Gun Control Debate - Neodesha, KS

Discuss the national Gun Control debate in Neodesha, KS.

Would you support a ban on handguns?

Neodesha opposes
Oppose
 
13
Support
 
3

Vote now in Neodesha:

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#41 Aug 26, 2012
Law wrote:
<quoted text>
Every slanderous comment I made was in response to the ones you've made.
Or are you the only one that can make them?
<quoted text>
And yet you've accused me of things I never did or said. So you are indeed the hypocrite I've called you out for being.
<quoted text>Once again, there is no such thig as the "right to keep and feel safe".
So, no matter what name you post under, you're a fraud that cannot back up his/her assertions.
And when will you cease accsuing me of things I've never said nor done?
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/con...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_De...

EVERYTHING comes to the conclusion that United States Citizens have EVERY right to feel safe. And you have several times accused my family of drugs and you need to take your communist views to Germany and leave this country if you do not like democracy. THAT is where power tripping commys like you deserve to be. NOW you show me where it states we do not have the right to FEEL or BE safe. You can't except in the communist laws you obviously follow. So get f@#$ed commy A@#H@#$.
lawless

Independence, KS

#42 Aug 27, 2012
He posts under himself. I am not he. An entirely different person and I stated before, I am not a he.
Law

Papillion, NE

#43 Aug 27, 2012
lawless the abuser wrote:
Nope because YOU say so! Self defense is aworthless concept if you have no right to be safe. Even in a money wasting project like court.
Self defense exists in a court of law. The so called "right to feel safe" does not.
lawless the assclown wrote:
And if you have to defend yourself, who ya gonna call? The cops that are not there to protect your safety?
No. I'm going to be my famiy's first line of defense...as I should be. When seconds count, the police are always minutes away.
lawless the killer wrote:
All you have done is contradict yourself. One minute you have no right to be safe and the next you have the right to self defense.
Those are two different things hence I'm not being contradictory.
You on the other hand have still not proven that there is a "right to feel safe".
lawless the abuser wrote:
If you have no right to be safe then how can you have a right to self defense?
Becasuse the Declaration of Independence holds that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are within my grasp. Second, my ablity by law to stop a threat to mu person, family, and property has been upheld all the way to the Supreme Court. No so called "right to feel safe" case has ever made it to SCOTUS.
lawless the criminal wrote:
Is that not protecting your safety?
It's protecting my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
lawless wrote:
And if you have no right to be safe through self defense than you should be charged as well as your attacker.
Those are two different things. How many different ways can I tell you that before you'll comprehend it?
lawless the ignoramous wrote:
You should be allowed the luxery of a court or a cop.
How is one allowed the luxery (sic) of a cop?
lawless the dolt wrote:
Just whatever punishment, oh wait, you think there should be no punishment.
Just as mch as you think there should be no punishment for abusing your children.
lawless wrote:
Just a world of chaos cause no one has the right to feel safe or have domestic tranquility or the need for estalished justice.
Yet more straw man from you. Why do you engage in it? Do you derive as much pleasure in it as being an abuser?
lawless the serial liar wrote:
People should be allowed to stalk each other without the need for restaining orders.
So you can abuse without fear of reprisal? Now I see why you hate children and the elderly. They just get in you way.
lawless the moron wrote:
And one thing is for sure. Without our rights to be safe our tax dollars would better to swallow. No cops to pay, no jails and prisons to support. Population would be eased with murders rampant and serious drug use right out in the open, no need for snitches there!
Even self defense should be illegal, after all you have no right to be safe so you have no right to domestic tranquility so you have to right keep your home or property safe.
So how long have you been a proponent of criminal eabling/victim disarmament policies? Are you in the business of crime or have family members that are?
lawless the imbecile wrote:
Funny thing is the laws for self defense and property rights are in place to preserve the right to feel safe.
There is no right to feel safe or yo would have produced a credible cite to it. You haven't and you have failed.
Law

