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

[bripat9643]

That's ridiculous. It's like saying a child has the right to vote. They do not. What the Constitution doesn't say--the courts do. That's why we have courts.

Yes and the constitution specifies that they must be 18. That’s the difference.

In other words, if he's not a child. If he is a child, then his right to vote doesn't exist.

You invalidated your own argument.

Um no. All this goes back to my original point about arbitrary gun control laws being constitutional because the 2nd amendment makes no mention of it.

Right, it undermines your original point.

Nope, not at all.

Yes it did. Another poster just demonstrated that children in public schools have no 4th Amendment rights. Yet here you are claiming precisely the opposite.

 

[Billy000]

I don’t know how else to explain this to you. Kids are NEVER charged with a crime for saying anything. That’s the point. When kids register to a school, they are bound by the rules of the school but that contract isn’t legally binding. If a kid got detention saying something, the kid still has the legal right to not go. They will not be legally punished for doing this.

No, eventually the kid will get suspended from that school.

There is no "contract" when you send your kid to a public school. The school district simply imposes its rules whether you like it or not. You don't even have a choice about which public school you send your kid to. If your kid breaks the school rules he can be suspended, repremanded, expelled or a suffer a host of other punishments. The fact that these aren't criminal punishments is irrelevent. They are still punishments imposed by the government.

Yes, I believe that was a silly statement. After all, we've all been to school, and I can't remember me or my parents signing a contract of any kind. They did however provide sheets of rules students must adhere to when you enroll.

Private schools have the same authority as public schools.

Yes they do, is there a point to that???

Yeah, his point is moot about the school supposedly having legal authority simply because it is funded by the public.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's ridiculous. It's like saying a child has the right to vote. They do not. What the Constitution doesn't say--the courts do. That's why we have courts.

Yes and the constitution specifies that they must be 18. That’s the difference.

Oh, so that's the game you want to play? How about this: a child does not have a constitutional protection from search and seizure. If a school suspects somebody may have a deadly weapon or narcotics, they have the right to search any and all lockers that they desire, and they don't need a warrant.

Lol um yeah but that also applies to an adult at work. The employer has the right to search through an employee’s desk if they feel they must.

That's because your employer owns that desk. It's in his or her office. Lockers on the other hand is government property.

The lockers belong to the institution just as the lockers belong to the institution of a private school.

But a private school is not subject to constitutional rights; neither is a public school because a child doesn't have that protection.

 

[Billy000]

Yes and the constitution specifies that they must be 18. That’s the difference.

In other words, if he's not a child. If he is a child, then his right to vote doesn't exist.

You invalidated your own argument.

Um no. All this goes back to my original point about arbitrary gun control laws being constitutional because the 2nd amendment makes no mention of it.

Right, it undermines your original point.

Nope, not at all.

Yes it did. Another poster just demonstrated that children in public schools have no 4th Amendment rights. Yet here you are claiming precisely the opposite.

Oh they definitely do. A police officer cant go to the kid’s house and search his shit without a warrant. Duh.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, eventually the kid will get suspended from that school.

There is no "contract" when you send your kid to a public school. The school district simply imposes its rules whether you like it or not. You don't even have a choice about which public school you send your kid to. If your kid breaks the school rules he can be suspended, repremanded, expelled or a suffer a host of other punishments. The fact that these aren't criminal punishments is irrelevent. They are still punishments imposed by the government.

Yes, I believe that was a silly statement. After all, we've all been to school, and I can't remember me or my parents signing a contract of any kind. They did however provide sheets of rules students must adhere to when you enroll.

Private schools have the same authority as public schools.

Yes they do, is there a point to that???

Yeah, his point is moot about the school supposedly having legal authority simply because it is funded by the public.

So what do you think would happen to children that started to protest the school for some reason? They could be suspended or expelled.

 

[Billy000]

Yes and the constitution specifies that they must be 18. That’s the difference.

Oh, so that's the game you want to play? How about this: a child does not have a constitutional protection from search and seizure. If a school suspects somebody may have a deadly weapon or narcotics, they have the right to search any and all lockers that they desire, and they don't need a warrant.

Lol um yeah but that also applies to an adult at work. The employer has the right to search through an employee’s desk if they feel they must.

That's because your employer owns that desk. It's in his or her office. Lockers on the other hand is government property.

