Thread: Freedom from fear is also a right

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

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.

Not even the Head of the FBI could tell you that disarming Americans stops crime in fact it increases it.
Its like putting a soldier on the front line with a water Gun

Originally Posted by April

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.

B-b-b-b-but, according to GREG, if you make them afraid you are violating their rights... Y'know - that "right" not to be afraid.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by April

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.

B-b-b-b-but, according to GREG, if you make them afraid you are violating their rights... Y'know - that "right" not to be afraid.

Ahhh Shoot! I'll vote for instilling FEAR into the criminal over my fear of the crime any day in the week.

Good, Healthy FEAR for the CRIMINAL while I feel absolutely safe and FEAR FREE.

Feels sooooooooo AMERICAN.

PS:
greg, only those without knowledge fear so give your wife a few safety lessons and she'll be good to go. Wonder how FEARFULL she'd be when faced with a rapist or an armed invader? Hmmmm, lots more, I expect. Just a wild guess on my part.

That argument was moot before you wrote it. A bunch of hooey with zero foundational fact. You'll have to do a bit better than this hogwash.

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.)

It will be a dieing wish of mine for Mr. CG (if I may call you that) that you produce a quote of mine, where I actually said Gun control laws would be violating a criminals right to fear or not to fear .Hypothetically, If a person wants to take a chance and mug me tomorrow he’s got the right to be afraid of me shooting him. I’m not taking that right away from him. I suppose to think in those ways it would be a violation of criminal rights to fear, if his wife was afraid he was going to get shot. It would also be a rights violation here to day if I said all muggers are women
Let’s not get facetious.... Doesn’t from step one, a criminal have three rights when the are arrested. I mean isn’t that already law. Crocket tell me one thing I am taking away your right to fear if I was to say you’ve lost this debate. Would it be violating mine?

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by April

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.

B-b-b-b-but, according to GREG, if you make them afraid you are violating their rights... Y'know - that "right" not to be afraid.

Ahhh Shoot! I'll vote for instilling FEAR into the criminal over my fear of the crime any day in the week.

Good, Healthy FEAR for the CRIMINAL while I feel absolutely safe and FEAR FREE.

Feels sooooooooo AMERICAN.

PS:
greg, only those without knowledge fear so give your wife a few safety lessons and she'll be good to go. Wonder how FEARFULL she'd be when faced with a rapist or an armed invader? Hmmmm, lots more, I expect. Just a wild guess on my part.

That argument was moot before you wrote it. A bunch of hooey with zero foundational fact. You'll have to do a bit better than this hogwash.
[quote:2xae8kyg]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.)

[/quote:2xae8kyg]

That was meant to be Hypothetical but since we both CC its no big deal or is that a violation of rights as well.

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

It will be a dieing wish of mine for Mr. CG (if I may call you that) that you produce a quote of mine, where I actually said Gun control laws would be violating a criminals right to fear or not to fear .Hypothetically, If a person wants to take a chance and mug me tomorrow he’s got the right to be afraid of me shooting him. I’m not taking that right away from him. I suppose to think in those ways it would be a violation of criminal rights to fear, if his wife was afraid he was going to get shot. It would also be a rights violation here to day if I said all muggers are women
Let’s not get facetious.... Doesn’t from step one, a criminal have three rights when the are arrested. I mean isn’t that already law. Crocket tell me one thing I am taking away your right to fear if I was to say you’ve lost this debate. Would it be violating mine?

Rights accrue to everyone, GREG, so if freedom from fear is a right, then you violate that right when you scare a bad guy.

Your other questions are inane, because they presume a fiction, which is that there is a right to be free from fear. Dude, there is n't even a right to be free from HUNGER. How on Earth can there be a right to be free from fear? This discussion has slipped into absurdity.


Has anyone here seen the movie Donnie Darko? Why do I feel like I'm debating a character from the movie?

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

It will be a dieing wish of mine for Mr. CG (if I may call you that) that you produce a quote of mine, where I actually said Gun control laws would be violating a criminals right to fear or not to fear .Hypothetically, If a person wants to take a chance and mug me tomorrow he’s got the right to be afraid of me shooting him. I’m not taking that right away from him. I suppose to think in those ways it would be a violation of criminal rights to fear, if his wife was afraid he was going to get shot. It would also be a rights violation here to day if I said all muggers are women
Let’s not get facetious.... Doesn’t from step one, a criminal have three rights when the are arrested. I mean isn’t that already law. Crocket tell me one thing I am taking away your right to fear if I was to say you’ve lost this debate. Would it be violating mine?

Rights accrue to everyone, GREG, so if freedom from fear is a right, then you violate that right when you scare a bad guy.

Your other questions are inane, because they presume a fiction, which is that there is a right to be free from fear. Dude, there is n't even a right to be free from HUNGER. How on Earth can there be a right to be free from fear? This discussion has slipped into absurdity.


Has anyone here seen the movie Donnie Darko? Why do I feel like I'm debating a character from the movie?