Papillion, NE

#44 Aug 27, 2012
Remember folks lawless is a criminlal wrote:
So Folks,remember that the next time a school bully is pushing your kids around or terrorizing them. Law feels that your kids have no right to report it to the teacher so it will probably be his kid or grandkid doing the bullying because he taught them that they have the right!
And folks, remember that if you know that next time you hear that children are being raped, sodomized and sold into prostitution, don't notify anyone.
According to "lawless", the perpretrator has the right to do that becuase they felt threwatened by those kids coming into their yard and threatening their "right to feel safe".
In fact "lawless" would like to join in on the abuse because his/her "right to feel safe" says that thse children should also be exterminated.
Remember folks lawless is a criminlal wrote:
And to any of the sexual deviants out there his family is up for grabs cause there are no rights to be safe! Go burn his house down or steal his vehicle! Stalk him around every corner! Beat up his kids or grandkids on the play ground!
And lawless is giving this advice because he/she knows first hand about how to beak laws and torture people unmercilessly.
Remember folks lawless is a criminlal wrote:
Of course the first thing he will do is call a cop and file charges or go to the teacher whining a cry baby cause HIS and HIS FAMILIES rights have been violated, THATS the kind of hypocrite he IS!
And remember, lawless thinks that no one else but him/her has rights so he/she and his/her minions will continue to prey on the weak and defenseless.
Bottom line, "lawless" is a gutless bottom feeder that will say and do anythign to quench an insatiabe bloodthirst.
Law

Papillion, NE

#45 Aug 27, 2012
unauthorized_user wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/con...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_De...
EVERYTHING comes to the conclusion that United States Citizens have EVERY right to feel safe.
Yet NOWEHERE in those documents does ANYTHING SAY you have the "right to feel safe".
Now, when are you going to produce such a document?
unauthorized_user wrote:
And you have several times accused my family of drugs and you need to take your communist views to Germany and leave this country if you do not like democracy.
I have accused your family of drugs as many times as you have raped and killed young children.
unauthorized_user wrote:
THAT is where power tripping commys like you deserve to be. NOW you show me where it states we do not have the right to FEEL or BE safe.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You want me to prove a negative? You really are a colostomy bag with ears.
unauthorized_user wrote:
You can't except in the communist laws you obviously follow. So get f@#$ed commy A@#H@#$.
Said the Premier Fascist. How many people did you and your despot friends grind under your heels this weekend?
Law

Papillion, NE

#46 Aug 27, 2012
lawless wrote:
He posts under himself. I am not he. An entirely different person and I stated before, I am not a he.
Right. If you say so.
Law

Papillion, NE

#47 Aug 27, 2012
Here's why you DON'T have a "right to feel safe".
----------
Your neighbor had a swimming pool in their backyard that you feared your child could drown in.
Even though they've followed every law to prevent it (tall fences, locks on the gates, and motion sensors).
You still however don't trust your child not to go over to the pool even though you've warned them repeatedly.
So you call the city and law enforcement feeling that they should be compelled to force your neighbor to remove their pool.
It's just exercising your "right to feel safe".
----------
You have a nice 70's era muscle car that you've restored and could fetch a tidy sum if you sold it.
Your neighbor hates fast cars and fears that a child on your block will be hit and killed by this car speeding down the street (though you've NEVER raced the car nor ever gotten a speeding ticket while driving it). So the police are called and you're forced to sell it or be arrested because your neighbor's "right to feel safe" is being infringed upon.
----------
Your neighbor on the left has a vintage gun collection. He is also a hunter. Your neighbor on the right hates guns and hates being anywhere where he knows guns are.
Therefore he calls the city to complain.
The city comes out to the gun collecting neighbor and even though the city official obseves that all of the guns are kept locked up in a gun safe, he none the less confiscates all of the guns. Why? Because your neighbor on the right feels his "right to feel safe" trumps your law abiding neighbor on the right's private property rights.

