Thread: Freedom from fear is also a right

Is that a light I see?

Everybody but the criminals are abiding by the city’s gun control laws [which] have long been among the toughest in the nation.

Feb 19, 2007 3:00 AM (10 hrs ago)

WASHINGTON - District residents have been the guinea pigs in a failed 30-year-old experiment in social engineering. Three decades of strict gun control laws have not made the capital city’s streets safer. On the contrary, since 1976, D.C.’s murder rate has increased 32 percent, and violent crimes committed during the first few weeks of 2007 by gun-wielding thugs are up a staggering 50 percent over the same period last year.

None other than former Mayor Marion Barry, now representing Ward 8 on the D.C. Council, is waving the white flag of surrender by introducing legislation to provide potential victims a limited window of opportunity to arm themselves in self defense. “We are in the midst of a gun-violence epidemic,” Barry said. Everybody but the criminals are abiding by the city’s gun control laws [which] have long been among the toughest in the nation. Not only are District residents forbidden from owning firearms not registered before 1977, they must also keep legal rifles and shotguns at home, unloaded, disassembled and useless against an armed intruder.

Barry deserves credit for stating the obvious, considering that most city officials shrink from accounting for the 2,656 illegal firearms recovered last year by the Metropolitan Police Department — weapons current gun control laws were supposed to keep out of the city.

Gun rights groups are mostly suspicious of Barry’s proposal, which would allow D.C. residents with no prior criminal history three months to register handguns before the current ban is reinstated and higher penalties for unregistered weapons kick in. Citing a 2003 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found no convincing evidence that gun control laws reduce violence anywhere, they’d prefer the District repeal its gun ban altogether.

But Barry’s bill is a first step and it is co-sponsored by Council members Jim Graham, D-Ward 1, Kwame Brown, D-at large, and Tommy Wells, D-Ward 6 — none of whom are gun-toting NRAers. However, all four councilmen face the same intractable problem in their own neighborhoods: The city’s gun control laws don’t work as advocates promised they would. Armed criminals still terrorize peaceful residents who remain essentially defenseless, particularly those in the poorest neighborhoods.

Freedom from violence is a fundamental civil right but the city ignores it. Barry’s proposal, limited though it is, at least acknowledges this right, which is enshrined in Article II of the Bill of Rights. It’s time for a city that so loudly demands representation in Congress to get serious about protecting the equally fundamental right of District residents to protect their lives, homes and possessions.

http://link.toolbot.com/examiner.com/65625

While I agree with the gist of the article, the thread title is problematic. Fear is not a tangible thing, but rather a construct of the mind. It can be caused by anything from real threats to mental illness. There is no way to guarantee freedom from fear, given that it is often self-inflicted, and so there is no right to freedom from fear. This sort of nanny-state delusion drives me nuts.

I agree crocket. There is no "right" to freedom from fear. Shows you the mindset of the author. Nevertheless the article does have merit.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

While I agree with the gist of the article, the thread title is problematic. Fear is not a tangible thing, but rather a construct of the mind. It can be caused by anything from real threats to mental illness. There is no way to guarantee freedom from fear, given that it is often self-inflicted, and so there is no right to freedom from fear. This sort of nanny-state delusion drives me nuts.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding but most fears result from past experiences or the mind set from hearing about past experiences, or the mind set we create not knowing of the situation we are going into. Mind set is a tangible thing.

I would disagree there is a right that pertains to what are the causes of fear, rights that can avoid the causes of fear. If our government gives rights to all illegal immigrants there is an extremely large Chance or likelihood of an undesirable thing happening. Those undesirable things are tangible and the fears of those results, become more tangible by the minute IF RIGHTS ARE TANGIBLE THEN AS WELL IS FEARThe right to be free of fear is a tangible thing...

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

While I agree with the gist of the article, the thread title is problematic. Fear is not a tangible thing, but rather a construct of the mind. It can be caused by anything from real threats to mental illness. There is no way to guarantee freedom from fear, given that it is often self-inflicted, and so there is no right to freedom from fear. This sort of nanny-state delusion drives me nuts.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding but most fears result from past experiences or the mind set from hearing about past experiences, or the mind set we create not knowing of the situation we are going into. Mind set is a tangible thing.

I would disagree there is a right that pertains to what are the causes of fear, rights that can avoid the causes of fear. If our government gives rights to all illegal immigrants there is an extremely large Chance or likelihood of an undesirable thing happening. Those undesirable things are tangible and the fears of those results, become more tangible by the minute IF RIGHTS ARE TANGIBLE THEN AS WELL IS FEARThe right to be free of fear is a tangible thing...

Greg, I couldn't make heads or tails of that. Maybe you should get your thoughts organized and try explaining that one again. Or maybe not...

Fear is not a tangible thing, but rather a construct of the mind. It can be caused by anything from real threats to mental illness. There is no way to guarantee freedom from fear, given that it is often self-inflicted, and so there is no right to freedom from fear. This sort of nanny-state delusion drives me nuts.

I think fear is tangible

Originally Posted by momofnextpres

Fear is not a tangible thing, but rather a construct of the mind. It can be caused by anything from real threats to mental illness. There is no way to guarantee freedom from fear, given that it is often self-inflicted, and so there is no right to freedom from fear. This sort of nanny-state delusion drives me nuts.

