Thread: Freedom from fear is also a right

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

My dear dear alipac friend.
Crocket,
My debate is not over the facts of, Benefits and rights being two totally separate things,
I was in fact addressing the tangibility of fear and once again you’re off the topic, something of which you seem to do any time any one encounters you in a forum debate. You seem to slide into something that no one person or persons could keep up with because you change topics before you understand the posters reply of the first topic.
I will not address in this thread the morphing you speak of, you are inapt to read any logic in just typing. I will not attempt to insult your intelligence or you’re concerns, your logic or debating skills or your desire for accurate information In fact I commend you on those abilities.


One does have a natural right to a benefit, its how that person lives that finalizes the results.
I supplied you with facts that freedom from fear is tangible and a right. If it be God given or Constitutional.
Now, I may only debate you on one issue.
If I’m not mistaken it was on the title of a story.

All the supreme courts and governments in the world put together can’t take the right of fear or the right not to fear away from any man. But the courts can have control on the amount of fear the person retains . Any new law pertaining to Gun control can take or give those (rights to fear) a run for its money in either direction.

Please don't delibertly insult my intelligence because I have an expert view in this or other thread topics. Even if its a general assessment.

If we dont have a right of fear then how is terroristic threatning a crime ?

You did not provide ANY FACTS whatsoever. You simply made the naked claim. It is also a fundamental aspect of jurisprudence that in order for there to be an injury (as to one's rights), there must be verifiable evidence of the injury and quantifiable damages. Again, since fear may be self-inflicted and since it cannot be verified except in the broadest sense, nor can it be reasonably quantified, it is scarcely a reasonable basis for a claim of trespass. You didn't address the highly subjective nature of "fear" in any wise.

As for threats and terrorism, it is not the "fear" that creates the crime, but rather the credible threat of injury or damage to property used in a coercive manner that is the crime. I can tell you that I am going to beat you up, but there is little chance that you can have that prosecuted as a crime UNLESS I am attempting to force you to act against your will and contrary to your interests with the threat. You could "fear" me all that you want and that would not be actionable, but if I use your fear of me to take criminal advantage, then there is potentially a crime and a tort. As a matter of fact, there is even a name for the crime. It's called extortion.

But what is amazing to me is how completely you have now morphed into Bamajdphd ( a few intentional spelling and grammatical errors aside). How on Earth could such a thing happen, "GREG," unless you were not "GREG" at all, but rather the same person who was formerly posting as Bamajdphd, which would of course well explain your morphing from one persona to another? After all, IF (hypothetically, of course) an individual were to, say, post at multiple sites as multiple personalities, it would be easy to see how he could occasionally accidentally slip out of persona or even have difficulty remembering the traits of one or another of his multitude of characters. Again, hypothetically...

Crocket some day the sky may be falling and you’ll have to get down off you soap box to catch it. You remind me of the judge that got canned here in Ohio for having one too many at lunch. The lack of decisive evidence of fear should not be grounds for refusing to regulate, or prosecute, unless the evidence shows that the damage will not occur. Major decisions should be made so as to prevent such activities from being conducted.
Needless to say, there would be no need for rights of fear if people didn’t instill fear in such a way to cause war or try to over run a country with immigrants that don’t follow the immigration laws.

As to gun Laws, the right to bare the weapon takes or instills fear, (I loose the fear of the robber, my wife gains fears of the weapon.) Where fears of potential catastrophe come in to play The United States already enforce such laws. ie; policing the world.

Crocket you remind me of the cop that walks away using a paralyzing bias in favor of not having the rights of fear. Only to come back later to find a victim dead. Or better yet the paper boy that always hits the window not the step. It is interesting to me that you are highly critical of those who would necessarily impose public policies and rights pertaining to fear.
Like many other self-oriented liberals, you create repugnance, probability of neglect and down right fear in most of the posters in this forum. But not I say Greg the Great American I have no need justify my opinion to you and doing so would be wasting more time then debate of this issue would allow. With you it would be more of a drastic action to remain silent then to prove you wrong.
Who in the heck is ( Bamajdphd)?


