Rebekah Rorick and friend (courtesy inquitr.com(

“High school senior Rebekah Rorick took a senior picture that included her two great loves – her dog and her favorite hobby of hunting,” news10.com reports. “’My family has always hunted,’ she said. ‘It’s something I do with my family, and my dog is my best friend. So I decided to put her in the photo. I fell in love with [the picture]. It’s my favorite photo of all time right now.'” But Rorick held a rifle in her left hand in the image. As a result, the photo was refused by the Broadalbin-Perth High School yearbook committee . . .

Rorick and her dad took her case to the Board of Education Monday night and argued the portrait was no different than many other senior portraits because it highlighted student interests. They also presented a 2012 yearbook photo of a past senior holding a rifle with a deer.

“I think the yearbook staff’s opinion was that that could be seen as a weapon,” Superintendent Stephen Tomlinson said.

Luckily, Thomlinson saw the light.

Tomlinson said it was the first time he’d heard about the photo, and his first chance to look at it.

“We do have a policy against weapons, but at first glance, and even now, I do not believe that this is,” he said. “She is not holding the gun in a malicious manner. She is not pointing it anywhere. It’s to me, in my opinion, a nice photograph of a young lady in the Adirondack region that enjoys hunting.”

In the end, Rorick and her father won their fight, and the portrait will appear in the yearbook.

Another victory for common sense gun control control. If you know what I mean. [h/t JA]

Recommended For You

87 Responses to What’s Wrong With This Picture: Nothing! Edition

  1. Fudds rejoice! – it’s not a weapon people. God forbid anyone should ever hold something that could be construed as a “weapon.”

    • Now see, I find this photo offensive and disgusting! I mean look a that menacing face! She has a trained attack dog and is a loose cannon ready to go off with an assault rifle disguised with wood stocks! She even has a sniper scope on it! I bet that thick barrel has a “silencer” built in. The bodies must be stacking up in the area! I mean how can anyone allow something like this in a school yearbook??? How will the children ever feel safe? They need to feel loved when the look at the yearbook, not scared by these implements of war! Spread peace . . .

      • Certainly you are being sarcastic one would hope.

        If not, why not move out of the Untied States? Get your Liberal Butt on a plane and go somewhere where the Government gives you everything you need. Or better yet. If you believe that the Government can give you everything you need, I know where your utopia is right now. Go out and commit a crime, then plead guilty and tell the Court your insane and need incarceration. In Prison, you will be treated equally, more equally if you are good looking in the shower. You will get the same kind of medical attention all others get. You will get the same food, a job and you will be treated equally with plenty of bias unless you cozy up to a Guard in a cozy manner.

        I for one think it is grown very close to the time for the 2nd Amendment to be used for the intention for which it was written. We have a Government that is tyrannical. One set of rules for the ruling elite, another set of rules for the ordinary citizens.

        Point in case. I personally agree that relations with the Nation of Cuba should be normalized. But, where did President Obama get the right to over ride a Congressional action that was approved and signed by the President over 50 years ago. The President committed an impeachable offense. The President abused the power of his office. One set of rules for those in power, another set for those being governed. That my friend is the very definition of Tyranny.

        • The expression is “case in point”, not “point in case”.

          And I’m 100% certain that Jeff is being sarcastic.

        • Um?

          On Cuba, the Head of State has the authority to have the Department of State open an embassy.

          He cannot lift the legislated embargo, and is not attempting to do so; that’s up to Congress to do or not do, and any Ambassadorial appointment will have to be confirmed in the Senate. Any treaties will also require Congressional action.

          Congressional action… yeah, right.

          You really should learn English and then READ the Constitution.

        • Looks like you understood everything I said just fine. If you did not understand, why the reply?

          OH, your the grammar police. See I does say.

        • are you having the freeze dried corpse of bobby riggs over for christmas dinner?
          seriously, you are missing some fun filters.
          i think jeff’s comments were spot on.

        • Stinkeye, cmeat, you are all spot on! I thought I had made my comments so overtly sarcastic that nobody could miss it. I have several rules for sarcasm that I try to follow. One of them is that the closer it is to the truth, the less appropriate. In this case, it couldn’t be further from the truth so I figured it was fine. I also figured throwing quotation marks around the incorrectly used “silencer” term would be a dead giveaway. Oh well . . .

        • Uh, “Bobby C. King” is an Anti, posting here to make us folks look like hicks and rubes. They tend to do that. DNFTT.

        • ***SARCASM ALERT! WARNING: The following statement is made using satirical language. The statement is designed to provide satirical wit or an ironic utterance and may not reflect actual truth in events, places, ideas, people, and/or products and sold goods. By continuing to read this post, you accept:

          1) The statement may not bear truth in reality.
          2) The statement should be taken in humor.
          3) You will not hold this writer responsible for any misuse of the statement.
          4) This statement may or may not reflect the actual views of the writer.

          Reader discretion advised!***

          I forgot to mention earlier, I own one of these! You think finding .22 ammo is difficult . . .