Then would it be beter to say free from fear of evident or palpable danger, lets hope you dont have to look that up. Actually this decusion was absurd when you said fear was'nt tangible. Your incongruous ability to insult me did make me smile a extrem attemp albeit needless.

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

It will be a dieing wish of mine for Mr. CG (if I may call you that) that you produce a quote of mine, where I actually said Gun control laws would be violating a criminals right to fear or not to fear .Hypothetically, If a person wants to take a chance and mug me tomorrow he’s got the right to be afraid of me shooting him. I’m not taking that right away from him. I suppose to think in those ways it would be a violation of criminal rights to fear, if his wife was afraid he was going to get shot. It would also be a rights violation here to day if I said all muggers are women
Let’s not get facetious.... Doesn’t from step one, a criminal have three rights when the are arrested. I mean isn’t that already law. Crocket tell me one thing I am taking away your right to fear if I was to say you’ve lost this debate. Would it be violating mine?

Rights accrue to everyone, GREG, so if freedom from fear is a right, then you violate that right when you scare a bad guy.

Your other questions are inane, because they presume a fiction, which is that there is a right to be free from fear. Dude, there is n't even a right to be free from HUNGER. How on Earth can there be a right to be free from fear? This discussion has slipped into absurdity.


Has anyone here seen the movie Donnie Darko? Why do I feel like I'm debating a character from the movie?

Then would it be beter to say free from fear of evident or palpable danger, lets hope you dont have to look that up. Actually this decusion was absurd when you said fear was'nt tangible. Your incongruous ability to insult me did make me smile a extrem attemp albeit needless.

Fear is not tangible. No emotion is tangible in the legal sense. Tangibility refers to the quality of having actual substance and quantifiable identity or value. Bear in mind that for this to be a defensible right, it would have to be tangible in the legal sense. A jury would have to be able to measure and assess the reality and level of fear you claim to have felt as a result of the actions of others. That is simply not possible. And again, fear can have a basis in reality or it can be the result of slef-imposition or even mental illness. If you believe in ghosts, do you have a "right" not to get scared spitless every time you think you hear a bump in the night? Of course not.

Now, there is a principle called "mental anguish" which has been grossly abused by the tort system. It does not address fear, but it does address the cumulative perceived discomfort imposed on a victim as a result of a given event. There is no attempt made to guage anything as ephemeral as the level of "fear" endured, but rather the jury determines generically the presumed mental discomfort that would be imposed on a reasonable person by a tort.

Crocketsgoast,
I must commend you. I feel I have alot to gain from debating you. I will say your aptitude, transcends above customary or traditional thinking
you have gained my time honored approbation. I will never live in fear that alipac will fail as long as we have you on our side. You've given me a right no man can take away.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

It will be a dieing wish of mine for Mr. CG (if I may call you that) that you produce a quote of mine, where I actually said Gun control laws would be violating a criminals right to fear or not to fear .Hypothetically, If a person wants to take a chance and mug me tomorrow he’s got the right to be afraid of me shooting him. I’m not taking that right away from him. I suppose to think in those ways it would be a violation of criminal rights to fear, if his wife was afraid he was going to get shot. It would also be a rights violation here to day if I said all muggers are women
Let’s not get facetious.... Doesn’t from step one, a criminal have three rights when the are arrested. I mean isn’t that already law. Crocket tell me one thing I am taking away your right to fear if I was to say you’ve lost this debate. Would it be violating mine?

Rights accrue to everyone, GREG, so if freedom from fear is a right, then you violate that right when you scare a bad guy.

Your other questions are inane, because they presume a fiction, which is that there is a right to be free from fear. Dude, there is n't even a right to be free from HUNGER. How on Earth can there be a right to be free from fear? This discussion has slipped into absurdity.


Has anyone here seen the movie Donnie Darko? Why do I feel like I'm debating a character from the movie?

Then would it be beter to say free from fear of evident or palpable danger, lets hope you dont have to look that up. Actually this decusion was absurd when you said fear was'nt tangible. Your incongruous ability to insult me did make me smile a extrem attemp albeit needless.

Fear is not tangible. No emotion is tangible in the legal sense. Tangibility refers to the quality of having actual substance and quantifiable identity or value. Bear in mind that for this to be a defensible right, it would have to be tangible in the legal sense. A jury would have to be able to measure and assess the reality and level of fear you claim to have felt as a result of the actions of others. That is simply not possible. And again, fear can have a basis in reality or it can be the result of slef-imposition or even mental illness. If you believe in ghosts, do you have a "right" not to get scared spitless every time you think you hear a bump in the night? Of course not.

Now, there is a principle called "mental anguish" which has been grossly abused by the tort system. It does not address fear, but it does address the cumulative perceived discomfort imposed on a victim as a result of a given event. There is no attempt made to guage anything as ephemeral as the level of "fear" endured, but rather the jury determines generically the presumed mental discomfort that would be imposed on a reasonable person by a tort.

Is not anguish a feeling ? I would put it in the most simplest of terms so you'll understand and not over think...... yes