This has been circulating since last year, Ramsey said in JANUARY he did not write this.

Why is it that people believe anything they agree with? False or not.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fo...s-ohio-mexico/

And there it is...

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...5f&oe=609098E3

The virus was a politicized tool. It's official [although we all already knew this, even Joe Perez].

Marxist Journalism, 2021 (colorized vis capitalism)







Always trust the media. They use scholar.google.com and tell you the truth only. Anyone who suggests otherwise is crazy and believes the covid virus was politicized.

"Nobody is coming to take your guns," they said.

Mow they're even taking the children's guns.

Won't somebody think of the children?

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...9c559b872c.png

Fake news. I highly doubt it was a ak47. Probably some eastern block knock off. Also children have rights and his gun shouldn't have been taken.

Yes, debating over whether it was actually a legitimate Kalashnikov or some other 7.62 chambered rifle is definitely the most important thing here.

lies are lies Joe.


Or is the important bit that kids 2ND amendment rights being trampled?

There was no important bit.

As a broad generalization, it's understood that minors do not enjoy the full protections of the constitution. Their rights (to liberty, speech, property, etc) are curtailed in many ways, owing to the custodial nature of the parent / child relationship.

As such, no 2nd amendment right exists which to trample.

lol no remember tinker vs DES Moines? Feel free to read the Constitution yourself there isn't anywhere in there that says anything about minimum age for its protections. The inability of lawyers and judges to read is extremely troubling, and people blindly listening to them is even worse.

Being guaranteed one protection is not the same as being guaranteed "the full protections."

Except in cases involving emancipation, for instance, a minor may have their freedom of movement and of associated curtailed by their parent or guardian. If a child is grounded as punishment, the court does not view this as a violation of due process, or of extralegal confinement. It is understood that minors do not enjoy the same right to liberty as adults.

Or do you assert that this is untrue?

That isn't the state removing rights, so untrue indeed. If a parent wants to take the boys gun it's different than the police doing it.

The state delegates those rights from the child to the parent. So the state is most certainly removing those rights from the child.

It's not for the state to delegate rights, rights are inherent. We can definitely argue that parents are denying rights but the state has no real part in it except for ignoring those rights violations.

Whether or not it is "for the state to do" is a matter of philosophy. In actual practice, as well as within the law, parents (or other designated legal guardians) are granted custody over their children, which involves the deprivation of certain right and liberties of the child which would be illegal were it not for the custodial relationship.

For instance, one person setting a curfew or bedtime for another, or otherwise restricting their movement, freedom of association, etc., would generally be considered false imprisonment were it not for the existence of a custodial relationship.



Nothing is being ignored. The Court upholds parental rights over their children all the time. Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, Wisconsin v. Yoder, Troxel v. Granville, Wilson v. Div. of Family Services., etc.

Moreover, many states have enacted statues specific to codifying the rights and responsibilities of parents or legal guardians. They are required to ensure the general welfare of the child (health, physical security, education, shelter, etc), and in order to meet this obligation, they are granted the right to have physical custody of the child and to direct their place of residence, to act on behalf of the child in legal and fiscal affairs, the right to discipline the child, etc. Title 5 of the Texas Family Code is one which springs to mind easily, but many states have similar legislation on the books. In states where no such codified law exists, the courts have generally affirmed such rights and responsibilities as a matter of common law. (Eg: it's so obvious that a parent's need to control the child outweighs the child's right to liberty that a lot of states simply haven't felt the need to write it down.)

Blahh blah blah, unconstitutional drivel. This is how our rights get stripped from us.

Let me see if I've got this correct:

You believe that a child should have exactly the same liberties as an adult?

In such a hypothetical world, how would you deal with a 6 year old who refuses to eat their vegetables, or to obey their parents? The parents would not be able to discipline the child, as this would infringe on its liberty.

Would you propose that, in such a scenario, the parents be permitted to abandon the child? If not, what other recourse would they have?

You seem to missed the part where I don't care what the parents do, they have zero obligation to abide by the Constitution, The state does.

Hell we can argue that your bad hypothetical there should be the way it is. Children are included in the 13th and 14th amendments, or should be if it's applied as written.

The constitution protects us, regardless of age, against the state; not our parents.

I agree with the latter part.

I think you're missing something more fundamental.

If the state does not recognize the unique right of a parent to control their children, then a child can sue their parent in civil court, or demand that charges be filed against the parent in criminal court, for doing the things which are considered normal for a parent in relation to their child, but which would be criminal offenses for one person to do to another person absent a custodial relationship. Such as detaining the child against their will.

However, the states DO recognize that a unique relationship exists here. And they DO sanction such behaviors.

By your definition, this means that the states are violating the constitution by proxy, by recognizing and sanctioning the right of parents to control their children.