For those wondering how brash and proudly politically-incorrect Donald Trump could become the Republican Party’s nominee (and he surely will),and why he is now polling well against presumptive Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton, you really need look no further than this.
On Monday, a 5-year-old girl was suspended from her school in Brighton, Colorado…a suburb of Denver…for bringing in a toy bubble-blowing gun. It is just the latest in a long and growing list of absurd examples as to how zero-tolerance gun policies are enforced in schools.
Few among us would disagree that students should not be bringing guns…real guns…to school. However, the interpretation and enforcement of zero-tolerance policies at the district level throughout the country often takes great liberty with the concept, a liberty resulting in a governmental overreach that is nothing short of insane.
As it applies to guns in schools, zero-tolerance became a more formal declaration through its expression in the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, a federal law that was a product of the Clinton administration. Clinton said at the time, “Zero tolerance is a common-sense policy. Why does anybody need to have a gun in school?”
The answer is they don’t, and even I have to give our former commander-in-chief the benefit of the doubt and assume that when he said “guns,” he was referring to the kind that actually go “bang!”
Unfortunately, some progressives at local levels of government throughout the country saw this, as well as the tragic incidents of school shootings to which the country has borne witness over the last 20 or so years, as their cue to either take leave of their senses entirely, press their gun control ideologies at the most grass-roots of levels, or both. The result? Cases like this, where a kindergarten student is suspended for bringing a bubble maker to class, as well as others, where children have been suspended merely for drawing pictures of guns, forming their hands in the shape of a gun, and other such mind-numbingly inoffensive and harmless acts.
As you would imagine, Colorado’s School District 27J is taking a beating over this in the court of public opinion, but is sticking to its own guns, if they’ll pardon the expression, saying in a statement, “While we hear and understand the parents of this student being concerned about this discipline in light of the student’s age and type of item, this suspension is consistent with our district policy as well as how Southeast [Elementary] has handled similar situations throughout this school year.”
Assuming that is true, then it is not the child or the parents who are deserving of scrutiny; it is the aforementioned “district policy,” which, based on this example alone, must be stupid to a degree that cannot even be appropriately described in words.
By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large