The lockers belong to the institution just as the lockers belong to the institution of a private school.

But a private school is not subject to constitutional rights; neither is a public school because a child doesn't have that protection.

Good god dude. The point boils down to this: a child can’t be charged with a crime for simply saying something.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In other words, if he's not a child. If he is a child, then his right to vote doesn't exist.

You invalidated your own argument.

Um no. All this goes back to my original point about arbitrary gun control laws being constitutional because the 2nd amendment makes no mention of it.

Right, it undermines your original point.

Nope, not at all.

Yes it did. Another poster just demonstrated that children in public schools have no 4th Amendment rights. Yet here you are claiming precisely the opposite.

Oh they definitely do. A police officer cant go to the kid’s house and search his shit without a warrant. Duh.

That's because a child is in their parents home. You can't search the parents home without a warrant.

 

[cnelsen]

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.

I had guns when I was a kid. Every kid I knew did, too. Our parents gave them to us and taught us how to use them.

None of that matters. I am talking about the actual legality of kids owning guns.

If there is no law against it, it's legal.

When I was in the 7th grade, all the boys in my class were given a gun safety class, which ended just before deer season opened. We supplied our own guns, and it was taught by Dr. Brown, the school superintendent. (I think the girls took tongue-sharpening classes).

On the first day of the class, all the 7th grade boys got on the school bus with their rifles (mostly .22s), unloaded, and placed them in the seat behind the driver. If a snowflake had been driving past the school that morning as the buses disgorged us, she would have wet her pants as she watched dozens of 13-year-olds armed with rifles marching into the school.

Mod Edit: You can make your point without racial trolling, potentially derailing the thread

 

[bripat9643]

That's ridiculous. It's like saying a child has the right to vote. They do not. What the Constitution doesn't say--the courts do. That's why we have courts.

Yes and the constitution specifies that they must be 18. That’s the difference.

Oh, so that's the game you want to play? How about this: a child does not have a constitutional protection from search and seizure. If a school suspects somebody may have a deadly weapon or narcotics, they have the right to search any and all lockers that they desire, and they don't need a warrant.

Lol um yeah but that also applies to an adult at work. The employer has the right to search through an employee’s desk if they feel they must.

That's because your employer owns that desk. It's in his or her office. Lockers on the other hand is government property.

The lockers belong to the institution just as the lockers belong to the institution of a private school.

That institution is the government, moron. The government isn't allowed to search my house or my car without my permission. It also isn't allowed to search my locker at the private gym I go to without a warrant.

Government isn't allowed to do everything a private business can do, especially where schooling is concerned because paying for them isn't voluntary. If I live in public housing, can the government go searching through my apartment? The courts have ruled numerous times that it can't.

 

[Billy000]

There is no "contract" when you send your kid to a public school. The school district simply imposes its rules whether you like it or not. You don't even have a choice about which public school you send your kid to. If your kid breaks the school rules he can be suspended, repremanded, expelled or a suffer a host of other punishments. The fact that these aren't criminal punishments is irrelevent. They are still punishments imposed by the government.

Yes, I believe that was a silly statement. After all, we've all been to school, and I can't remember me or my parents signing a contract of any kind. They did however provide sheets of rules students must adhere to when you enroll.

Private schools have the same authority as public schools.

Yes they do, is there a point to that???

Yeah, his point is moot about the school supposedly having legal authority simply because it is funded by the public.

So what do you think would happen to children that started to protest the school for some reason? They could be suspended or expelled.

It matters not because they didn’t commit a crime.

 

[bripat9643]

The courts have ruled that children do have some rights, but not all. It's based on their age and what particular right is in question.

A child cannot tell his government teacher to F-off and then expect the constitution to protect him or her. The child is not allowed to vote. A child is not constitutionally protected by the Equal Protection law compared to an adult. They are protected by Equal Protection in cases that involve all children. A child cannot pursue a lawsuit because they can't drink alcohol but adults can.

Therefore, no, a child does not have a constitutional right to buy and own a firearm.

What this boils down to is what the 1st and 2nd amendments say and do not say. Children have the same freedom of speech protections as adults. Just because there are consequences to what kids say, it doesn’t mean it is ever illegal for them to say them. They’ll never be charged with a crime for saying anything. Adults have the same problem. Just see what happens to your job if you tell that hot new intern she has a nice ass right in front of your boss.

Common sense law prevents kids from purchasing guns despite the fact that the amendment says nothing about children. If you gun nuts have the mentality that any current gun control laws proposed by lawmakers are unconstitutional, then your logic would have to apply to kids being legallly able to purchase and own firearms.

That's ridiculous. It's like saying a child has the right to vote. They do not. What the Constitution doesn't say--the courts do. That's why we have courts.

Yes and the constitution specifies that they must be 18. That’s the difference.

Oh, so that's the game you want to play? How about this: a child does not have a constitutional protection from search and seizure. If a school suspects somebody may have a deadly weapon or narcotics, they have the right to search any and all lockers that they desire, and they don't need a warrant.

Lol um yeah but that also applies to an adult at work. The employer has the right to search through an employee’s desk if they feel they must.

If you live in public housing, does the government have a right to search your premises for drugs without a warrant?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, so that's the game you want to play? How about this: a child does not have a constitutional protection from search and seizure. If a school suspects somebody may have a deadly weapon or narcotics, they have the right to search any and all lockers that they desire, and they don't need a warrant.

Lol um yeah but that also applies to an adult at work. The employer has the right to search through an employee’s desk if they feel they must.

That's because your employer owns that desk. It's in his or her office. Lockers on the other hand is government property.

The lockers belong to the institution just as the lockers belong to the institution of a private school.

But a private school is not subject to constitutional rights; neither is a public school because a child doesn't have that protection.

Good god dude. The point boils down to this: a child can’t be charged with a crime for simply saying something.

An adult can't be charged with a crime for saying something outside of a physical threat against another such as saying you want to see the President or Congress person dead. But if they fined you or stop you from expressing yourself on other matters, that would be a violation of your rights.

 

[Billy000]

Yes and the constitution specifies that they must be 18. That’s the difference.

Oh, so that's the game you want to play? How about this: a child does not have a constitutional protection from search and seizure. If a school suspects somebody may have a deadly weapon or narcotics, they have the right to search any and all lockers that they desire, and they don't need a warrant.

Lol um yeah but that also applies to an adult at work. The employer has the right to search through an employee’s desk if they feel they must.

That's because your employer owns that desk. It's in his or her office. Lockers on the other hand is government property.

The lockers belong to the institution just as the lockers belong to the institution of a private school.

That institution is the government, moron. The government isn't allowed to search my house or my car without my permission. It also isn't allowed to search my locker at the private gym I go to without a warrant.

Government isn't allowed to do everything a private business can do, especially where schooling is concerned because paying for them isn't voluntary. If I live in public housing, can the government go searching through my apartment? The courts have ruled numerous times that it can't.

What this boils down to is ownership. You own your place or you pay the rent so the government can’t illegally search your place. When it comes to a school or a workplace, the student or employee has no legal immunity over anything in the confines of the institution.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, I believe that was a silly statement. After all, we've all been to school, and I can't remember me or my parents signing a contract of any kind. They did however provide sheets of rules students must adhere to when you enroll.

Private schools have the same authority as public schools.

Yes they do, is there a point to that???

Yeah, his point is moot about the school supposedly having legal authority simply because it is funded by the public.

So what do you think would happen to children that started to protest the school for some reason? They could be suspended or expelled.

It matters not because they didn’t commit a crime.

Of course it matters. Your theory that restricting actions be deeming them criminal is a violation of your rights is absurd.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, so that's the game you want to play? How about this: a child does not have a constitutional protection from search and seizure. If a school suspects somebody may have a deadly weapon or narcotics, they have the right to search any and all lockers that they desire, and they don't need a warrant.

Lol um yeah but that also applies to an adult at work. The employer has the right to search through an employee’s desk if they feel they must.

That's because your employer owns that desk. It's in his or her office. Lockers on the other hand is government property.

The lockers belong to the institution just as the lockers belong to the institution of a private school.

That institution is the government, moron. The government isn't allowed to search my house or my car without my permission. It also isn't allowed to search my locker at the private gym I go to without a warrant.

Government isn't allowed to do everything a private business can do, especially where schooling is concerned because paying for them isn't voluntary. If I live in public housing, can the government go searching through my apartment? The courts have ruled numerous times that it can't.

What this boils down to is ownership. You own your place or you pay the rent so the government can’t illegally search your place. When it comes to a school or a workplace, the student or employee has no legal immunity over anything in the confines of the institution.