And once again fear is capable of being understood and evaluated, and therefore regarded as real or tangible.
I’m not timid crocket, and I will never demonstrate a lack of courage or no self-assurance that you try to create in others. I will never show relaxed confidence that my views and abilities are of great value and are as much needed here in alipac as yours.
You crocket will never silence me by making false accusations or by having formed in your own mind in advance your own personal prejudices., especially because they are based on little or no information, You may have the experience but your barking up the wrong tree.

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

Crocket some day the sky may be falling and you’ll have to get down off you soap box to catch it. You remind me of the judge that got canned here in Ohio for having one too many at lunch. The lack of decisive evidence of fear should not be grounds for refusing to regulate, or prosecute, unless the evidence shows that the damage will not occur. Major decisions should be made so as to prevent such activities from being conducted.
Needless to say, there would be no need for rights of fear if people didn’t instill fear in such a way to cause war or try to over run a country with immigrants that don’t follow the immigration laws.

As to gun Laws, the right to bare the weapon takes or instills fear, (I loose the fear of the robber, my wife gains fears of the weapon.) Where fears of potential catastrophe come in to play The United States already enforce such laws. ie; policing the world.

Crocket you remind me of the cop that walks away using a paralyzing bias in favor of not having the rights of fear. Only to come back later to find a victim dead. Or better yet the paper boy that always hits the window not the step. It is interesting to me that you are highly critical of those who would necessarily impose public policies and rights pertaining to fear.
Like many other self-oriented liberals, you create repugnance, probability of neglect and down right fear in most of the posters in this forum. But not I say Greg the Great American I have no need justify my opinion to you and doing so would be wasting more time then debate of this issue would allow. With you it would be more of a drastic action to remain silent then to prove you wrong.
Who in the heck is ( Bamajdphd)?


And once again fear is capable of being understood and evaluated, and therefore regarded as real or tangible.
I’m not timid crocket, and I will never demonstrate a lack of courage or no self-assurance that you try to create in others. I will never show relaxed confidence that my views and abilities are of great value and are as much needed here in alipac as yours.
You crocket will never silence me by making false accusations or by having formed in your own mind in advance your own personal prejudices., especially because they are based on little or no information, You may have the experience but your barking up the wrong tree.

Your rant was meaningless except for the mention of using a weapon to deter a criminal. If you were correct, and you clearly are not, I would be violating the rights of a would-be criminal if I posted a sign that said "BEWARE OF DOG."

The only type of society in which a person would have a RIGHT to be free of fear is some Orwellian world gone mad in which everyone had a right not to be offended, a right to not lose in competition, a right to be cared for cradle to grave by a nanny state, etc. Your premise is nothing short of laughable, PARTICULARLY in a free society.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

Crocket some day the sky may be falling and you’ll have to get down off you soap box to catch it. You remind me of the judge that got canned here in Ohio for having one too many at lunch. The lack of decisive evidence of fear should not be grounds for refusing to regulate, or prosecute, unless the evidence shows that the damage will not occur. Major decisions should be made so as to prevent such activities from being conducted.
Needless to say, there would be no need for rights of fear if people didn’t instill fear in such a way to cause war or try to over run a country with immigrants that don’t follow the immigration laws.

As to gun Laws, the right to bare the weapon takes or instills fear, (I loose the fear of the robber, my wife gains fears of the weapon.) Where fears of potential catastrophe come in to play The United States already enforce such laws. ie; policing the world.

Crocket you remind me of the cop that walks away using a paralyzing bias in favor of not having the rights of fear. Only to come back later to find a victim dead. Or better yet the paper boy that always hits the window not the step. It is interesting to me that you are highly critical of those who would necessarily impose public policies and rights pertaining to fear.
Like many other self-oriented liberals, you create repugnance, probability of neglect and down right fear in most of the posters in this forum. But not I say Greg the Great American I have no need justify my opinion to you and doing so would be wasting more time then debate of this issue would allow. With you it would be more of a drastic action to remain silent then to prove you wrong.
Who in the heck is ( Bamajdphd)?