      • Yes, what Jeff has written should be read literally! I agree. This young woman has been brainwashed by the NRA and now has gone to the dark side with her .9mm full auto military grade ghost assault gun with the over capacity 30 caliber clip that can be emptied in half a second. I can see that she has a raging pit bull at her side which is ready to kill and kill again! We need to get Shannon Watts and the MDA to educate her into being a fine young unarmed young lady.

        • Marshmallows….I would find it hard to use those as a weapon….Also its impossible to angrily use the word marshmallow in a sentence. Lol

        • “Curse you, Marshmallow Man! Noone steps on a church in MY town!”

          Actually, has one ever dripped on your wrist at a fire? They’d make a GREAT napalm substitute…

          As an aside, at a party a (then) 13-year-old gal I know was wreaking havoc with a repeating marshmallow gun; she was disturbingly comfortable with it. Ma Parker reincarnated…

        • I got hit in the face by a flaming marshmallow. A novice camper was trying to cook it, the marshmallow ignited, and he waved it back and forth in the stick instead of blowing on it. Marshmallow safety, folks.

        • Marshmallows can be lethal, it just takes many years and lots of marshmallows. Obesity and diabetes are silent killers…

      • Barry Soetoro’s Satanic genealogy has nothing to do with his being born left handed. Many people think they’re related, but as the son of a left handed mother I know they are completely separate issues.

        • You mean to tell me that in the twenty first century, in the developed world, there are still people who think left handedness is a sign of evil?

          Holy sh*t.

  2. If anyone ever wants to cause a anti-gunner to lose their “mind” mention that the demonizing of firearms is somewhat responsible for police officers killing kids with toy guns, duck and cover.

    • That guy at Wal-Mart was killed because some panty-wetter hoplophobe was making hysterical, false claims to the 911 operator.

      • Same with the kid at the park a few weeks ago.

        I have seen both videos. If I were put in the exact same positions as the officers involved, I don’t know if I would have taken the shot inside walmart. He wasn’t pointing it at anyone at the time that he was shot and he did drop it VERY quickly. As far as the park, I’d have done the exact same thing if I was given the same information and my partner pulled up to the same location. There was no distance or time to make a determination.

        As far as a school attempting to ban a photo of a rifle, I’d have pulled every photo of a baseball bat in the previous books and shown them the FBI crime reports. More people are killed by bats than rifles each year.

  3. It is a weapon. It’s a weapon AND it’s entirely appropriate and tasteful in that context. Weapons are not threats, nor are they violence. A school ought to be concerned with the meaning of words.

    • Exactly. I hate it when we try to pretend that we don’t own these as weapons. That’s what they are. Weapons. Weapons are what make us free. We aren’t likely to ever use them but they do defend our freedoms and out livesjust by existing as weapons. I make no qualms saying that my Mossberg 500 is a weapon even if I’m just shooting clays with it. In the end we have the right to arms, not sporting equipment.

    • Liberals only know the definition of one word. Control. And they Libs will obtain that control any way that they can achieve it.

      • That’s not true; blanket statements do not garner allies.

        That said, this Liberal sure wishes that his Blue Party hadn’t been hijacked by Stalinists.

        • You are not a liberal. You are a libertarian.

          Liberals think that they have the right to make other people’s choices for them in the name of safety and security. They want to tell you what you can eat, drink, smoke, drive, see, say, watch, read, and pray to.

          Libertarians think that is stupid and would rather spend their time making those decisions about their own lives, not others’.

        • Hey Russ, Just curious, At what point do you recognize your ship has been torpedoed, and it’s time to stop polishing the deck furniture and abandon ship for one thats seaworthy?

        • I identify as Liberal – not “Democrat;” yeah, torpedoed is about right. Or hijacked to Cuba. 😉

          Liberalism connotes the ability to embrace new ideas or work for change when something’s broken, as differentiated from sticking to tradition “just because.”

          It’s not a bad thing to be, but the word has been poisoned. However, Jews still called themselves Jews even when it got ’em in trouble to do so. I’ll keep the label.

          Libertarian is a word I used to use before that group became entwined with the far-right Theocratic and Randian bunches; as someone who’s about personal freedom, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, I haven’t a party, really, which is why I’m unaffiliated.

          The Blue believes that we’re all too stupid and irresponsible to run our own lives, the Red believes that we’re all too evil to do so and need laws in the bedroom, and a great many “Libertarians” are anarchists who believe that there should be no laws whatsoever.

          M’self, I do not believe in a totally unregulated Wall Street, Main Street or My Street.

          Anyway, yeah. I miss Ike. Hell, I even miss Harry.

        • EDIT: “Libertarian is a word I used to use before that group…”

          Not that group; that word.

          Sorry for the typo; I do wholeheartedly respect Libertarianism.

        • The word you’re looking for is leftist, or Progressive. Both refer to the totalitarian evil that’s hijacked the Democratic party, and the word liberal.

          I wish people would stop calling leftists liberal. They’re two different things, and to call a leftist a word in which the root means freedom is a disservice to freedom.

        • @Acur81: Depends on where and when, sir. Your and my experiences differ in a number of respects, I’d wager.

