If you do business with any of these companies you might want to let them know what you think of this policy, and others that reflect the same civilian disarmament agenda. Please note how this sort of thing ended in France. I know, "it can't happen here". Right.

Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and Friends Delete Rifle, Handgun Emojis

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/06/robert-farago/breaking-apple-microsoft-facebook-and-friends-delete-rifle-handgun-emojis/

“Dozens of new emoji are scheduled to become available Tuesday, including smartphone-friendly designs depicting salad bowls, scooters and six different jugglers with varying skin tones,” washingtontimes.com reports. “Despite being initially approved for release, a rifle emoji and another involving a pistol will no longer be included in next week’s update. The decision to ditch the ‘rifle’ and ‘modern pentathlon’ designs from the next set of emojis was the result of an effort spearheaded by Apple and backed by Microsoft.”

Unicode is the organization in charge of emojis. The consortium’s full members are Adobe, Apple, Facebook, Google, Huawei, IBM, Microsoft, Oman’s Ministry of Endowments and Religious Affairs (I kid you not), Oracle, SAP, Symantec and Yahoo. buzzfeed.com reports that the death of the handgun emoji was a given. As for the planned long gun . . .

In other words, no gun emojis because guns. More specifically, because high tech companies — with their PC billionaires at the helm —  are rabidly anti-gun. And just in case you thought this anti-gun emoji business is just a bit of silliness, Sherman set the way back machine for March 31, 2016 via telegraph.co.uk:

A 22-year old Frenchman has been sentenced to three months in prison for texting his ex-girlfriend an emoji in the form of a pistol, in the first such ruling of its kind in France.

The court in Valence in the southern Drôme département ruled that the gun-shaped character at the end of a mobile phone text message constituted a “death threat in the form of an image”, and handed the accused a six-month sentence, with three suspended.

It’s a culture war people. Let’s win it for the Gipper! Wait. Didn’t he outlaw Constitutional Carry in California? OK, do it for the children™!

[Governor Ronald Reagan endorsed and signed the bill (the Mulford Act) outlawing loaded open carry in California after the Black Panther Party members exercised their right. Assemblyman Don Mulford (R-Oakland), chief sponsor of California's open-carry ban, noted the NRA's support for his bill. "I am sure you are aware that I am very grateful to the National Rifle Association for its help in making my gun control bill, AB 1591, a workable piece of legislation, yet protecting the Constitutional rights of citizens," Mulford says in a letter dated June 15, 1967. "The bill enjoyed the full support of the National Rifle Association," he says in another letter with the same date. JUst sayin'... with friends like these...]

[I guess these'd meet with their disapproval...      ]

Gun free Emoji zone. 

I bet there's some "statistic" that shows removing gun Emojis will lower crime.   

I also remember one school suspending a 1st grader or kindergartener for biting his Poptart into,the shape of a gun.  Stupidity and silliness of what are supposed to be highly educated people.

I also remember one school suspending a 1st grader or kindergartener for biting his Poptart into,the shape of a gun.  Stupidity and silliness of what are supposed to be highly educated people.

The boy was not suspended simply for making a gun shaped pop tart but for being disruptive with it. I wouldn't be surprised if it did come to that one day though.

In art class in intermediate school I made Glock replica out of clay but the teacher got irritated and refused to fire it for me.

The boy was not suspended simply for making a gun shaped pop tart but for being disruptive with it. I wouldn't be surprised if it did come to that one day though.

It has come to that as many schools have "zero tolerance" policies wherein students are suspended for many reasons, including for bringing aspirin (drugs) onto campus, or a nerf "gun", etc. Colleges even have "free speech areas" and punishments for speaking in "unauthorized" areas and/or without scheduled prior "permission", etc.

Your claim that the child was suspended for "being disruptive" is horse manure. You have accepted the logic of the judge that upheld the suspension on appeal who wrote: ""Had the student chewed his cereal bar into the shape of a cat and ran around the room, disrupting the classroom and making 'meow' cat sounds, the result would have been exactly the same," Nussbaum wrote, according to the Post." 

Really? This child had a history of "behavior problems", including banging his own head against his desk and walls, it's claimed he threw a chair once, and it is claimed that he punched a student in the face once. None of those behaviors merited a suspension, but chewing pastry into the shape of something that he pretended to be a firearm got him suspended. If you believe, along with the judge, that him going "meow" with a cat pastry would have gotten him suspended you have drunk the kool-aid. It's preposterous and a completely irrational interpretation of the evidence. Unless of course the child was on "double secret probation" and any disruption would have resulted in suspension, but nothing even remotely like that was ever entered in to evidence in the entire chain of hearings and appeals. But that's nothing new in this case... it was you who defended your buddy cop who strong-armed and arrested a couple of women for kissing in a store (I still wanna see that HRS section where that behavior is outlawed, or even the section outlawing "talking back" to a off-duty cop). A cop who then resigned before the police department "settled" the lawsuit by the couple, conveniently avoiding a trial at which all the evidence against the cop would have been made public. You have a consistent habit of siding with (tyrannical) authorities. Nothing wrong with being prejudiced for authorities, except when the evidence contradicts your knee-jerk bias and unfounded assertions, as in these cases.

