RW’s: because children have freedom of speech, does that mean kids should own guns too?

[bripat9643]

Now, I know your answer to that is “no”, but think about this: what does that say about the 2nd amendment’s limitations? Doesn’t that mean gun control already has a legal precedent? If you think current gun control laws are illegal, then WHY would giving guns to kids be an exception when we think about the legal bounds of the constitution? After all kids are not at all mentioned in the amendment.

Where the Hell do you come from that children have freedom of speech? I know we most certainly did not have freedom of speech as children when and where i come from.

Freedom of speech means you can’t be charged with a crime. That’s all it boils down to.

It means the government can't punish you in any way, dumass.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

God you’re dumb. No shit.

ROFL! That is so ironic.

 

[TheDude]

Now, I know your answer to that is “no”, but think about this: what does that say about the 2nd amendment’s limitations? Doesn’t that mean gun control already has a legal precedent? If you think current gun control laws are illegal, then WHY would giving guns to kids be an exception when we think about the legal bounds of the constitution? After all kids are not at all mentioned in the amendment.

No, you're right. Freedom of speech means you can tell teachers and the police to get fucked without consequences. Five year olds can drink, drive and vote, and a pair of gays can get married, oh snap.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Now, I know your answer to that is “no”, but think about this: what does that say about the 2nd amendment’s limitations? Doesn’t that mean gun control already has a legal precedent? If you think current gun control laws are illegal, then WHY would giving guns to kids be an exception when we think about the legal bounds of the constitution? After all kids are not at all mentioned in the amendment.

America definitely needs more toddlers with guns.

This Wisconsin Bill Would Let Toddlers Hunt With Guns

Ala. boy shoots intruder: 'He started crying like a little baby'

 

[Kosh]

Now, I know your answer to that is “no”, but think about this: what does that say about the 2nd amendment’s limitations? Doesn’t that mean gun control already has a legal precedent? If you think current gun control laws are illegal, then WHY would giving guns to kids be an exception when we think about the legal bounds of the constitution? After all kids are not at all mentioned in the amendment.

Where the Hell do you come from that children have freedom of speech? I know we most certainly did not have freedom of speech as children when and where i come from.

Freedom of speech means you can’t be charged with a crime. That’s all it boils down to.

It means the government can't punish you in any way, dumass.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

God you’re dumb. No shit.

ROFL! That is so ironic.

The far left are irony impaired!

 

[BlackSand]

Show me the law that says a child can't own a firearm with their parents consent...I'll wait.

Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

That's not one ...

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Show me the law that says a child can't own a firearm with their parents consent...I'll wait.

Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

That's not one ...

.

That's all the laws. The other poster was wrong.

 

[BlackSand]

Show me the law that says a child can't own a firearm with their parents consent...I'll wait.

Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

That's not one ...

.

That's all the laws. The other poster was wrong.

There is no minimum age for possession of a long gun under federal law ...

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Show me the law that says a child can't own a firearm with their parents consent...I'll wait.

Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

That's not one ...

.

That's all the laws. The other poster was wrong.

There is no minimum age for possession of a long gun under federal law ...

.

That is fascinating but was not the issue.

 

[BlackSand]

Show me the law that says a child can't own a firearm with their parents consent...I'll wait.

Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

That's not one ...

.

That's all the laws. The other poster was wrong.

There is no minimum age for possession of a long gun under federal law ...

.

That is fascinating but was not the issue.

From your link ... And towards the possession of a long gun by anyone of any age under federal law ... With or without parental consent.

"Unlicensed persons may sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a long gun or long gun ammunition to a person of any age."

.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

just dumb

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Now, I know your answer to that is “no”, but think about this: what does that say about the 2nd amendment’s limitations? Doesn’t that mean gun control already has a legal precedent? If you think current gun control laws are illegal, then WHY would giving guns to kids be an exception when we think about the legal bounds of the constitution? After all kids are not at all mentioned in the amendment.

So whats the difference between our kids now compared to the 1700's?

 

[BlackSand]

just dumb

Why do you think it is like that ...