          @Silver: Thanks. I usually use Statist to refer to those. However good their intentions – and some of ’em are good – the result is as American as Mockba.

          As to Progressive, that’s another hijacked word. The American Revolution was progressive, f’rinstance. And we need left to balance right, even as the balance of forces whose absence you notice with torque-steer or uneven braking.

          We are no longer a nation of ideas and spirited debate; we are instead a nation of grumbling statues.

  4. Who doesn’t love a happy ending? I don’t even mind the fact that schools discriminate, deferring to hunting rifles, which are the “barbecue pistols” of the rifle set.

  5. It’s doublely politically incorrect. It is gun and woman with gun, a woman who ultimately will not play the victim.

    • Try triply politically incorrect, she proves you can be good looking while dressing like she respects herself, means she will probably never vote D so she’s off the team.

      • I applaud the picture and the idea. But she’s way more than a bit chunky for a 17/18 YO.

        If you like the yee-hah-cushin-fer-da-pushin’ she’s attractive. Not so much for those who don’t like lard. Great posterior, if you need somewhere to land a small plane.

        Oh well. Texans.

  6. Just another case of stupidity taken to a higher level.
    Then looked at for what it is.
    A photograph, nothing more.

  7. It’s ridiculous they had to debate this and the contortions they used to allow it (Not a weapon???)

    It’s a great picture, classy, looks good, and even the dog is capturing the moment.

  8. What is even more absurd is the justification they used when they finally let them post the picture. It shouldnt matter whether she uses the rifle for hunting, target shooting, or maybe sh ehas it for self defense because you cant buy a handgun till you are 21. As long as long as the picture doesn’t show her in the commission of a crime then it should be allowed in the damn yearbook… full stop.

    But NOooooo the GUNZ are dangerous weapons unless they are used for hunting… herpa derrrrr

  9. Amazing. My own senior HS yearbook, someone had almost the same pic–petting his bird dog with one hand and holding his shotgun in the other. Of course, it was a different time.

  10. Well, her beautiful long brown hair could be in a ponytail, but I’m being picky. And she could be dating my son. Just sayin’ 8>)

  11. Um, it is a weapon – a device whose purpose is to inflict harm or damage upon living beings, structures or systems.

    The intended recipient of such damage is of course prey, but the teeth and claws of a cat or dog are no less weapons, and a firearm is merely a tool-using-ape’s extension of tooth and claw.

    There are chimps who will gnaw a point onto a stick, then use it to hunt other, smaller primates; this is a weapon as well. Ours are simply better executed.

    We should not eschew the nature of firearms or other weapons; we should embrace and own it.

  12. The superintendent’s words speak volumes: “The yearbook staff’s opinion was that could be seen as a weapon.”

    What a metaphor for the alarmist-disarmist mindset. Some totally unqualified person in a position of minor authority offers an opinion on what might happen, with a further unvoiced speculation that something additional could happen that would bad … and a ban is issued.

    The only difference is that in this case, common sense prevails. When’s the last time that happened? How many times do you think a high-school yearbook has banned a mere depiction of someone lawfully engaging in a Constitutionally protected activity?

    No wonder people freak out when they see guns — if mere pictures of them are bad, the real thing must be cause for panic.

  13. How can a picture be seen as a weapon? More specifically: how can the content of a picture be seen as a weapon?

    Has 3D printing advanced far beyond what I thought its current capabilities are – and if so: just exactly how expensive are these yearbooks going to be?

    • The scholar Russ Bixby can tell you. He knows everything. Bet he has an I.Q of at least 80, lives in the North East. And Russ understands that a Government that can give you everything you need, can take everything you have. Right Russ??

      • Actually a government that can give you everything has “magical” powers to provide all the government “goodies” for free. The government can magically create money out of thin air by just entering bigger numbers into its fiat currency computer.

  14. Russ Bixby,

    Why not take your own advise. Read the Constitution! But reading the Constitution is not enough. Try to understand the words written. Like the word infringed. Specifically as used in the 2nd Amendment.

    I carry a 9mm every day all day. Sometimes open, sometimes concealed. I know how to use it and only will use it to immobilize any threat to life, limb, threat to another’s life, or property.

    How am I doing Russ??? Of course LIbtards don’t want to live free, they want one thing and understand only one thing, CONTROL.

      • No. Gunpowder and lead is my staple. Just like a dog when you feed it gunpowder. Ever tried doing that then controlling the dog? Of course not, you don’t understand the ways of old. I do.

        Ever had a copperhead put in your mailbox? I have. Only served to galvanize me in my resolve to protect and defend the rights as outlined in the Constitution of this once great Nation before Libtards.

        The snake went missing, so no prosecution. Years later the snake turned up in a Police Detectives Freezer! Imagine that?

  15. I’m glad she had to fight. More young people need to wake up. That girl now knows that she can’t assume her fellow Americans are as rational and freedom loving as she is. She’s seen the dark heart of attempted government control for herself. She now knows that leftists can be given a picture of a person and only see a gun, just as they’ve been conditioned to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *