View Full Version : Does an 8 year old child have 2nd amendment rights?
qh4dotcom
06-28-2010, 04:41 PM
http://www.theonion.com/articles/8yearold-accidentally-exercises-second-amendment-r,725/
angelatc
06-28-2010, 05:08 PM
That's obviously written by a firearm-phobe. When I was a kid, 8 year old boys owned their own guns and went hunting with their Dads every fall. The rest of us knew better than to touch the damned things.
Toureg89
06-28-2010, 05:47 PM
yes. but parents ALSO have PARENTAL RIGHTS, in which case, they are the sole individuals responsible for the proper and safe upbringing of children.
if they decide that they don't want their child should be around firearms, then thats how it will be until another parent takes custody or the child becomes a legally recognized adult.
Pericles
06-28-2010, 05:53 PM
Does an 8 year old child have free speech rights? Right of privacy? Right to exercise of religion?
Why would the 2A rights be different from any other Constitutional right?
Nate-ForLiberty
06-28-2010, 05:56 PM
a rare miss for The Onion.
Matt Collins
06-28-2010, 05:59 PM
Rights do no originate in or emanate from the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the government, or the community. Rights are inherent.
Everyone has a right to have firearms of course, except that some people have that right denied. Those who are mentally ill, those who have abdicated their responsibility to that right, and those who do not understand the consequences and full weight that right entails (mentally ill / minors).
With rights come responsibilities. I have a right to free speech, but I have responsibility not to slander or libel. I have a right to firearms, but I have a responsibility that ensure that they are not misused. A minor (specifically under an arbitrary age) does not understand and cannot accept responsibility that comes with that right so their rights are denied until they can.
Baptist
06-28-2010, 07:05 PM
Rights do no originate in or emanate from the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the government, or the community. Rights are inherent.
Everyone has a right to have firearms of course, except that some people have that right denied. Those who are mentally ill, those who have abdicated their responsibility to that right, and those who do not understand the consequences and full weight that right entails (mentally ill / minors).
With rights come responsibilities. I have a right to free speech, but I have responsibility not to slander or libel. I have a right to firearms, but I have a responsibility that ensure that they are not misused. A minor (specifically under an arbitrary age) does not understand and cannot accept responsibility that comes with that right so their rights are denied until they can.
That line is pretty much verbatim what Michael Badnarik says in his Constitution class. But I don't buy it. Do minors understand and accept responsibility for speech? Should we deny young kids the right to free speech? Do 1- to 3-year-olds not get a right to privacy because they can't comprehend it?
We have to be more consistent with our talk of natural rights. If the right to bear arms is a right, then everyone who is entitled to [insert rights here] is also entitled to the right to bear arms.
I will give or deny whatever rights I want to my kid because he is my property. If he does not like it, then he can leave. Or, he can deal with it until he leaves. When he leaves he'll get all the same rights as me. Until then, I own him.
Matt Collins
06-28-2010, 07:10 PM
That line is pretty much verbatim what Michael Badnarik says in his Constitution class.Where do you think I first solidified my understanding of liberty? ;)
Do minors understand and accept responsibility for speech? Should we deny young kids the right to free speech? Do 1- to 3-year-olds not get a right to privacy because they can't comprehend it?Kids ARE denied some privacy and speech rights as their parents have complete control over that.
We have to be more consistent with our talk of natural rights. If the right to bear arms is a right, then everyone who is entitled to [insert rights here] is also entitled to the right to bear arms.I never said that minors were not entitled to bear arms, but because they do not fully accept, comprehend, acknowledge etc the responsibility of being able to bear arms, then they have their rights suspended until such time that they do.
Baptist
06-28-2010, 07:12 PM
I never said that minors were not entitled to bear arms, but because they do not fully accept, comprehend, acknowledge etc the responsibility of being able to bear arms, then they have their rights suspended until such time that they do.
Then the right to bear arms is not a natural right we are born with. If it is, we can't deny it to anyone.
Unless you use my logic, which states that my kid is my property.
rmodel65
06-28-2010, 07:32 PM
yes an 8 year old has the right to bear arms...but what parent is gonna give their child a gun at 8 other than under their supervision...
Toureg89
06-28-2010, 07:35 PM
Then the right to bear arms is not a natural right we are born with. If it is, we can't deny it to anyone.
Unless you use my logic, which states that my kid is my property.
custodial guard, yes. property, no. animals are property, and they can be killed for lawful purposes.
you'd be hard pressed to explain to me a lawful reason to kill your child in situations other than terminal death situations, and even then, i'm not sure if all natural rights believers would think children have the right to end their own lives to prevent pain/suffering.
Matt Collins
06-28-2010, 08:43 PM
Then the right to bear arms is not a natural right we are born with. Yes it is.
If it is, we can't deny it to anyone.yes we can. If someone has misused their rights then we can deny their rights (violent criminals). If someone is incapable of exercising their rights in a responsible manner, (mentally ill, minors, addicts), then we abridge, limit, or even outright deny some of their rights.
Baptist
06-28-2010, 09:55 PM
But isn't preemptively denying rights to somebody because you think they might do something wrong... well, wrong?
Random thought: sure kids from the American colonies and Old West knew how to handle guns before the could walk. We are just wussified today probably.
Toureg89
06-28-2010, 10:01 PM
But isn't preemptively denying rights to somebody because you think they might do something wrong... well, wrong?
Random thought: sure kids from the American colonies and Old West knew how to handle guns before the could walk. We are just wussified today probably.
ok, maybe this is where i differ, depending on how thoroughly you or Collins answers.
but, in theory, i believe what Collins is saying to be true, that we can, as a society, limit the rights of individuals who prove unable to respect them/use them properly.
however, i believe it is the PARENT'S domain, and not necessarily the government's, to regulate firearm use amongst children, as it would be, as i said, under their parental/custodial rights to determine how a child lives their life.
but your use of the word "property" to describe adult reign over children, i disagree with, because it has a negative connotation, as if dehumanizing children. you can beat property, or walk on property, or sell property, or rub your genitals on your property, or kill your property. your property does NOT have rights, you have rights to your property.
i cannot think of children in the same manner i could think of property, specifically because of the amoral ways one can use property, but they would be immoral to use children as
Matt Collins
06-29-2010, 12:19 AM
however, i believe it is the PARENT'S domain, and not necessarily the government's, to regulate firearm use amongst children, as it would be, as i said, under their parental/custodial rights to determine how a child lives their life.
I concur
DisillusionedPatriot
07-26-2010, 01:55 PM
I agree with Pericles that children have the same innate rights as all other individuals, including all those presented in the Bill of Rights. I also believe that parents have rights. These include the right to dictate the laws of their own home as well as custody and therefore control over minor children.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is very dangerous precisely because it intends to assert the individual rights of children over and above the rights of parents. Most reasonable parents will concur that a society in which children are allowed to dictate their own rules, schedules, and associations, no matter how extreme, and above the concerns and wishes of the parents, would be utter chaos. Children would be able to demand access to guns, porn, or drugs. They could refuse scheduled activities like church, family dinner, or bedtime. The possibilities are endless and absurd.
Children do have innate rights. Some, including the right to matters of conscience, such as freedom of thought or religion, or the right not to be assaulted in life or limb, can never be yielded or rightly denied. I believe that the remainder of natural rights are yielded to the authority of the child’s parents until such time as the child is able to independently sustain his own existence or reaches the age of majority. This is similar to, though more fundamental and significant than, the right of employers to dictate the laws of the workplace. A boss may restrict some freedoms of his employees as a condition of employment. The underlying premise of each is that an individual may be asked to temporarily yield some of his rights in deference to the wishes of another individual upon whom he depends. If an individual is able to support himself without aid, he may release himself from these obligations and invoke all his natural rights. In a free state, a self-dependent man should have the unrestricted right to engage in any activity or make any personal choices as long as these do not interfere with another individual’s rights.
In the same way, parents should have unrestricted power to make choices for their family, free from government oversight or regulation. I believe that parents retain the authority to let their children use and own weapons in the same way that I believe a parent may confer upon their children the right to drink alcohol. These ought to be matters of the home, not of the state. In other words, the federal government has no right, in any instance whatsoever, to restrict the natural or Constitution rights of ANY of its citizens.
So back to the original question – Does an eight year old child have 2nd Amendment rights? Yes, and his or her parents are in charge of enforcing those rights. If his parents have decided that he may have access to weapons, the federal government has no Constitutional right to say otherwise.
One final word on this subject: another right that all individuals retain from birth is that of self-defense. A child, no matter young, may always defend himself, with force if necessary, against any individual who attempts to cause him physical harm. This applies to relations as much as to intruders and strangers. There have been cases in which children knew that their parents owned guns, but were unable to access them in emergencies due to child protective devices, hidden ammo, gun safes, or other impediments. Needless deaths have occurred because children familiar and responsible with firearms were blocked from using them by governmental restrictions. This is an outrage.
Zeeder
07-26-2010, 04:09 PM
If children were your property, there would be no child abuse laws, and murdering your own child wouldn't be illegal. Now with dogs and animals I agree with the property theory.
I think we are missing the target here. If it's a right, then the government has not say whatsoever. That's it. Yes, an 8 year old can own a gun..........can an 8 year old buy that gun? Does he have a job? Will his parents allow it? Will the gun store owner actually sell an 8 year old the gun?
If the 8 year buys the gun, with his parents money and permission, and the gun store guys concent............then he goes and kills his friend...........that 8 year old goes to jail as an adult. Problem solved.
You can't treat children like children if they have the same rights as you do.
Zeeder
07-26-2010, 04:15 PM
If children were your property, there would be no child abuse laws, and murdering your own child wouldn't be illegal. Now with dogs and animals I agree with the property theory.
I think we are missing the target here. If it's a right, then the government has not say whatsoever. That's it. Yes, an 8 year old can own a gun..........can an 8 year old buy that gun? Does he have a job? Will his parents allow it? Will the gun store owner actually sell an 8 year old the gun?
If the 8 year buys the gun, with his parents money and permission, and the gun store guys concent............then he goes and kills his friend...........that 8 year old goes to jail as an adult. Problem solved.
You can't treat children like children if they have the same rights as you do.
qh4dotcom
07-26-2010, 05:05 PM
If children were your property, there would be no child abuse laws, and murdering your own child wouldn't be illegal. Now with dogs and animals I agree with the property theory.
I think we are missing the target here. If it's a right, then the government has not say whatsoever. That's it. Yes, an 8 year old can own a gun..........can an 8 year old buy that gun? Does he have a job? Will his parents allow it? Will the gun store owner actually sell an 8 year old the gun?
If the 8 year buys the gun, with his parents money and permission, and the gun store guys concent............then he goes and kills his friend...........that 8 year old goes to jail as an adult. Problem solved.
You can't treat children like children if they have the same rights as you do.
And if that friend who got killed happened to be a family member of yours, you wouldn't want the parents and gun store owner to be held liable as well?
One final word on this subject: another right that all individuals retain from birth is that of self-defense. A child, no matter young, may always defend himself, with force if necessary, against any individual who attempts to cause him physical harm. This applies to relations as much as to intruders and strangers. There have been cases in which children knew that their parents owned guns, but were unable to access them in emergencies due to child protective devices, hidden ammo, gun safes, or other impediments. Needless deaths have occurred because children familiar and responsible with firearms were blocked from using them by governmental restrictions. This is an outrage.
Doesn't the line have to be drawn somewhere? Does a 2 year old have 2nd amendment rights as well? Nothing wrong about letting a 2 year old handle a gun?
IT was common for kids 8 years old and younger and older to know how to use guns. Now days its "Omg!! a kid with a gun!!! Thier pairents dont deserve to have children!! take them away!! put them in the government run foster care were they be abuse!!!!!"
yes they do.
Danke
07-26-2010, 07:32 PM
custodial guard, yes. property, no. animals are property, and they can be killed for lawful purposes.
you'd be hard pressed to explain to me a lawful reason to kill your child in situations other than terminal death situations, and even then, i'm not sure if all natural rights believers would think children have the right to end their own lives to prevent pain/suffering.
Pretty much nails it.
rmodel65
07-26-2010, 08:05 PM
And if that friend who got killed happened to be a family member of yours, you wouldn't want the parents and gun store owner to be held liable as well?
Doesn't the line have to be drawn somewhere? Does a 2 year old have 2nd amendment rights as well? Nothing wrong about letting a 2 year old handle a gun?
according to the GA supreme court children had the right..that was until after the civil war http://georgiapacking.org/caselaw/nunnvstate.htm
"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all of this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State."
DisillusionedPatriot
07-26-2010, 11:11 PM
And if that friend who got killed happened to be a family member of yours, you wouldn't want the parents and gun store owner to be held liable as well?
Doesn't the line have to be drawn somewhere? Does a 2 year old have 2nd amendment rights as well? Nothing wrong about letting a 2 year old handle a gun?
I believe that the distinction is clear. The federal government is restrained by the Constitution from interfering with the Second Amendment rights of any American citizen, especially based on age. Parents, however, retain the right to withhold firearms from children, as well as any other materials or objects they deem inappropriate. I presume that no reasonable parent would let a two year old near a gun anymore than they would give them knives, matches, or electrical cords and a source of water. If a parent is so misguided as to allow such behavior and a child is harmed as a result, the parent may be prosecuted under reasonable laws. However, but for extreme cases, such decisions are the prerogative of parents, not the government. The government may intervene only after it has been definitively proven that a child suffered.
Zeeder
07-27-2010, 12:14 PM
And if that friend who got killed happened to be a family member of yours, you wouldn't want the parents and gun store owner to be held liable as well?
Doesn't the line have to be drawn somewhere? Does a 2 year old have 2nd amendment rights as well? Nothing wrong about letting a 2 year old handle a gun?
Are the parents/gun store owner liable now for an adult buying a gun and killing someone with it? No. Then neither should the 8 year old's parents. It's a right or it isn't. Adult rights = adult punishement.
Do retarded people have first ammendment rights? second ammendment rights?
If a 2 year old could write a book, does he have the right too?
giving a 2 year old a gun is NOT the same thing as the 2 year old going and getting it him or herself.
You could give a 40 year old, who has never seen a gun, a loaded gun and that would be very dangersous. In that case you would be liable. It that case it wouldn matter whether is was a gun, bomb, acid, bleach, oven cleaner, tazer, or a bear trap. Has nothing to do with the second ammendment. Looks like your were TRYING to get somebody hurt.
JeNNiF00F00
07-27-2010, 06:40 PM
..
silus
07-28-2010, 01:31 AM
But isn't preemptively denying rights to somebody because you think they might do something wrong... well, wrong?
Random thought: sure kids from the American colonies and Old West knew how to handle guns before the could walk. We are just wussified today probably.
From my understanding, in the "old west" fire arms were not allowed in town. In fact, I think the famous OK Corral gun battle was fought using concealed weapons. Kids used em, and learned from a young age, but they still weren't allowed to walk around town with them.
Pericles
07-28-2010, 12:08 PM
My grandma got her first .22 at the age of 6.
As it should be in a free country.
John Taylor
07-29-2010, 10:46 AM
Nope.
NiceGoing
07-29-2010, 11:34 AM
Does an 8 year old child have free speech rights? Right of privacy? Right to exercise of religion?
Why would the 2A rights be different from any other Constitutional right?
I agree. Another way of looking at it is: Does an 8 year old have the right to self defense? Answer: yes.
TheEvilDetector
08-07-2010, 09:59 AM
We have to be more consistent with our talk of natural rights. If the right to bear arms is a right, then everyone who is entitled to [insert rights here] is also entitled to the right to bear arms.
For some reason, giving 1 or 2 year olds loaded guns for toys has not caught on yet. I suppose its the same reason why people tend to shy away from giving babies working mouse traps to play with or knives or handheld drills or...
Parental judgement still has it uses.
AFPVet
08-07-2010, 08:03 PM
The government does not 'grant' rights... the people grant the government limited rights (or powers) as set forth in Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The Ninth Amendment clarifies the fact that "all rights are the peoples".
Our 'rights' only apply to adults; children are not 'free' beings... they are the limited property of their legal guardians/parents (similar to military personnel). The 26th Amendment sets the age of voting at 18. This is when children become adults.
Danke
08-07-2010, 11:06 PM
The government does not 'grant' rights... the people grant the government limited rights (or powers) as set forth in Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The Ninth Amendment clarifies the fact that "all rights are the peoples".
Our 'rights' only apply to adults; children are not 'free' beings... they are the limited property of their legal guardians/parents (similar to military personnel). The 26th Amendment sets the age of voting at 18. This is when children become adults.
You don't see the contradiction in what you wrote?
SkyPie
08-08-2010, 01:19 AM
I fail to see the contradiction in AFPVet's post. Please explain, because he got it right.
GunnyFreedom
08-08-2010, 01:38 AM
I fail to see the contradiction in AFPVet's post. Please explain, because he got it right.
Children are not property, they are custodial wards of their parents. As such, limitations on the exercise of rights is delegated to their custodians, ie parents. They are NOT delegated to the state, but to their custodians.
