liberals hate first amendment

SmarterThanYou said:
nobody has the 'right' to BE safe, they have the 'right' to provide for their own safety, hence the right to bear arms. If people had a 'right' to BE safe, we wouldn't need the right to bear arms.

now, does the government have an obligation to provide for your safety?
Click to expand...

Everyday life isn't conducted on a battlefield. I have the right to drive, shop, or attend classes without the fear that somebody is going to shoot me. This country is hundreds of years past the era of frontier justice.

Public safety involves the prevention of and protection from events that could endanger the safety of the general public from significant danger, injury/harm, or damage, such as crimes or disasters (natural or man-made).


We do have a public safety system where I live.
 
christiefan915 said:
Public safety involves the prevention of and protection from events that could endanger the safety of the general public from significant danger, injury/harm, or damage, such as crimes or disasters (natural or man-made).


We do have a public safety system where I live.
Click to expand...

which doesn't provide you specific and direct safety or protection, am I right? just a general 'public' protection, right?

so who is responsible for your overall safety?

why are you having issues answering my direct questions?


I have the right to attend classes without the fear that somebody is going to shoot me.
Click to expand...

where is this right listed or stated?
 
Last edited:
SmarterThanYou said:
which doesn't provide you specific and direct safety or protection, am I right? just a general 'public' protection, right?

so who is responsible for your overall safety?

why are you having issues answering my direct questions?

where is this right listed or stated?
Click to expand...

Your direct question is overly-broad and leading.

Obviously, I have the responsibility to keep myself out of situations and places that are conducive to causing me harm. That's why I don't buy or sell drugs, hang out in "bad" neighborhoods or with "bad" people, lie, cheat or steal, etc. If my everyday expectation is that of being threatened or attacked, it's my responsibility to move from that environment to a safer one. That being said, I have the right to walk the streets without fear of being caught in crossfire because this is a country of laws, and every citizen is bound to follow the law. A person may have the right to carry a gun with concealed carry permit but it doesn't give him permission to endanger others by firing indiscriminately.

The Declaration of Independence gives me the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...".
 
christiefan915 said:
Your direct question is overly-broad and leading.
Click to expand...
all 3 of my questions have been very direct. do i need to restate them?

christiefan915 said:
Obviously, I have the responsibility to keep myself out of situations and places that are conducive to causing me harm. That's why I don't buy or sell drugs, hang out in "bad" neighborhoods or with "bad" people, lie, cheat or steal, etc. If my everyday expectation is that of being threatened or attacked, it's my responsibility to move from that environment to a safer one.
Click to expand...
and in all of your effort to stay out of unsafe situations, you still run in to the possibility that an unsafe situation will find you. you do realize this, right?

christiefan915 said:
That being said, I have the right to walk the streets without fear of being caught in crossfire because this is a country of laws, and every citizen is bound to follow the law.
Click to expand...
yet we have crime all over, so how's that working out?

christiefan915 said:
A person may have the right to carry a gun with concealed carry permit but it doesn't give him permission to endanger others by firing indiscriminately.
Click to expand...
don't think anyone is claiming a right to fire indiscriminately, was there?

christiefan915 said:
The Declaration of Independence gives me the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...".
Click to expand...
you are wrong. The declaration tells us that the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are rights given to us by our creator, not granted to us by the declaration. who is responsible for protecting that right to life?
 
christiefan915 said:
Students protesting the Vietnam war weren't advocating the the legal right to carry weapons; they wanted the government to lay down weapons and bring home the troops. There's a big difference between support for a position that could bring potential harm, and support for a position that wants to stop it.
Click to expand...

This boils down to you agreeing with one issue and disagreeing with another. The 1st amendment is about free speech. It does not specify that it be what you want to hear.

In my mind the student now is protesting the inability to stop harm. The school's refusal to allow people who already have a CCW from carrying on campus has the potential to cause her harm.
 
christiefan915 said:
Your article shows that alcohol is involved in 75% of these attacks. Colleges need to get a grip on alcohol use by minors, that is, attack the problem at its roots rather than after the assaults have been carried out. Concealed carry on campus is bad enough, even worse would be carrying a gun and shooting while drunk.
Click to expand...

So if the woman had a few drinks its ok to rape her????

Besides, the same statistic shows that 25% were stone-cold sober when they were raped. Had they been allowed to carry they could have reduced the on-campus rapes by 25%.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
all 3 of my questions have been very direct. do i need to restate them?

And I answered them.

and in all of your effort to stay out of unsafe situations, you still run in to the possibility that an unsafe situation will find you. you do realize this, right?

Yes, it's possible but it doesn't mean that the only way out of it is by firing a gun.

yet we have crime all over, so how's that working out?

Since we have crime all over anyway, despite the liberal gun laws in the country, how is expanding gun rights even further going to change this?


don't think anyone is claiming a right to fire indiscriminately, was there?

The thread developed from the Duquesne shooters who fired indiscriminately and injured five people, but leave off the "indiscriminately" and the point still stands.

you are wrong. The declaration tells us that the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are rights given to us by our creator, not granted to us by the declaration. who is responsible for protecting that right to life?
Click to expand...