__________

You 2 jackals that are trying to say that there is a "right to feel safe" come down on the other side of the law abiding citizen just minding their business.
So who is the Commie? You?
Who is the frustrated control freak? You?
Talk about hypocrites.
You jackasses can't even support your claim with a credible cite to the "right to self defense" existing in any founding document.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#48 Aug 27, 2012
Law wrote:
Here's why you DON'T have a "right to feel safe".
----------
Your neighbor had a swimming pool in their backyard that you feared your child could drown in.
Even though they've followed every law to prevent it (tall fences, locks on the gates, and motion sensors).
You still however don't trust your child not to go over to the pool even though you've warned them repeatedly.
So you call the city and law enforcement feeling that they should be compelled to force your neighbor to remove their pool.
It's just exercising your "right to feel safe".
----------
You have a nice 70's era muscle car that you've restored and could fetch a tidy sum if you sold it.
Your neighbor hates fast cars and fears that a child on your block will be hit and killed by this car speeding down the street (though you've NEVER raced the car nor ever gotten a speeding ticket while driving it). So the police are called and you're forced to sell it or be arrested because your neighbor's "right to feel safe" is being infringed upon.
----------
Your neighbor on the left has a vintage gun collection. He is also a hunter. Your neighbor on the right hates guns and hates being anywhere where he knows guns are.
Therefore he calls the city to complain.
The city comes out to the gun collecting neighbor and even though the city official obseves that all of the guns are kept locked up in a gun safe, he none the less confiscates all of the guns. Why? Because your neighbor on the right feels his "right to feel safe" trumps your law abiding neighbor on the right's private property rights.
__________
You 2 jackals that are trying to say that there is a "right to feel safe" come down on the other side of the law abiding citizen just minding their business.
So who is the Commie? You?
Who is the frustrated control freak? You?
Talk about hypocrites.
You jackasses can't even support your claim with a credible cite to the "right to self defense" existing in any founding document.
First off all those things you just said are BS cause everything you stated are about the people going by the book, so the LAW has no right at all to tell any of those people to sell the car, take down the pool OR to get rid of the locked up guns because the only ones doing anything wrong at all are the people tresspassing onto the property for any of these things to happen. So theres your communist a@# try9ing to reach for BS conclutions again and the airs getting pretty thin, so I guess those kids you say are in danger need better parents to keep them from going onto property getting hurt because they are trumping the home owners right to legally obtain ownership of things that are out of reach as long as THEY are not on property they don't belong. HENCE the owner has a right of safety by their property not to be tresspassed on. BUT you on the other hand as the commy you are, WOULD try and blame the home owner for the nieghbors illegal activity.

THE END.
lawless

Independence, KS

#49 Aug 27, 2012
Actually it's still you. I was gonna call you out on how you called this a debate yet never gave your side beyond 'Nope' and 'I don't see it.' Now I see why! Cause you are an idiot!
YOU have the right to keep that child from going to the pool. If you do not do so then YOU are the neglegent parent.
If the guns are locked up that is excercising the right to be safe cause no one is going to get to them. I am not much for someone keeping a lot of guns but I also realise that if they are responsible gun owners than it is not my worry. If they leave the guns loaded and ready to fire and just laying around the house and yard where ANYBODY, including children, can get to them, then I will be calling SRS and a cop.
A guy shot our dog a couple years back on our property and since my child was under 8 I informed him that if he ever pulled that again I would have him charged with CHILD ENDANGERMENT! He had threatened my 'domestic tranquility' so I threatened 'established justice'!
Since when has ANYBODY been forced to sell a vehicle by a nieghbors complaint? Now you are truly reaching!
I am not the one saying that laws against things like sodomy and child abuse et al are not in place to keep people safe, YOU ARE! YOU are the one saying that people are not allowed domestic tranquility or established justice. THATS WHAT THE LAWS ARE THERE FOR!
The next time you come across a war veteran tell him all about he is not fighting for our personal freedoms to be kept safe! Thank your law enforcement for the way they do not protect yoour right to be safe.
I was ALMOST ready to believe that maybe, JUST MAYBE, you were not the 'Law' that was calling us meth heads and stuff but this time you convinced me that you most likely are!
Devious

Topeka, KS

#50 Aug 27, 2012
I will NEVER support any form of ban on ANY firearms.
Law

Papillion, NE

#51 Aug 31, 2012
unauthorized_user wrote:
<quoted text>First off all those things you just said are BS cause everything you stated are about the people going by the book, so the LAW has no right at all to tell any of those people to sell the car, take down the pool OR to get rid of the locked up guns....
It's NOT BS, idiot. It goes with your claim that there is a right to "feel safe".
You've had over a week and habve STILL not produced a document that secures such a right.
unauthorized_user wrote:
...
because the only ones doing anything wrong at all are the people tresspassing onto the property for any of these things to happen.
Huh? Nobody tresspassed in ANY of those 3 scenarios above.
unauthorized_user wrote:
So theres your communist a@# try9ing to reach for BS conclutions again and the airs getting pretty thin,
No, your BS claims that there is a "right to feel safe" are still unproven. You're making a bigger jackass of yourself with your ignorance of just what the concept of the so called "right to feel safe" means.
unauthorized_user wrote:
... so I guess those kids you say are in danger need better parents to keep them from going onto property getting hurt because they are trumping the home owners right to legally obtain ownership of things that are out of reach as long as THEY are not on property they don't belong.
What kids do you speak of?
unauthorized_user wrote:
HENCE the owner has a right of safety by their property not to be tresspassed on.
Exactly!!! That's Private Proterty Rights...NOT "the right to feel safe". There may be hope for you yet.
unauthorized_user wrote:
BUT you on the other hand as the commy you are, WOULD try and blame the home owner for the nieghbors illegal activity.
THE END.
You're the one that thinks your "right to feel safe" trumps peoples rights to engage in lawful behavior that you feel threatened by,
Sig Heil, you jackbooted thug!!
Law