And once again fear is capable of being understood and evaluated, and therefore regarded as real or tangible.
I’m not timid crocket, and I will never demonstrate a lack of courage or no self-assurance that you try to create in others. I will never show relaxed confidence that my views and abilities are of great value and are as much needed here in alipac as yours.
You crocket will never silence me by making false accusations or by having formed in your own mind in advance your own personal prejudices., especially because they are based on little or no information, You may have the experience but your barking up the wrong tree.

Your rant was meaningless except for the mention of using a weapon to deter a criminal. If you were correct, and you clearly are not, I would be violating the rights of a would-be criminal if I posted a sign that said "BEWARE OF DOG."

The only type of society in which a person would have a RIGHT to be free of fear is some Orwellian world gone mad in which everyone had a right not to be offended, a right to not lose in competition, a right to be cared for cradle to grave by a nanny state, etc. Your premise is nothing short of laughable, PARTICULARLY in a free society.

This is one place I'll have to disagree, lets not take this to the extreme,
I like you crocket you make no sense some of the time and some sense most of the time. Your truly an asset to alipac.
Just dont become the dog I have to let out every morning.

I do have a sign out there that states read all signs I believe that instills more fear then any man/dog will.

And once again fear is capable of being understood and evaluated, and therefore regarded as real or tangible.

And once again fear is capable of being understood and evaluated, and therefore regarded as real or tangible.

Then why can you provide no example of violation of one's right to be "free from fear" being prosecuted?

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

And once again fear is capable of being understood and evaluated, and therefore regarded as real or tangible.

Then why can you provide no example of violation of one's right to be "free from fear" being prosecuted?

IM NOT THE ACLU, The violation of these rights is not being prosecuted there being persecuted.To systematically subject All America citizens to cruel or unfair treatment, for example, because of the criminal alien/wars expatriates ethnic origins or religious beliefs,we all live in fear that we will have to change how we read, how we speak, how our children live and our taught in schools ,how I bid on my work, who I have to have live next to me,
Who I can or can not arrest, because I'll get sued ect... ect… ect... Just the chance that my children and Grand kids lives will be unjustly and irrationally changed alone should be foremost the key example I don’t know how you feel but it scares the heck out of me. Its not one's rights it the whole dang countries.
Does it have to necessarily be said in the courts to be true or for you to believe it’s going on? Crocket I'm ready to make a Federal case of this. ARE YOU? You'd be the perfict person. one, to formally offer the case. two, to stand behind all Americans Rights. three, you know so much about True American Rights Violations...

right on cue

Three decades of strict gun control laws have not made the capital city’s streets safer.

It's not the law or the weapon that is killing people, it's the user.

Originally Posted by Neese

Three decades of strict gun control laws have not made the capital city’s streets safer.

It's not the law or the weapon that is killing people, it's the user.

Folks need to begin looking at the FACTS and stop repeating rhetoric.

It is a FACT that crime is lower in areas where gun control has NOT been entrenched.
It is a FACT that nations with a disarmed population have had an INCREASE IN VIOLENT CRIME. {England, Australia & Japan are good examples}

It is a FACT that a mere 5 or so years ago, Japan had the highest rate of teenage homicide. How you might ask? By the 'blade &/or garat.'

Go figure, eh?

It is a FACT that armed crime in disarmed cities is being done by ILLEGAL weapons. Someone want to explain to me HOW disarming the law abiding American stopped the crime?

What a bunch of propaganda horse dung.

2ndamendsis wrote:

It is a FACT that crime is lower in areas where gun control has NOT been entrenched.

That is very true and probably comes down to the common sense that the criminal cowards are afraid of getting shot in a community that has arms, when the community is disarmed , it is open season on the residents.