CDZ My child's right to a safe school versus your right to guns

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no right to safety. Because there is no safety, not anywhere, anywhen, or anyhow. And inevitably, then we die. So much for the constitutional right to life.

That's why we're keeping our guns.

The courts have consistently held that the states may regulate firearms in the interest of public safety, as we saw with New York’s SAFE Act.

The people have the right through their elected representatives to enact measures pursuant to public safety.

And the Constitution indeed safeguards a right to life, compelling government to acknowledge due process when seeking to imprison or execute a criminal defendant.

Otherwise, the issue has nothing to do with ‘keeping our guns,’ as no one advocates ‘taking’ them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thus, we need to have a national figures out how to keep guns away from crazies without affecting the right of others to have them.

Well Jake we regulate movies so you have to mature into them! What if we raised the age to own a semi auto to 25? Now this would not have stopped Paddock, but the other shootings? MAY have helped. It does NOT remove the right only says you have to mature into it. Fury

Perhaps so.

How about having to pass a mental examination to own a gun and every three years after that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stop and frisk everybody coming into a school...you are safe now ...TSA to the rescue

That may be the future.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My child has a constitutional right to go to school safely. I believe that outweighs a nut case's right to own and bear guns.

We need to find a way to break that access link between a nut and a gun.

We need to identify the first problem, which is

Where does the constitution say that?

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

The Constitution ‘says’ that in the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of procedural due process, where the Supreme Court has held that students have a “legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property right.” (Goss v. Lopez)

Marty does not accept case law he does not like.

 

[Circe]

There is no right to safety. Because there is no safety, not anywhere, anywhen, or anyhow. And inevitably, then we die. So much for the constitutional right to life.

That's why we're keeping our guns.

The courts have consistently held that the states may regulate firearms in the interest of public safety, as we saw with New York’s SAFE Act.

The people have the right through their elected representatives to enact measures pursuant to public safety.

And the Constitution indeed safeguards a right to life, compelling government to acknowledge due process when seeking to imprison or execute a criminal defendant.

Otherwise, the issue has nothing to do with ‘keeping our guns,’ as no one advocates ‘taking’ them.

Of course you want to take everyone's gun, make all guns illegal, just like in England, Australia, all the others. We aren't giving you an INCH.

Hang tight, people --- give the leftists ANYthing and they'll take all possibility of defending ourselves away from us.

 

[Circe]

How about having to pass a mental examination to own a gun and every three years after that.

Now, here is a true advocate for totalitarian government. Total control, cradle to grave.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your right to have a gun, Circe, does not trump my grandchildren's rights to go to school without fear from crazy gunners.

Your logic is nonsense as well. Making sure people who own guns are sane is not totalitarian government by any stretch of thinking.

 

[Circe]

Your right to have a gun, Circe, does not trump my grandchildren's rights to go to school without fear from crazy gunners.

I bet they have a right not to be injured in car crashes, not to be burglarized at home, not to be attacked on the street.

Well, good luck with that.

 

[DarkFury]

Jake you have the right as an adult to seek the training and get permission to protect all the children at that school.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

My child has a constitutional right to go to school safely. I believe that outweighs a nut case's right to own and bear guns.

We need to find a way to break that access link between a nut and a gun.

We need to identify the first problem, which is

Where does the constitution say that?

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

The Constitution ‘says’ that in the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of procedural due process, where the Supreme Court has held that students have a “legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property right.” (Goss v. Lopez)

Marty does not accept case law he does not like.

True.

But other conservatives reading the post will perhaps realize their own ignorance.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Your right to have a gun, Circe, does not trump my grandchildren's rights to go to school without fear from crazy gunners.

Your logic is nonsense as well. Making sure people who own guns are sane is not totalitarian government by any stretch of thinking.

Take it up with the crazy gunners and not the people who don't commit murder with their guns

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Thus, we need to have a national figures out how to keep guns away from crazies without affecting the right of others to have them.

Well Jake we regulate movies so you have to mature into them! What if we raised the age to own a semi auto to 25? Now this would not have stopped Paddock, but the other shootings? MAY have helped. It does NOT remove the right only says you have to mature into it. Fury

Perhaps so.

How about having to pass a mental examination to own a gun and every three years after that.

Those adjudicated mentally ill are designated as prohibited persons per Federal law, having been afforded due process.

Mental health screening as a prerequisite to possessing a firearm would likely not survive a Second and Fourth Amendment court challenge.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then the constitution must be amended, and the millennials will just the ones to force that through in the next decade.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Thus, we need to have a national figures out how to keep guns away from crazies without affecting the right of others to have them.

Well Jake we regulate movies so you have to mature into them! What if we raised the age to own a semi auto to 25? Now this would not have stopped Paddock, but the other shootings? MAY have helped. It does NOT remove the right only says you have to mature into it. Fury

Perhaps so.

How about having to pass a mental examination to own a gun and every three years after that.