Papillion, NE

#52 Aug 31, 2012
lawless wrote:
Actually it's still you. I was gonna call you out on how you called this a debate yet never gave your side beyond 'Nope' and 'I don't see it.' Now I see why! Cause you are an idiot!
No, you're the idiot. You never backed up a single claim you made.
lawless wrote:
YOU have the right to keep that child from going to the pool. If you do not do so then YOU are the neglegent parent.
Not only do you have the right, you have the responsibility. What does that have to do with what I said, dullard?
lawless wrote:
If the guns are locked up that is excercising the right to be safe cause no one is going to get to them.
Are you really this dense?????? I never argued against the "right to BE safe". I said there is no such thing as the "right to FEEL safe"! No wonder your debate skills suck, you can't comprehend the topic.
lawless wrote:
I am not much for someone keeping a lot of guns....
It's none of your business if they aren't threatening you.
lawless wrote:
... but I also realise that if they are responsible gun owners than it is not my worry. If they leave the guns loaded and ready to fire and just laying around the house and yard where ANYBODY, including children, can get to them, then I will be calling SRS and a cop.
WHat if they've trained their children on their use? SHould they have to die at the hands of a criminal because you don't want the children capable of protecting their parents?
Nobody disagrees that responsibility comes with ANYTHING that can be used to harm or kill.
lawless wrote:
A guy shot our dog a couple years back on our property and since my child was under 8 I informed him that if he ever pulled that again I would have him charged with CHILD ENDANGERMENT!
That's the very least I would have done. What did the police do about it? Hell, that guy should have seen some seriuos jail time.
lawless wrote:
He had threatened my 'domestic tranquility' so I threatened 'established justice'!
He did more than just threaten your domestic tranquility. He trampled your private property rights as well as engaged in the reckless endangerment you mentioned above.
lawless wrote:
Since when has ANYBODY been forced to sell a vehicle by a nieghbors complaint? Now you are truly reaching!
Not at all. It goes with the idea that somebody has the right to "feel safe". No such right exists otherwise they could use that as the justufucation for the scenarios I mentioned. Use your head.
lawless wrote:
I am not the one saying that laws against things like sodomy and child abuse et al are not in place to keep people safe, YOU ARE!
No, I'm not. You STILL don't understand that no "right to feel safe" exists.
What DOES exist is the right to take the measures and precautions necessary to minimize ones exposure to dangers (as best one can determine). The "right to feel safe" is only in someone's mind as is not rooted in the reality of society.
If you've taken as many (legal) precautions as you can think of, you may "feel safe" but that feeling isn't something you have a right to nor is it guaranteed. And you have to keep adjusting those precautions as the need arises. The concept of "feeling safe" is a dynamic and that's why it isn't written into law nor guaranteed.
Law

Papillion, NE

#53 Aug 31, 2012
lawless wrote:
YOU are the one saying that people are not allowed domestic tranquility or established justice.
Once again, go back and show me the post # where I said that. You haven't been able to do that yet. You've lied every time .
lawless wrote:
THATS WHAT THE LAWS ARE THERE FOR!
Laws only set the boundaries and provide the justification for prosecution of those who cross the boundaries. Or is it your assertion that the laws pervent crime?
lawless wrote:
The next time you come across a war veteran tell him all about he is not fighting for our personal freedoms to be kept safe!
Well, as an 8 year veteran myself, let me just tell yo uhow full of shit you are. Why would I tell them what you suggest. You probably spit on veterans.
lawless wrote:
Thank your law enforcement for the way they do not protect yoour right to be safe.
Wel, I was in law enforcement for 11 years. Why are you changing the topic of the debate now? You've been trying to tell someone in law enforcement about rights that don't exist. I've enjoyed watching you make (and continue to) make a fool of yourself.
Do continue.
lawless wrote:
I was ALMOST ready to believe that maybe, JUST MAYBE, you were not the 'Law' that was calling us meth heads and stuff but this time you convinced me that you most likely are!
And I'm convinced you are still a liar because you haven't been able to back up a single claim you've made. You're a liar's liar.
lawless

