Gun control and bullying

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Bowerbird, May 29, 2015.

?

Is the scene described bullying or intimidation?

  1. yes it is intimidation and bullying

    3 vote(s)
    12.0%
  2. It is an attempt to thwart the first amendment by using the second

    2 vote(s)
    8.0%
  3. no both parties are simply exercising rights

    15 vote(s)
    60.0%
  4. No it is not intimidation at all

    6 vote(s)
    24.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Texan

    Texan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2014
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    4,131
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are confusing feeling with believing. You have a right to believe what you want, stupid or otherwise.

    We have a right to pursue happiness, but not to "feel" happy at the expense of others.

    I frequently work at night in bad city neighborhoods all over America. Should I demand personal police protection so I can exercise my right to feel safe? Maybe those who deny my 2A right should pay for me to feel safe.
     
  2. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "feel" is so much different than "know".....
     
  3. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,896
    Likes Received:
    7,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no constitutionally recognized or protected right to feel anything.

    There is no constitutionally recognized or protected right to not fear intimidation for what you believe.
     
  4. OrlandoChuck

    OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6,002
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Conspiracy theory?
    Where is the complaint against the police? Oh..... There wasn't one because you are putting your own spin on the story. It looks to me like the police are there to protect the unarmed women.
     
  5. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    23,332
    Likes Received:
    902
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    But isn't intimidation a feeling?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Did they go inside the entire time, or where they just there?
     
  6. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    23,332
    Likes Received:
    902
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    "Although it is not generally known -- even to specialists in personal injury litigation -- we all have a constitutional right to safety. This right is not buried in some obscure constitutional amendment; it is found in Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. This section of the State Constitution declares:

    All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."
    http://www.toxictorts.com/index.php...the-people-the-constitutional-right-of-safety

    But you do, you have to feel safe and have faith in a government otherwise it comes collapsing down, that's a feeling. Feelings are a lot more important then we give them credit for, they are what tells us to act. What I cited was California, but it does show something very important, that there has to be trust in the government otherwise it comes collapsing down. The feeling of safety is what gives trust to the government.

    I'm sorry could you rephrase this? Otherwise I'm going to say it sounds like you're saying this can happen: Person A tells Person B not to say what he thinks otherwise he will kill him and that's legal.
     
  7. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    12,495
    Likes Received:
    6,925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    in the law, we have objective standards of "harm" or damage. Merely wetting one's shorts over a situation that most reasonable people would shrug off is not sufficient to claim "intimidation"
     
  8. Leo2

    Leo2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,703
    Likes Received:
    169
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And yet, at least 33 states have adopted Stand Your Ground laws which allow lethal force merely upon the basis of an individually perceived threat. There are no objective standards by which such a perception may be judged - it is sufficient to simply 'feel' in danger as justification for killing another human being. I would not be too quick to quote the logic of US laws. :roll:
     
  9. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    12,495
    Likes Received:
    6,925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    that was true before the law was changed. I really don't care what foreign subjects think about our laws to be quite obvious

    I do look forward to seeing you in Rio this coming olympics since you are a shoe in to win the 1500 gold medal. I hope to be there with one or better-both-of the boys I coached for 6 years until they moved to the Olympic training center
     
  10. Texan

    Texan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2014
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    4,131
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lethal force is justified to prevent specific crimes. If I am where I am legally allowed to be, why should I be required to run from somebody?

    [video=youtube;KAp9sFVdERQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAp9sFVdERQ[/video]
     
  11. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,896
    Likes Received:
    7,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A right to safety is not the same thing as a right to feel safe. There is no constitutional right to feelings.

    Trust in government is at an all time low. It is regarded as nothing more than one more corrupt organization, filled with self-serving politicians more interested in retaining office, than tending to their duties to represent the interests of the people who elected them to office, on the basis of changing things for the better.

    You have a constitutional right to your own opinion. That right does not extend to shielding you from the criticism and opposition by those that disagree with your position, and believe you are wrong simply for holding your selected opinion.
     
  12. Defender of Freedom

    Defender of Freedom Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Simply having fun is all.

    And you Australians seem quite nice despite thinking you are morally superior to other nations, just like Europe.