Right, so the government can search public housing without a warrant?

There's obviously a flaw in your theory.

 

[Billy000]

Lol um yeah but that also applies to an adult at work. The employer has the right to search through an employee’s desk if they feel they must.

That's because your employer owns that desk. It's in his or her office. Lockers on the other hand is government property.

The lockers belong to the institution just as the lockers belong to the institution of a private school.

But a private school is not subject to constitutional rights; neither is a public school because a child doesn't have that protection.

Good god dude. The point boils down to this: a child can’t be charged with a crime for simply saying something.

An adult can't be charged with a crime for saying something outside of a physical threat against another such as saying you want to see the President or Congress person dead. But if they fined you or stop you from expressing yourself on other matters, that would be a violation of your rights.

Yes, granted threats are illegal, but what matters is that adults and children have the same 1st amendment rights.

 

[bripat9643]

No, eventually the kid will get suspended from that school.

There is no "contract" when you send your kid to a public school. The school district simply imposes its rules whether you like it or not. You don't even have a choice about which public school you send your kid to. If your kid breaks the school rules he can be suspended, repremanded, expelled or a suffer a host of other punishments. The fact that these aren't criminal punishments is irrelevent. They are still punishments imposed by the government.

Yes, I believe that was a silly statement. After all, we've all been to school, and I can't remember me or my parents signing a contract of any kind. They did however provide sheets of rules students must adhere to when you enroll.

Private schools have the same authority as public schools.

Yes they do, is there a point to that???

Yeah, his point is moot about the school supposedly having legal authority simply because it is funded by the public.

No, it isn't "moot." That's the actual reason. Public schools are owned and run by the government, and the Bill of Rights has to be respected in everything the government does.

 

[bripat9643]

That's because your employer owns that desk. It's in his or her office. Lockers on the other hand is government property.

The lockers belong to the institution just as the lockers belong to the institution of a private school.

But a private school is not subject to constitutional rights; neither is a public school because a child doesn't have that protection.

Good god dude. The point boils down to this: a child can’t be charged with a crime for simply saying something.

An adult can't be charged with a crime for saying something outside of a physical threat against another such as saying you want to see the President or Congress person dead. But if they fined you or stop you from expressing yourself on other matters, that would be a violation of your rights.

Yes, granted threats are illegal, but what matters is that adults and children have the same 1st amendment rights.

We've already demonstrated that they don't.

 

[Billy000]

Lol um yeah but that also applies to an adult at work. The employer has the right to search through an employee’s desk if they feel they must.

That's because your employer owns that desk. It's in his or her office. Lockers on the other hand is government property.

The lockers belong to the institution just as the lockers belong to the institution of a private school.

That institution is the government, moron. The government isn't allowed to search my house or my car without my permission. It also isn't allowed to search my locker at the private gym I go to without a warrant.

Government isn't allowed to do everything a private business can do, especially where schooling is concerned because paying for them isn't voluntary. If I live in public housing, can the government go searching through my apartment? The courts have ruled numerous times that it can't.

What this boils down to is ownership. You own your place or you pay the rent so the government can’t illegally search your place. When it comes to a school or a workplace, the student or employee has no legal immunity over anything in the confines of the institution.

Right, so the government can search public housing without a warrant?

There's obviously a flaw in your theory.

If you want to take that up with the courts, be my guest. Either way, children and adults are bound by the same protections. An adult has the same amount of rights as an employee at their place of work just as a kid has the same amount of rights at a school.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's because your employer owns that desk. It's in his or her office. Lockers on the other hand is government property.

The lockers belong to the institution just as the lockers belong to the institution of a private school.

But a private school is not subject to constitutional rights; neither is a public school because a child doesn't have that protection.

Good god dude. The point boils down to this: a child can’t be charged with a crime for simply saying something.

An adult can't be charged with a crime for saying something outside of a physical threat against another such as saying you want to see the President or Congress person dead. But if they fined you or stop you from expressing yourself on other matters, that would be a violation of your rights.

Yes, granted threats are illegal, but what matters is that adults and children have the same 1st amendment rights.

If that were true, a child could tell his teacher to go F himself and the school would not be allowed to retaliate in any way. However we both know that isn't true. If a child would do such a thing, he would be kicked out of class, suspended or even expelled depending on the tolerance of the school.