Independence, KS

#54 Sep 2, 2012
<<Self defense exists in a court of law. The so called "right to feel safe" does not.>>
There was a short time that self defense didn't exist according to a cop here in town. That's why several people I know had to go to anger management for defending themselves/family. Including a guy that walked in his daughters bedroom and found a so called friend molesting her. He beat the crap outta the guy and was arrested for assault. That is a law that can be taken away at a moments notice. Don't feel to safe with that idea!
<<No. I'm going to be my famiy's first line of defense...as I should be. When seconds count, the police are always minutes away.>>
<<WHat if they've trained their children on their use? SHould they have to die at the hands of a criminal because you don't want the children capable of protecting their parents?>>
So you never leave your families sides? Ask the kids in the school in MD or Columbine how safe they feel in thier schools after a 'responsible' gun owner left thier guns within the reach of kids that apparently knew how to use them!
<<Laws only set the boundaries and provide the justification for prosecution of those who cross the boundaries. Or is it your assertion that the laws pervent crime?>>
Nope but I can tell you that I have an ex that felt safe because his abuse didn't get him 6ft under because of the laws.
<<Wel, I was in law enforcement for 11 years. Why are you changing the topic of the debate now? You've been trying to tell someone in law enforcement about rights that don't exist.>>
You 'was' in law enforcement or you 'in' law enforcement?
<<What kids do you speak of?>>
The kids you claim are going to trespass on other peoples property to drown.
When I lived in the country we had a kid that always drove down our road to fast, I would have been happy if he kept his truck parked! And no the cop did NOTHING about the dog shot. Although the guy was well known for shooting peoples dogs on their property we didn't actually see him do it and he would do it from the road, not trespassing on the property. I had to confront him myself to inform him that next time I would seek child endangerment. To think that my family could be endangered by a drunk with a gun made me feel very UNSAFE! So I took my right to feel safe and went to him MYSELF! Going to established justice was my mistake!
<<What DOES exist is the right to take the measures and precautions necessary to minimize ones exposure to dangers (as best one can determine). The "right to feel safe" is only in someone's mind as is not rooted in the reality of society.>>
By your standard then, if a nieghbor decided the fence you put around the pool, to 'feel safe' from trespassing kids drowning in it, was ugly then that neighbor can use established justice to tear it down? The society reality is NO because it is there to keep the pool owner feeling safe that no child will drown in their pool. I know of many people that have been made to put a fence around their pool or water feature to keep the neighbors feeling safe. And the height of the fence is set to make the neighbors feel safe.
Murderers/rapists are put in prison to make the rest of the populace feel safe or else the law that murder/rape would be needless. Just let the guy go free, cause the rest of the townsfolk don't need to feel or be safe from him! Don't bother with the internet lists of child molesters cause I have no right to worry (which is a FEELING) if my child lives next door to any of them!
<<Are you really this dense?????? I never argued against the "right to BE safe". I said there is no such thing as the "right to FEEL safe"! No wonder your debate skills suck, you can't comprehend the topic.>>
You cannot feel safe if you cannot be safe and vice versa. If I know I am safe then I feel safe. If I know I am unsafe then I do not feel safe.
Law

Papillion, NE

#55 Sep 2, 2012
lawless wrote:
There was a short time that self defense didn't exist according to a cop here in town. That's why several people I know had to go to anger management for defending themselves/family.
That's one cop that is full of shit. Where you might get nto trouble has to do with whether Castle Doctrine Laws exist for your state or not. But as the saying goes, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."
No cop is above the law.
lawless wrote:
Including a guy that walked in his daughters bedroom and found a so called friend molesting her. He beat the crap outta the guy and was arrested for assault. That is a law that can be taken away at a moments notice. Don't feel to safe with that idea!
I fing that very hard to believe but if it's true, it's a BS law!! I would have killed the sick MoFo molesting my daughter.
lawless wrote:
So you never leave your families sides?
I leave their sides every day. I've also trained them on steps they can take when they feel threatened.
lawless wrote:
Ask the kids in the school in MD or Columbine how safe they feel in thier schools after a 'responsible' gun owner left thier guns within the reach of kids that apparently knew how to use them!
Better yet, ask them how they feel being put in a so called "Gun Free Zone" which all but guarantees their slaughter because nobody (including a concealed carry permit holder) is allowed to carry on the school grounds. Gun Free Zones are killing fields for criminals hell bent on maximum carnage. Let's also not foget that Klebold & Harris had bombs as well.
[QUOTE who="lawless
Nope but I can tell you that I have an ex that felt safe because his abuse didn't get him 6ft under because of the laws.
[/QUOTE]
Too bad. One less creting walking this earth is not a bad thing. I've told women before, a restraining order is only the beginning in taking measures to keep a violent ex at bay.
lawless wrote:
You 'was' in law enforcement or you 'in' law enforcement?
I was in law enforcement. I do community outrach and firearms s training now.
lawless wrote:
The kids you claim are going to trespass on other peoples property to drown.
Yeah, so?
lawless wrote:
When I lived in the country we had a kid that always drove down our road to fast, I would have been happy if he kept his truck parked! And no the cop did NOTHING about the dog shot. Although the guy was well known for shooting peoples dogs on their property we didn't actually see him do it and he would do it from the road, not trespassing on the property.
He doesn't have to tresspass to be prosecuted for shooting into your yard. Something's screwed up there. Most cities have ordinances against discharging firearms within the city's borders (except for designated firing ranges, self defense, etc.)
Law