The declaration tells us that these rights are to be secured by government.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

The declaration also reads "...organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
 
christiefan915 said:
The declaration tells us that these rights are to be secured by government.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

The declaration also reads "...organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Click to expand...

ok, so explain the following please:

Warren v. District of Columbia

Appellants ... sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The respective trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual appellant and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. ... After rearguments, notwithstanding our sympathy for appellants who were the tragic victims of despicable criminal acts, we affirm the judgments of dismissal.

and

Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales
where the supreme court re-affirmed that police and government are under no specific legal duty to provide protection

and

DeShaney v. Winnebago County

another re-affirmation.

so just WHO is responsible for your safety?
 
WinterBorn said:
So if the woman had a few drinks its ok to rape her????

Besides, the same statistic shows that 25% were stone-cold sober when they were raped. Had they been allowed to carry they could have reduced the on-campus rapes by 25%.
Click to expand...

The statistics don't say that it's only the women who were drunk.

Being allowed to carry a gun doesn't imply that every woman would carry a gun. I don't think most students on campus consider their school to be unsafe; in fact, it's well-known that many teens think they're invincible and that bad things won't happen to them.
 
christiefan915 said:
The statistics don't say that it's only the women who were drunk.

Being allowed to carry a gun doesn't imply that every woman would carry a gun. I don't think most students on campus consider their school to be unsafe; in fact, it's well-known that many teens think they're invincible and that bad things won't happen to them.
Click to expand...

I'll bet that 30 students at VT felt that way, right up until Cho closed the door behind him. I wonder how many felt, at that moment, that they wished they also had a gun?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
ok, so explain the following please:

Warren v. District of Columbia

Appellants ... sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The respective trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual appellant and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. ... After rearguments, notwithstanding our sympathy for appellants who were the tragic victims of despicable criminal acts, we affirm the judgments of dismissal.

and

Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales
where the supreme court re-affirmed that police and government are under no specific legal duty to provide protection

and

DeShaney v. Winnebago County

another re-affirmation.

so just WHO is responsible for your safety?
Click to expand...

Gotta go now, I'll get back to you after I've read the cases. :)
 
I am appalled that christiefan does not recognize this as a free speech issue. If you let students have meetings and speak out against war, but do not let them have meetings and do not let them speak out against having their 2d amendment rights restricted, you have made a decision to disallow one type of speech based on the content of that speech. At restriction that the First amendment does not allow. There are three acceptable restrictions on speech, time, place and manner. Content bases restrictions are unconstitutional and this young woman's rights have been violated.
 
Smarter than WHO? 4 year olds?

ASSumption... because it's academia, you ASSume that it's liberals...

PA is not a liberal state...

Colleges are not democracies ...gun clingers should take the personal initiative to research what states and campuses allow students to carry weapons BEFORE they enroll...

Scientific studies show the human brain does not fully develop all "adult" decision making abilities until the age of that mid 20's...

Trained police officers only hit their targets 20 percent of the time in emergency situations. Not only is it unlikely that a student or teacher would be able to save the day, police responding to the scene could not tell the good guys from the bad guys.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics/2008-03/msg00345.html

This is not a liberal vs 1st amendment issue...it is responsible adult thinking vs. right wing pea brain thinking
 
leave it to the NazI to promote nazi pamplets pushed at school.
Not enough murders in school I guess.
STY, the mind is a terrible thing to wasted. Your mind is just a terrible thing.
 
Bfgrn said:
Smarter than WHO? 4 year olds?

ASSumption... because it's academia, you ASSume that it's liberals...

PA is not a liberal state...
Click to expand...
western pennsylvania is not liberal. everything east is.

Bfgrn said:
Colleges are not democracies ...gun clingers should take the personal initiative to research what states and campuses allow students to carry weapons BEFORE they enroll...
Click to expand...
so nobody on campus should ever put together a group to try to change any college policy?


Bfgrn said:
Trained police officers only hit their targets 20 percent of the time in emergency situations. Not only is it unlikely that a student or teacher would be able to save the day, police responding to the scene could not tell the good guys from the bad guys.
Click to expand...
by the time police got there, the bad guy would already be dead or wounded. it would be easy. you're also going off of the stupid assumption that police are highly trained ninjas with a gun. They are not. Most officers qualify once a year, sometimes twice. that is it.


Bfgrn said:
This is not a liberal vs 1st amendment issue...it is responsible adult thinking vs. right wing pea brain thinking
Click to expand...

was she allowed to talk about her desire to have the college change policy? no, therefore her first amendment rights were violated.
 
Bfgrn said:
Smarter than WHO? 4 year olds?

ASSumption... because it's academia, you ASSume that it's liberals...

PA is not a liberal state...

Colleges are not democracies ...gun clingers should take the personal initiative to research what states and campuses allow students to carry weapons BEFORE they enroll...

Scientific studies show the human brain does not fully develop all "adult" decision making abilities until the age of that mid 20's...


This is not a liberal vs 1st amendment issue...it is responsible adult thinking vs. right wing pea brain thinking
Click to expand...

And yet university staff between the ages of 25 and 65, who have had the criminal background check and the training and received their CCW are also not allowed to carry a firearm on campus.

This is not just about the students. This is not just about ages.

This is indeed about free speech.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
western pennsylvania is not liberal. everything east is.

so nobody on campus should ever put together a group to try to change any college policy?


by the time police got there, the bad guy would already be dead or wounded. it would be easy. you're also going off of the stupid assumption that police are highly trained ninjas with a gun. They are not. Most officers qualify once a year, sometimes twice. that is it.




was she allowed to talk about her desire to have the college change policy? no, therefore her first amendment rights were violated.
Click to expand...

A student who wants to form a gun-rights group at the Community College of Allegheny County
pa.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top