You really don't want to put an age limit on Constitutional protections.
The only way you could ever make a difference with that is to change the Constitution.

To do that you would have to repeal the second amendment.
To accomplish that ... It would have to be ratified by the states.

The GOP currently controls 33 of the 50 states ... The chances of that happening are slim to none*.
Furthermore ... You get to screwing around with it ... And the GOP would have better chance of making the second amendment stronger instead of weaker.
(It should be noted that a lot of the current GOP are a bunch of sissies though ... So there is that)

Roll the dice ...


*Add the fact our state constitution also has the right to bare arms in it ... Which would present a whole other can of worms.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

just dumb

Why do you think it is like that ...

You really don't want to put an age limit on Constitutional protections.
The only way you could ever make a difference with that is to change the Constitution.

To do that you would have to repeal the second amendment.
To accomplish that ... It would have to be ratified by the states.

The GOP currently controls 33 of the 50 states ... The chances of that happening are slim to none*.
Furthermore ... You get to screwing around with it ... And the GOP would have better chance of making the second amendment stronger instead of weaker.
(It should be noted that a lot of the current GOP are a bunch of sissies though ... So there is that)

Roll the dice ...


*Add the fact our state constitution also has the right to bare arms in it ... Which would present a whole other can of worms.

.

No age limit on constitutional protections? What about freedom of the press and the right to publish pornography?

 

[BlackSand]

No age limit on constitutional protections? What about freedom of the press and the right to publish pornography?

Are you suggesting there is no published pornography ...
Do you seriously think a kid with a cell phone cannot find published pornography?

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No age limit on constitutional protections? What about freedom of the press and the right to publish pornography?

Are you suggesting there is no published pornography ...
Do you seriously think a kid with a cell phone cannot find published pornography?

.

You said this:

You really don't want to put an age limit on Constitutional protections.

I'm asking you if child pornography should therefore be considered protected by the 1st amendment.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No age limit on constitutional protections? What about freedom of the press and the right to publish pornography?

Are you suggesting there is no published pornography ...
Do you seriously think a kid with a cell phone cannot find published pornography?

.

You said this:

You really don't want to put an age limit on Constitutional protections.

I'm asking you if child pornography should therefore be considered protected by the 1st amendment.

Are you seriously equating raping children and pedophilia being equal to the first amendment?

 

[BlackSand]

You said this:

You really don't want to put an age limit on Constitutional protections.

I'm asking you if child pornography should therefore be considered protected by the 1st amendment.

Do you think Child Pornography is an example of the Press?

In any case ... Children are not restricted from the Press and can publish their works.
Laws that distinguish and acceptable age limit to the content of the pornography ... Treat all offenses as a violation of the law regardless the age of the publisher.

.

 

[BlackSand]

Are you seriously equating raping children and pedophilia being equal to the first amendment?

Perhaps he just has difficulties understanding the flaw in his logic.

Murder is illegal regardless the age of the offender.
Inciting a riot is illegal regardless the age of the offender.
Child pornography is illegal regardless the age of the offender.

But ... If he thinks laws against child pornography are somehow a violation of the first amendment ... There may be a few folks that want to have a chat with him (not me).

.

 

[Billy000]

Now, I know your answer to that is “no”, but think about this: what does that say about the 2nd amendment’s limitations? Doesn’t that mean gun control already has a legal precedent? If you think current gun control laws are illegal, then WHY would giving guns to kids be an exception when we think about the legal bounds of the constitution? After all kids are not at all mentioned in the amendment.

So whats the difference between our kids now compared to the 1700's?

Um they had muskets.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Now, I know your answer to that is “no”, but think about this: what does that say about the 2nd amendment’s limitations? Doesn’t that mean gun control already has a legal precedent? If you think current gun control laws are illegal, then WHY would giving guns to kids be an exception when we think about the legal bounds of the constitution? After all kids are not at all mentioned in the amendment.

So whats the difference between our kids now compared to the 1700's?

Um they had muskets.

No, had nothing to do with muskets.