Papillion, NE

#56 Sep 2, 2012
lawless wrote:
I had to confront him myself to inform him that next time I would seek child endangerment. To think that my family could be endangered by a drunk with a gun made me feel very UNSAFE! So I took my right to feel safe and went to him MYSELF! Going to established justice was my mistake!
Once again, you don't have a right to feel safe. Unfortunately, going to established justice shuld usually be your first step. That you live in an area where that justice is corrupt is very unfortunate. If you can't get fair treatment at the city leve, step it up to the ounty or state level (and it shouldn't have to cost you a dime).
lawless wrote:
By your standard then, if a nieghbor decided the fence you put around the pool, to 'feel safe' from trespassing kids drowning in it, was ugly then that neighbor can use established justice to tear it down?
Only if the fence does not meet design standards established by the governing body. Typically the governing body will have established design standards (and minimum standards) that you as a pool owner have to take. If you've met those standards to the satisfaction of the governing body, you can tell your neighbor to go pound sand if they don't like your "ugly" fence.
lawless wrote:
The society reality is NO because it is there to keep the pool owner feeling safe that no child will drown in their pool. I know of many people that have been made to put a fence around their pool or water feature to keep the neighbors feeling safe.
No, you're wrong. The fence was put up to keep the children who are not supposed to be in the pool area safe from drowning. Had nothing to do with peoples "feelings"
lawless wrote:
And the height of the fence is set to make the neighbors feel safe.
No it's not. It's at that height to keep small children out.
lawless wrote:
Murderers/rapists are put in prison to make the rest of the populace feel safe or else the law that murder/rape would be needless.
Wong again. Murderers and rapists are put in prison beause they've broken the law. Period. That's how the Criminal Justice Syatem is supposed to work. It has nothing to do with the "feelings" of the populace.
lawless wrote:
Just let the guy go free, cause the rest of the townsfolk don't need to feel or be safe from him!
So you still don't graso the concept of righta and liberties.
lawless wrote:
Don't bother with the internet lists of child molesters cause I have no right to worry (which is a FEELING) if my child lives next door to any of them!
Still wrong. The lists of child molesters exists because that particular area of offense has a very high recidivism rate. If society knowningly put those with a high risk of repeat offenses in society without alerting those in society of their existence, there is a clear case of irresponsible management of criminal behaviors.
lawless wrote:
You cannot feel safe if you cannot be safe and vice versa. If I know I am safe then I feel safe. If I know I am unsafe then I do not feel safe.
Impossible for you to ever be completely safe. And anyone who ever truly "feels" safe is a fool. There are too many things out there you cannot control yet can be harmful to you.
How can you ever feel safe knowing you have nighbors that engage in behviors or own somethign that you feel unsafe about whuile they are not breaking any laws?
There is NO right to "feel safe".
and lawless

Independence, KS

#57 Sep 2, 2012
<<Not only do you have the right, you have the responsibility. What does that have to do with what I said, dullard?>>
Are you saying that responsibility is a 'RIGHT'? <<No, your BS claims that there is a "right to feel safe" are still unproven. You're making a bigger jackass of yourself with your ignorance of just what the concept of the so called "right to feel safe" means.>>
Tranquility is a FEELING word meaning calm, quiet, safe. Not chaos or worry.
In the ORIGINAL documents there is no 'right to bear arms' until later. That was added to give people a feeling of safe as long they are ALLOWED to have a gun to protect their families/selves. Does having a gun make you FEEL safer even if you never have to use it? Or just more powerful and a boost to the ego?
Westar shut down the power all over town the other night so more established justice was put on the streets. Why? So store owners could feel safer against vandals/looters? Or just cause the cops needed the OT? If that is the case then they should have just kept their butts right at home in bed unless they were ACTUALLY needed!
Metal detectors in schools and airports. Are those not intended to try and make students/passengers feel safe cause the bad guys will get caught at the door? Do they NOT have the right to feel safe when they enter the school or plane?
Well I'm heading for the circus in a bit. Bet there will be a cop or 2 hanging around to give the people a feeling of safe! Or is it just another excuse for OT?
Law

Papillion, NE

#58 Sep 2, 2012
and lawless wrote:
Are you saying that responsibility is a 'RIGHT'?
/QUOTE]
Nope. Responsibliy connotes an obligation. As in the exercise of rights. One can exercise the rights while noting the repsonsiblity to exercise that right in such a way that is doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
Similar to the saying "My rights end where your nose begins".

