What have seen over the years is that the administration does not follow it's own policies and forces the school board to make them do their job by passing one more rule... the zero tolerance rule. Guess what happens then? The administration doesn't like being forced, so they apply the zero tolerance rule with zest. And what of the bad apples they should use it on? They don't now and didn't before. CASE IN POINT: My daughter was punched on the playground by a young black classmate while playing four square. The kid was "suspended" for the rest of the day. I confronted the principal about it and she said they'd suspended him for the day. When I pointed out that their policy said they had to give parents 24 hours notice for a suspension, she clammed up. I took it to the district superintendent, then to the school board. Each stood by what the principal had done - against written policy. So we went back to the police. 5 months later it was adjudicated in juvenile court. The poor kid didn't even remember what he'd done! I actually felt sorry for him. And
ANOTHER CASE: a student at the same school brought her brother's ping pong ball shooter which was broken to school for show and tell. They expelled her. After 2 months, it made the news. I looked her dad up and met with him. I showed him the definition of a firearm in SC state code of laws. She was literally back in school within 45 minutes. This school, for those interested in Alice Drive Elementary in Sumter SC.
So fuck the schools.
At the other end of the judicial process, do you actually believe that a DA will charge a person with all the applicable crimes? It is much more likely that the DA will want a plea bargain and agree to lesser charges. So tell me again how you think a tough gun law will work.
The truth is, as posted earlier in this thread, that no government can defeat armed civilians.
At this rate, I expected I would make a million dollars this year, but I only made $50k, so I experienced a $950,000 loss. I also didn't get to sleep with that hottie in HR, but that's an intangible loss.
You want to tax 99% for income over 2million? Why 2 million? How is that fair (ya know, equal protection and all)? SHouldn't everyone have the same tax rate? Estates over 10million? My parents own several thousand acres on a working farm. If they leave it to me, I have to sell land or mortgage the house to satisfy the taxes? So my farm gets parted out and smaller? How's that good for my future income and the future taxes I'll pay on that income? Why 10 million? So you most people won't get affected by it and thus vote for it? How's this.... we all vote that you gotta buy us lunch. In a democracy, the mob rules. The trick to getting the voters to go for something is to make sure that less than 1/2 of the voters are affected by said law. SMH.
Where there's a will, there's a relative.