I had lots of toy guns when I was kid. Lots of them did not have that orange plastic on them, I still have a few of them. The 6 cap guns I still have look like real guns, but of course you can easy tell that they are just cap guns.
Pericles
08-08-2010, 04:27 PM
Children are not property, they are custodial wards of their parents. As such, limitations on the exercise of rights is delegated to their custodians, ie parents. They are NOT delegated to the state, but to their custodians.
This - anyone has the right to life - meaning murder of an infant is the same negation of a right as if a 100 year old citizen is murdered. Why would a child (meaning a legal minor) not have a right to own property, or any other liberty?
Age of majority is for fixing responsibility for actions and the attainment of political rights in addition to the fundamental rights that accrue just by the fact of being.
The 2A is the first of the fundamental rights that accrue, "shall not be infringed", as opposed to those rights that have some limitations "unreasonable search".
SkyPie
08-10-2010, 12:15 AM
Children are not property, they are custodial wards of their parents. As such, limitations on the exercise of rights is delegated to their custodians, ie parents. They are NOT delegated to the state, but to their custodians.
And he said.
"The government does not 'grant' rights... the people grant the government limited rights (or powers) as set forth in Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The Ninth Amendment clarifies the fact that "all rights are the peoples".
Our 'rights' only apply to adults; children are not 'free' beings... they are the limited property of their legal guardians/parents (similar to military personnel). The 26th Amendment sets the age of voting at 18. This is when children become adults."
He is correct even if he mentioned the word property. Children do belong to their parents. They most certainly do not belong to the government!
Danke
08-10-2010, 09:46 AM
And he said.
"The government does not 'grant' rights... the people grant the government limited rights (or powers) as set forth in Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The Ninth Amendment clarifies the fact that "all rights are the peoples".
Our 'rights' only apply to adults; children are not 'free' beings... they are the limited property of their legal guardians/parents (similar to military personnel). The 26th Amendment sets the age of voting at 18. This is when children become adults."
He is correct even if he mentioned the word property. Children do belong to their parents. They most certainly do not belong to the government!
As defined by the... government. Brilliant!
SkyPie
08-11-2010, 10:30 PM
At first this might seem unrelated tot he thread but notice what is said towards the end. It is correct. Children fall under the guidance and governess of their parents.
YouTube - It's Time To Legalize Marijuana! Judge Napolitano (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2GG2aM6UII&feature=related)
Austrian Econ Disciple
08-12-2010, 03:02 AM
Rights do no originate in or emanate from the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the government, or the community. Rights are inherent.
Everyone has a right to have firearms of course, except that some people have that right denied. Those who are mentally ill, those who have abdicated their responsibility to that right, and those who do not understand the consequences and full weight that right entails (mentally ill / minors).
With rights come responsibilities. I have a right to free speech, but I have responsibility not to slander or libel. I have a right to firearms, but I have a responsibility that ensure that they are not misused. A minor (specifically under an arbitrary age) does not understand and cannot accept responsibility that comes with that right so their rights are denied until they can.
How can you claim that a child then has a right to life, or liberty if you deny them all those rights? You deem children slaves. I disagree wholeheartidly.
AFPVet
08-12-2010, 03:13 PM
Perhaps 'limited property' was not the best term; however, my point was to indicate that children are restricted—much like military personnel. Limited property was used to denote the limitation of proprietary rights on behalf of the parents... I apologize if I was not clear.
Austrian Econ Disciple
08-12-2010, 10:30 PM
Perhaps 'limited property' was not the best term; however, my point was to indicate that children are restricted—much like military personnel. Limited property was used to denote the limitation of proprietary rights on behalf of the parents... I apologize if I was not clear.
Military personnel sign a contract, children do not. Children (And by children I mean under 18) are akin to slaves in todays world.
AFPVet
08-13-2010, 01:06 PM
Military personnel sign a contract, children do not. Children (And by children I mean under 18) are akin to slaves in today's world.
You are right... I DID sign a contract ;) You are also right (to an extent) that children are 'under command' of their parents or legal guardians.
There is one thing that is a debatable topic... at what age does a child reach the mental capacity to know how to use a firearm? Some can do this at 10... some even before that with BB guns.
I do believe that the age for firearm training should be up to the discretion of the parents/legal guardians. In my opinion, the earlier children learn about firearm safety—or at least know that firearms are very serious tools—the better equipped they will be.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.