Posted on 01/11/2006 10:58:18 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
Where is that in the Bill of Rights? - I must have an old copy I can't find that! But then my says any powers not expressly given to Federal Government are reserved to the states and the people.
Yep it must be an old outdated one we haven't had on the books for ages.
Property rights do not 'trump' our right to bear arms. They coexist among reasonable people.
Unreasonable people are forcing States [like Alaska] to pass laws on these matters:
Alaska anti-gun-control law goes into effect Wednesday
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1503545/posts
:)
Either one seems a long time ago....
You are making the common assumption that minors have constitutional rights. Would you give a two year old a dozen felt markers to draw with in your home, to demonstrate your support of the 1st. Amendment being conferred upon a minor? How about giving your two year old a pistol to play with under your argument that a minor, and that includes a two year old, has constitutional rights. You're not conservative, you're just not thinking.
When "children" were not thought of as possessing any rights, and their parents were in charge of them, not the schools, they had fewer babies, drugs and guns. Now that the Left has fooled the ignorant Right into believing that the new born posses all rights in the Bill of Rights, parents are powerless and babies are having babies.
Here's the deal. Minors have NO RIGHTS, they are, however, A PROTECTED CLASS. As such, their rights reside with their parents until the minor reaches the age of majority as a healthy, educated and polite adult to fully exercise their Constitutional rights and responsibilities.
Too many parents, these days, think that their kids "have rights" and so do the kids. However, the only power over children is with the state. You "conservatives" got suckered by the Left on the subject and scope of "rights" and you gave your kids rights all away.
Any bets that it was not against the law for the Columbine shooters to have gun on campus?
And any other bets that the shooting that recently happened up in a Minnesota school broke all kinds of laws?
I apologize but I must run. I'll read your article later.
Agreed - but that doesn't address the question of trumping the 2nd amendment. Those rights belong to the parents and are conferred to the children. I argue for preserving the right and abolishing the school. Schools are not a right nor are they a legitimate government institution. The real problem in this story is that the kids were at a compulsory school not they traded a legal rifle.
How do you feel about unsupervised children with cars around your kids? Their record with .22 rifles is a lot safer.
The school law does not "trump" the 2nd. Amendment, any more than a school law prohibiting students from bringing pornography to school trumps the 1st. Amendment. Minors, by definition do not have the maturity for good judgement regarding matters of sex, violence, life and death.
Parents may hold a child's rights, but cannot confer them upon them before they are adults. The only time a child should "need" their rights is if they have commited a crime. As a protected class, what they do need, and society is compelled to provide, is food, clothing, housing and education.
Those on this thread who have participated in firearms training at public schools in the past - as I did - did so in a school supervised and parent permitted situation. The Second Amendment had nothing to do with it. Until I was an adult.
Ovid, New York does not have gang bangers. Southern New York has gang bangers, who group together to thwart LE, and when they do get caught, stupid judges throw out the charges because the little murderers didn't 'mean it.'
Ovid is in the Finger Lakes region of the state, a place where kids learn to shoot rifles before they go to high school. Odds are, one kid borrowed the gun for squirrel or coyote hunting and was returning it to the other.
This is a stupid law.
The only time you should need your rights is when you have committed a crime?
Minors, by definition do not have the maturity for good judgement regarding matters of sex, violence, life and death. (I think you meant congress not minors.
Parents hold the rights and parents have the responsibility accompanying that right. So it is a parents call if a child has access to a gun or pornography or liquor. If a child misuses a gun or is drunk (note there is no legit use for porn) or speech it is the parents that are culpable. If you take that away from the parents you have abolished the rights of the parents and have made the state the de-facto parents. But then isn't that the real purpose of the public school?
Drugs. One way or another, illegal drugs are directly or indirectly involved.
The only time you should need your rights is when you have committed a crime?
Minors, by definition do not have the maturity for good judgement regarding matters of sex, violence, life and death. (I think you meant congress not minors.
Parents hold the rights and parents have the responsibility accompanying that right. So it is a parents call if a child has access to a gun or pornography or liquor. If a child misuses a gun or is drunk (note there is no legit use for porn) or speech it is the parents that are culpable. If you take that away from the parents you have abolished the rights of the parents and have made the state the de-facto parents. But then isn't that the real purpose of the public school?
That's what I'm tring to 'splain to ya' foo! You and your childrens rights, when they are adults, have already been abolished when the Left convinved the Right to confer rights upon children.
If a child misuses a gun or is drunk (note there is no legit use for porn) or speech it is the parents that are culpable.
Since when? Not in the last 30 years!
Like I said earlier - I think I have an old copy of the constitution - before the bill of rights were repealed for abortion on demand and terrorist get cable TV
Wow.. God help you.
Another person who can't use his good sense.
Where in the constitution does it say that I can't have sex with a minor?
You people are all out of whack. The constitution wasn't suppose to be strictly interperted. Yes the right to bear arms exists. But the framers did not intend for 4 year old's to go down the street to the local gun shop and purchase whatever they wanted.
If you think otherwise I feel sorry for you.
There is a difference between being a Republican and being an idiot. I hope you know the difference.
Oh Really - are you sure. Reread your history - they were not gun phobic but then neither were many of them indoctrinated in the public schools. Our forefathers believed in parents taking care of and being held accountable for their children.
There is a difference between being a Republican and being an idiot.
Yes I am neither. Republicans abandon principles as soon as elected - that's why it is necessary to keep government within limits of the constitution (yes the literal reading ) and keep guns available to keep it that way.
I don't recall where were you granted any right to sex in the constitution? - This old copy of of the constitution of mine really is a pain!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.