[QUOTE who="and lawless"]

Tranquility is a FEELING word meaning calm, quiet, safe. Not chaos or worry.
And????
and lawless wrote:
In the ORIGINAL documents there is no 'right to bear arms' until later. That was added to give people a feeling of safe as long they are ALLOWED to have a gun to protect their families/selves.
[/QUOTE}
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You really ARE an ignoramous. Do you not know why the 2nd Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights???
We had just finished a war for our independence and it was demonstrated that many a battle was fought by the commmon citizen hence the assurance that the common citizen would always be armd against enemies - foregin and domestic.
Damn, you make this too easy!!!
It had NOTHING to do with "Giving people a feeling of safe". If you're right, where id the words feeling", "feel", or "safe" in the 2nd Amendment? Will you be showing us that? Soon?
[QUOTE who="and lawless"] Does having a gun make you FEEL safer even if you never have to use it? Or just more powerful and a boost to the ego?
How is a gun any different than having insurance? A fire extinguisher? A can of Pepper Spray?
and lawless wrote:
Westar shut down the power all over town the other night so more established justice was put on the streets. Why? So store owners could feel safer against vandals/looters? Or just cause the cops needed the OT?
It had nothing to do with the "feelings" of store owners and everything to do with established criminal patterns. Wow, you're obtuse.
and lawless wrote:
If that is the case then they should have just kept their butts right at home in bed unless they were ACTUALLY needed!
Why is that?
and lawless wrote:
Metal detectors in schools and airports. Are those not intended to try and make students/passengers feel safe cause the bad guys will get caught at the door?
It has nothing to do with the "feelings" of passengers or students and everything to do with minimizing the damage that somebody with a mind to exact maximum carnage can do.
Metal detectors were used even before 9/11. Should the passengers that were crashing into the buildings and ground have "felt safe" knowing these detectors were used at the airports that they boarded the planes from? According to you , they should have "felt safe"
How did that right to "feel safe" work out for them as they slammed into the buidings and ground at 500 mph??
and lawless wrote:
Do they NOT have the right to feel safe when they enter the school or plane?
No, they don't. For if they did, on person cud then hold the plae from taking off due to a feeling that something bad was going to happen on that flight. How is that for the "right to feel safe"??
and lawless wrote:
Well I'm heading for the circus in a bit. Bet there will be a cop or 2 hanging around to give the people a feeling of safe! Or is it just another excuse for OT?
You tell me. And let me know how that officer is going to be able to catch that trapeze artist when she flies of the bar. And I want to hear how that audience member was safe even as the elephant trampled him. Bet they'll prosecute the elephant for infringing on the right of the audience member "to feel safe", huh?
lawless