How about having to pass a test to vote and every 3 years after that?

 

[Picaro]

Jake you have the right as an adult to seek the training and get permission to protect all the children at that school.

You really don't want Democrats and 'progressives' anywhere near children. They're deviants and pedo-friendlies.

Obama's "Safe Schools Czar", the pedophile admirer and fan:

Memo to Media Matters: Kevin Jennings knew of Harry Hay’s NAMBLA connections · zomblog

Pedophile Harry Hay, NAMBLA fan and defender, as are most Democrats and 'progressives':

Meet Pioneer of Gay Rights, Harry Hay - Progressive.org

 

[Manonthestreet]

Stop and frisk everybody coming into a school...you are safe now ...TSA to the rescue

That may be the future.

It should be the little brats....and best part is no need to infringe on anybody else's freedom

 

[RodISHI]

Your right to have a gun, Circe, does not trump my grandchildren's rights to go to school without fear from crazy gunners.

Your logic is nonsense as well. Making sure people who own guns are sane is not totalitarian government by any stretch of thinking.

If you put your grandchildren in public school they are subjected to whatever the whims are of the public school administrators. One size doesn't fit all and if you want your grands perfectly immunized from any danger teach them at home or hire tutors.

 

[Wry Catcher]

My child has a constitutional right to go to school safely. I believe that outweighs a nut case's right to own and bear guns.

We need to find a way to break that access link between a nut and a gun.

We need to identify the first problem, which is

Where does the constitution say that?

In the combined mission statement and vision statement described in The Preamble, and, in Art I, sec 8 clause 1.

My child has a constitutional right to go to school safely. I believe that outweighs a nut case's right to own and bear guns.

We need to find a way to break that access link between a nut and a gun.

We need to identify the first problem, which is

Where does the constitution say that?

In the combined mission statement and vision statement, described in The Preamble, and, in Art I, sec 8 clause 1. Both give the Congress the authority to provide for the Common Defense, and general welfare.

 

[usmbguest5318]

My child has a constitutional right to go to school safely. I believe that outweighs a nut case's right to own and bear guns.

We need to find a way to break that access link between a nut and a gun.

We need to identify the first problem, which is

My child has a constitutional right to go to school safely.

?? What clause(s) of Constitution declare or grant anyone the right to safety of any sort, let along the specific type called "school safety," aside from "safety" (freedom) from certain acts, means and modes of federal government imposition?

AFAIK, the only part of the Constitution that even alludes to notions of ensuring public safety is in the preamble.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

The Constitution, largely via Articles I and IV, empowers Congress to pass laws -- "lesser" laws, laws that derive from interpretations of the Constitution, but that are not themselves in the Constitution -- designed to protect Americans' safety, both in total and individually. Such laws, though they find general acceptance among the polity and the judiciary deems them lawful, are not, however, Constitutional rights.

The reasons the Constitution does not guarantee safety or grant a right thereunto are easily understood:

• Nobody and no creature has a right to safety; however, all creatures desire safety and act to obtain it.
• Safety cannot be guaranteed.

The Founders didn't expressly and in general desire that anyone's safety be denied, risked or compromised, but they knew quite well that nothing they might pen on paper would guarantee it, to say nothing of elevate it to right status. The best they could do is facilitate the government's ability to attempt to ensure the people's and nation's safety, and that's what they did.

As for the theme of image/meme (?) in the OP, I think one can credibly make the case that Congress has abrogated its duty to pass laws that alter the "value proposition," if you will, of acting on one's murderous intentions to visit death and injury on children -- particularly while they are at school and/or schooled as a result of being students of one or more schools -- and adults caring for them. The "value proposition" as it relates to attacking schools and their occupants is not, however, the only one pertaining to unlawfully and immorally lethal behavior that Congress has failed to satisfactorily manage. It is merely the one that presently most pervades and impassions American public discourse.

 

[Picaro]

They were primarily interested in trade and commerce issues that the Articles were found lacking in; much the Bill Of Rights were necessary in order to provide a measure of common laws across state lines, mostly involving property rights and religious rights directly and/or indirectly. And, basic arrangements for common defense of trade and commerce, most of which was left for future decision making. Grandoise selfless visions of liberalism and individual freedoms weren't the point; all of those laws are directed one way or another towards rights across state boundaries, while also keeping the individual states free from 'outside' interference re internal matters. It was more or less successful, until the mass waves of immigration began from 1820's on demanded repressive measures gradually being imposed, especially on the un-propertied. the original intent was almost completely gone by 1860's, completely finished off by the Lincoln dictatorship and the subsequent control of government was sold off to big business and finance, never to return.

Congress no longer plays any significant role in the separation or balance of powers; it has left the Supreme Court and Federal appeals Courts to rule by whims and fiats. All battles are now between the Executive and the Courts, and no longer has anything to with precedent, original intent, or even national interests.