others can be found in above 'Sources' sections.