Fear is a tangible thing
There is ways to guarantee, freedom from fear
There are rights to freedom from fear
This delusion you speak of, begins when you close your mind to define tangible. My thoughts are together, this is one debate I can assure you, that you may need to rethink.

What the Hell was that? With that sort of logic, you do well to keep that bag over your head. First off, why don't you go to your next door neighbor's house and borrow a dictionary so you can look up the meaning of the word "tangible." Once you've done that, please provide any portion of the Bill fo Rights or any high court decision that enunciates a right to be free from "fear."

CrocketsGhost
Im not sure what that was...
Why do you feel you have the only real or right formal exchange of opinion.


If benefits are tangible then as well are fears.

please provide any portion of the Bill fo Rights or any high court decision that enunciates a right to be free from "fear."

My answer is Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution

Crocket you might be the smartest in alipac then agian maybe not, You may think your the cats meow then agian maybe not....

A "natural right" doesn't have to be acquired, You own it by birth, by your nature as a human being. Natural rights belong to all people, in all times and places. Whenever they are taken from us, we are deprived of something that is naturally our own, something that cannot belong to another.

The Declaration of Independence says, "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men . . ." Three rights are named specifically: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Life and liberty belong to us at birth because every person is born free, and he remains free unless someone deprives him of that freedom. A person may only rightfully be deprived of his life or liberty if he neglects his duty to recognize the rights of others. A criminal who steals or kills may justly be deprived of his liberty, or even his life. I ask you crocket is persuit tangible, is life tangable,

In our country the term "right" is a powerful thing, a very powerful thing!!!



.

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

CrocketsGhost
Im not sure what that was...
Why do you feel you have the only real or right formal exchange of opinion.


If benefits are tangible then as well are fears.

please provide any portion of the Bill fo Rights or any high court decision that enunciates a right to be free from "fear."

My answer is Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution

Crocket you might be the smartest in alipac then agian maybe not, You may think your the cats meow then agian maybe not....

A "natural right" doesn't have to be acquired, You own it by birth, by your nature as a human being. Natural rights belong to all people, in all times and places. Whenever they are taken from us, we are deprived of something that is naturally our own, something that cannot belong to another.

The Declaration of Independence says, "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men . . ." Three rights are named specifically: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Life and liberty belong to us at birth because every person is born free, and he remains free unless someone deprives him of that freedom. A person may only rightfully be deprived of his life or liberty if he neglects his duty to recognize the rights of others. A criminal who steals or kills may justly be deprived of his liberty, or even his life. I ask you crocket is persuit tangible, is life tangable,

In our country the term "right" is a powerful thing, a very powerful thing!!!



.

I see that you have again morphed from semi-illiterate bumpkin to poet scholar. I have yet to see a valid explanation for your wild swings in literacy, coherency and persona, unless we are to accept that you have a multiple personality disorder. Would you care to offer such an explanation (and please don't insult our intelligence again with some nonsense about using a spell-checker or other software)? At any rate, I will now address your non-rebuttal:

Benefits and rights are two totally separate things. One does not have a natural right to a benefit, which is why it's called a BENEFIT. One may gain a "right" to a benefit through contract or some similar mechanism, but we are talking about natural rights, not benefits or privileges. Even the "right" to privacy is a recent construct of an activist court struggling to justify an otherwise unjustifiable decision, and such a right can nowhere be found in American jurisprudence prior to the Roe v Wade decision. Even so, "privacy" is at least a reasonable expectation on one's own property, and the violation thereof may be easily quantified. Fear, as such, is an internal condition that is impossible to quantify in any legal sense. You may claim to feel "fear," but how is an objective observer to determine whether you have in fact done so? Moreover, how is so subjective an emotion to be subjected to an objective test, as would be required in a court of law? The entire notion of a right to be free of fear is nonsensical on its face, and that is why there are no court cases enunciating such a right.

Addressing your argument at large, I did not claim that rights are granted. Anyone who understands the nature of rights understands that a government may only RECOGNIZE a natural right, not confer it. That's why I specifically asked for a tacit recognition of a right to be free from fear either in the Bill of Rights (which was meant to enunciate the rights most likely to require protection from the federal government itself) OR in case law. You have met neither challenge, but instead gone off on a defensive rant attacking my penchant for demanding accurate information.

GREG, idiots could come and go from this site all day spouting foolish opinions as if they were facts. The boards would be (and sometimes are) littered with unsubstantiated opinions passing as factual statements if someone did not hold those espousing those opinions to account. You're not going to find me hounding people who have explained themselves or who have at least offered some semblance of a reasoned argument. Reasonable people can and often do disagree. However, just tossing nonsense out there as though it were fact and then offering personal offense as the only defense for the statement is not going to earn you any respect from me, nor is attempting to pretend that I said or meant something other than that which I clearly said or meant, in a vain attempt to impeach my argument, going to gain you any traction. You appear to be simply arguing here to be argumentative and without either a purpose or a factual or reasonable basis for argument. Sounds like someone else who was haunting this site...

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 ?