Independence, KS

#59 Sep 2, 2012
<<It had nothing to do with the "feelings" of store owners and everything to do with established criminal patterns. Wow, you're obtuse.>>
To worry about established criminal patterns is not making the store owners feel safe? Then they should have just counted on the ones already on duty. No need to waste taxpayers money putting out the extra men. After all I don't see the fire dept patrolling the streets just in case of a fire. They don't need to. Someone will call it in and pull them out of their beds to take care of it. And we have more fires than we have actual criminal activity.
<<BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! !!!! You really ARE an ignoramous. Do you not know why the 2nd Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights???
We had just finished a war for our independence and it was demonstrated that many a battle was fought by the commmon citizen hence the assurance that the common citizen would always be armd against enemies - foregin and domestic.>>
Thing is all I hear is it is a Constitutional right to keep/bear arms. The Bill of Rights is NOT the Constitution and was drawn up after the Constitution.
<<It has nothing to do with the "feelings" of passengers or students and everything to do with minimizing the damage that somebody with a mind to exact maximum carnage can do.
Metal detectors were used even before 9/11. Should the passengers that were crashing into the buildings and ground have "felt safe" knowing these detectors were used at the airports that they boarded the planes from? According to you , they should have "felt safe"
How did that right to "feel safe" work out for them as they slammed into the buidings and ground at 500 mph??>>
Homeland Security amped up the regulations for security after that. My parents have flown Southwest since the late '80s and can tell you how much change has been made from that day and that they feel safer although they had never really thought about it before then. When people complain about the amped security, airlines spokespersons have stated that they want their passengers to feel safer on thier flights. And I notice you completely ignored the part about the schools. Even campaigns about bullying will state that kids have a right to feel safe in their school.
<<Too bad. One less creting walking this earth is not a bad thing. I've told women before, a restraining order is only the beginning in taking measures to keep a violent ex at bay>>
Really? So how does that explain the man that killed his exwifes parents cause they wouldn't tell him where she was and then killed her as she walked out of her job? She had a restraining order against him but it didn't make for a very good shield. If the person is determined enough it may be a beginning but it can also be the end. Thing is she felt safe as long as he was in jail and had the paper against him. According to her brother the judge stated she had a right to feel safe from him and the order would be a start.
<<Impossible for you to ever be completely safe. And anyone who ever truly "feels" safe is a fool. There are too many things out there you cannot control yet can be harmful to you.>>
Living/breathing every day can be harmful. So what am I supposed to do, quit because I don't have the right to feel safe about it? I don't have the right to sit in my home and feel safe? Always be scared of my own shadow? A child does not have the right to feel safe in its parents arms? Constant worry about the lack of feeling safe isn't gonna help much in the pursuit of happiness! If I don't feel safe, I don't feel happy or tranquil.
You look at it completely black and white. Just because it is not in the language you speak does not mean it is not there.
lawless

Independence, KS

#60 Sep 2, 2012
<<You're the one that thinks your "right to feel safe" trumps peoples rights to engage in lawful behavior that you feel threatened by,>>
Actually it was your examples that came to that conclusion. He never said a THING about the it trumping lawful rights and in fact just the opposite! Editing so you could twist it around!<<Huh? Nobody tresspassed in ANY of those 3 scenarios above.>>
Twit, he said that the only way a child could drown under your scenario. Or got hurt by a car sitting around in the owners driveway and never having been driven as in your scenario. Like I said, some people SHOULD keep their vehicles parked cause they are a danger on the road.
<<Nope. Responsibliy connotes an obligation. As in the exercise of rights. One can exercise the rights while noting the repsonsiblity to exercise that right in such a way that is doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
Similar to the saying "My rights end where your nose begins".>>
Nope. Rights and responsibilities are 2 different things. And rights ending where the nose begins is more about someone muddying the rights of someone else.
A right can or cannot be exercised at ones own discretion. Responsibility is an obligation, not just connotes.
I will give you the fact that ones right should not infringe on anothers right, but that depends on the given rights of each person.
Kinda like this; we had the right to force the native americans to give up their lands to us but Germany had no right to take it from us. We did not have a responsibility to take this land, we just decided we had the right. Personally I don't agree being of minor amount of native blood and all. That was just the mighty whites ending the natives rights at the end of the white mans nose. Even today we neglect our responsibility to the native people by continueing to force them into smaller and smaller areas after promising not to over and over again. The promises made it our obligation of responsibility.
But yet no other country has the right to come in and do us the same favor! Even if they promise to be responsible and play nice? They seem to think so.
You can have the right to own a gun, but you do not have to be responsible as to it's being locked up or knowledge of use. If I expected you to have that responsibility than I would be ending YOUR RIGHT at MY NOSE.
<<How is a gun any different than having insurance? A fire extinguisher? A can of Pepper Spray? >>
How many people use insurance, fire extinguishers or pepper spray to 'go postal'? I asked,'Does having a gun make you FEEL safer even if you never have to use it? Or just more powerful and a boost to the ego?' So let me try this, If someone was going to give you a papercut with an ins. form, or foam you or make your eyes water, do you feel safe knowing that you can pull out your gun and shoot first ask questions later? Or are you just getting a high carrying knowing you will probably never have to use it to defend yourself/family? Does putting the question in the form of a dumba** scenario as opposed to the reality type of scenario make more sense to you?
And for someone who was/is in law enforcement you should have known about the short lived no right to self defense. It was in 2007-2008 when we were told about it and our friends had to go to anger management. Pretty recent actually!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Neodesha Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Obummer: Worst Human to Ever Exist 50 min Lemmings 14
ObamaNet 56 min Obama Lies 8
Fire at storage unit at 25th n Maple 1 hr Fed up 6
A lot of not so nice mothers in fredonia 1 hr mimi 4
marvins 2 hr wrong 25
kansas fascism marches on 5 hr You Betcha 2
Judge Saxon (Feb '14) 7 hr unemployed 7

Related Topics

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]