    Having the police along was quite courteous of OCT, just so the police or the community would not freak out. The police officers were there to keep the situation under control to which I highly doubt it would have. Having police at protests is not the same as them suppressing the protest. If you were a store owner on a street where a protest was being demonstrated and they start looting stores, don't you want the police nearby to stop it? I have no problem with the police being present at a protest or demonstration, it is when they put down the demonstration in order to suppress freedom of speech that I have a problem with.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Could you name how many were unjustifiably killed as a direct result of the stand your ground law?
     
  13. Defender of Freedom

    Defender of Freedom Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The founders were fully aware who passed the laws that targeted the colonies, the rallying cry before the revolution was "No Taxation without Representation". The American colonies were not represented in Parliament. The King is still the figurehead in a constitutional monarchy, and was therefore charged with the crimes by the colonies because of this. The American Colonists committed high treason because they were not represented in that 'democracy'. You are right, having the facts in hand before criticizing another society is good to have. I suggest you take your words to action.
     
  14. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "feeling intimidated" and "knowing you're intimidated" are two different things....... They are very distinct and different things
    as for your other question. Why is it you don't read the articles?
     
  15. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the rest of the country is NOT Queerlyfornication. Why is it you keep pounding this around.
    You have the Right to provide you own safety, not make it everyone else's responsibility. The law is not here to protect you. It is here to condemn you.
    your emotions will always deceive you............"feeling" safe is different than "knowing" you are safe.
     
  16. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    95,466
    Likes Received:
    26,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    MDA were harassing legal gun owners with their first amendment right. It is all in how you phrase your agenda.
     
  17. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    even then, you had best make damn sure you are on sure footing.............

    - - - Updated - - -

    ask BB, the only time harassment is ok is when it comes from the anti-gunners side of the fence, not ours.
     
  18. OrlandoChuck

    OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6,002
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So if I we live in an open carry state, and I am open carrying in a parking lot, just because you get all butthurt over it, it is somehow my problem even though my actions are legal.
    It has been demonstrated that local law enforcement and the courts of that jurisdiction disagree with you.
     
  19. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,303
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you bring up an article a year and a half old?

    Also, you act as if Moms demand action were a grassroots organization--it was funded by a billionaire.
     
  20. Small Town Guy

    Small Town Guy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Messages:
    4,294
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Stand your ground laws have nothing at all to do with justifying ones need to act in self defense. Your logic is flawed. :roll:
     
  21. OrlandoChuck

    OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6,002
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You confuse SYG with self defense.
    SYG just means you don't have the duty to retreat in a self defense scenario.

    The standard for justifiable self defense is that you must believe your life is in imminent danger, and the assailant has to have the means to carry out the threat.
     
  22. Leo2

    Leo2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,703
    Likes Received:
    169
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Thank you for that information, but are not Stand Your Ground Laws an extension of the Castle doctrine?

    http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/are-stand-your-ground-laws-a-good-idea

    To we in non-American jurisdictions, it is the 'deadly force' component taken in conjunction with an usual lack of witnesses to the act which is troubling. Under the self-defence laws prevalent in our societies, lethal force may only be used against similar attack, and not in defence of property. 'Home invasion' is not a generally recognised term, as the issue in either one of burglary, or self-defence - each necessitating a totally different response at law. And in any case of self-defence, the response must be proportionate to the attack.

    But autres temps, autres mœurs, I guess. :smile:
     
  23. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    12,495
    Likes Received:
    6,925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    how is this troubling to foreigners? I find what your governments did to honest gun owners to be crimes against humanity and if I were Lord High Master of the Universe, I would strip every politician who supported said gun bans of office and permanently brand them as both pariahs and prevent them from being guarded by or protected by men with weapons that the citizens of those respective governments cannot own
     
  24. OrlandoChuck

    OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6,002
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The flaw in this logic is that people are not mind readers. When a criminal breaks into your home, you don't know their intention. If you hesitate so you can assess their intrention, you could be killed before you can blink an eye. Our system lets us presume that if a home invader enters, that they are there to harm you. Luckily this lets us defend our families from murder, rape, and robbery. We won't let the criminal dictate our response. We won't gamble on criminal intent.
     
  25. Leo2

    Leo2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,703
    Likes Received:
    169
    Trophy Points:
    63
    LOL, may I remind you that there is no such thing as a 'foreigner' in cyber space - you are as much a foreigner to me, as I am to you. :D

    But in answer to your question, it is an issue of reason and principle, not one of national identity.
     

Share This Page