It has come to that as many schools have "zero tolerance" policies wherein students are suspended for many reasons, including for bringing aspirin (drugs) onto campus, or a nerf "gun", etc. Colleges even have "free speech areas" and punishments for speaking in "unauthorized" areas and/or without scheduled prior "permission", etc.

Your claim that the child was suspended for "being disruptive" is horse manure. You have accepted the logic of the judge that upheld the suspension on appeal who wrote: ""Had the student chewed his cereal bar into the shape of a cat and ran around the room, disrupting the classroom and making 'meow' cat sounds, the result would have been exactly the same," Nussbaum wrote, according to the Post." 

Really? This child had a history of "behavior problems", including banging his own head against his desk and walls, it's claimed he threw a chair once, and it is claimed that he punched a student in the face once. None of those behaviors merited a suspension, but chewing pastry into the shape of something that he pretended to be a firearm got him suspended. If you believe, along with the judge, that him going "meow" with a cat pastry would have gotten him suspended you have drunk the kool-aid. It's preposterous and a completely irrational interpretation of the evidence. Unless of course the child was on "double secret probation" and any disruption would have resulted in suspension, but nothing even remotely like that was ever entered in to evidence in the entire chain of hearings and appeals. But that's nothing new in this case... it was you who defended your buddy cop who strong-armed and arrested a couple of women for kissing in a store (I still wanna see that HRS section where that behavior is outlawed, or even the section outlawing "talking back" to a off-duty cop). A cop who then resigned before the police department "settled" the lawsuit by the couple, conveniently avoiding a trial at which all the evidence against the cop would have been made public. You have a consistent habit of siding with (tyrannical) authorities. Nothing wrong with being prejudiced for authorities, except when the evidence contradicts your knee-jerk bias and unfounded assertions, as in these cases.

Really? You are going to troll up another issue? Sorry, not gonna bite.

As for the facts of the case, here is a story about it. Not saying you have to like the schools decision to suspend the student, it is merely showing that he wasn't suspended simply because he chewed a pop tart into the shape of a gun. Get all the facts of the car, not simply the propaganda.  For the record, I agree suspension probably wasn't warranted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/md-state-board-upholds-boys-suspension-in-pastry-gun-case/2015/03/04/782b412e-c1db-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html

Really? You are going to troll up another issue? Sorry, not gonna bite.

As for the facts of the case, here is a story about it. Not saying you have to like the schools decision to suspend the student, it is merely showing that he wasn't suspended simply because he chewed a pop tart into the shape of a gun. Get all the facts of the car, not simply the propaganda.  For the record, I agree suspension probably wasn't warranted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/md-state-board-upholds-boys-suspension-in-pastry-gun-case/2015/03/04/782b412e-c1db-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html

You don't have to "bite". You are already on record on numerous threads defending tyrannical authority using either no evidence at all or highly selective cherry-picked pieces of a story.

I've read numerous accounts of the case, stated that the child had previous "behavioral issues", and then quoted the judge's reasoning in upholding the suspension, and yet you tell me  to "Get all the facts of the car, not simply the propaganda". Is the judge's decision "propaganda"?

You don't have to "bite". You are already on record on numerous threads defending tyrannical authority using either no evidence at all or highly selective cherry-picked pieces of a story.

I've read numerous accounts of the case, stated that the child had previous "behavioral issues", and then quoted the judge's reasoning in upholding the suspension, and yet you tell me  to "Get all the facts of the car, not simply the propaganda". Is the judge's decision "propaganda"?

What reason do you have to disbelieve the news reports?

Again, not talking about whether the decision was right or not, only about whether there were other factors to the decision to suspend.

What reason do you have to disbelieve the news reports?

Again, not talking about whether the decision was right or not, only about whether there were other factors to the decision to suspend.

yeah, the other factors were Sandy Hook and politically correct, zero tolerance policies that punish undesired behavior excessively.  The kid was in 1st grade at the time -- 7 years old -- happened in March 2013.   This happened 3 months after Sandy Hook.

the father stated he was never contacted about a "history of disruptive behavior" until the pop-tart incident and the 2-day suspension.  The father is convinced the suspension was out of sensitivity to the pop-tart shape and the Sandy Hook shooting still fresh in people's memories. 

His son's "disruptions" had never risen to a level requiring the parent be informed in the past, yet this time the school decided to suddenly go with suspension?   Totally appropriate punishment- 2 day suspension for a 7 year old disrupting the class!!