Quote of the Day: Kansas University Campus Carry Conclave Identifies a New Right

“Isn’t safety my fundamental right? And that is what this whole thing is about, why these people want guns so they feel safe. But instead, they are infringing on my right to feel safe.” – Unidentified University of Kansas faculty member in University of Kansas holds its second forum about guns on campus [via kansascity.com]

comments

  1. avatar Rad Man says:

    Ah yes, the little known Amendment to the Constitution – the right to feel safe. I don’t remember that one from law school. Go Jayhawks…

    1. avatar Adub says:

      I think it was the 93rd Amendment. The one right after “I have the right to make you pay for my health care and abortions.”

      I’m waiting for the government to provide a “right” for liquor and hookers, and get it covered by Medicare and Medicaid.

      If you like your hooker, you can keep your hooker.

      1. avatar Justin says:

        I think you have to win a national level election before hookers are provided at tax payer expense. Otherwise you have to pay out of pocket. Although if you are a lobbyist then it can be written off as a business expense.

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “If you like your hooker, you can keep your hooker.”

        Every few years, it’s best to trade ’em in for one with a few less miles on her.

        (So I’ve… uhmm… heard.)

        *cough* 🙂

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      Not all rights are enumerated in the constitution. In fact the 9th amendment specifically addresses that the enumerated rights are not an exhaustive list.

      We all have a right to feel safe, just like we have a right to have sex, or seek medical care. What we don’t have is a right to impose on others when exercising our rights, so we don’t have a right to force others to pay for our care, to force others to engage in sex, or to force others to change their behaviors so we feel safe.

      1. avatar Doug says:

        Sorry, snowflake…you don’t have a right to any particular feeling, as feelings are subjective. Rights demand no input from another human. I don’t have firearms so I can feel anything (except recoil), I have them so I can defend myself.

  2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    We live in a world of manufactured rights.

    1. avatar MontieR says:

      We are being forced to live in a world of manufactured reality, by mentally incompetent dingbats.

  3. avatar CCity Guy says:

    Oh, the fail in that statement. Where do they come up with this stuff? The last I checked, it was life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

  4. avatar joe says:

    The “right to feel safe” room is down the hall on the right. Teddy bears and coloring books provided.

    1. avatar pyratemime says:

      I believe the room number is 101 and the director of safe activities, Mr. O’Brien, will be along shortly with some furry friends to help occupants forget their present woes.

  5. avatar joe says:

    Your right to FEEL safe does not trump my right to BE safe.

    1. avatar Cucamonga Jeff says:

      ^^^^ This

    2. avatar IdahoPete says:

      Nailed it, bro …

      And did I mention that it makes me feel much less safe to have these leftist dweebs teaching at a public university?

    3. avatar John in TX (Was CT) says:

      That’s what I was going to say, as well.

      That’s the real problem with the modern left. They’re obsessed with “thought crimes” and “crimes against thought”, and in the process find themselves using their psychic powers to infer everyone’s motivations, biases and mental slights against any given protected class.

      Same thing with “my right to feel safe”- unless something really bad is happening, you’ll never know that your classmate has a pistol, and if it is, you’ll be happy s/he has it. So, either get your own pistol or just assume that they don’t and live in blissful ignorance. Either way, it only affects you because you let it.

      1. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

        And an obsession with speech over action. Example:
        “Trump says we need to deport families of terrorists! He and his supporters are literally Hitler!”

        Well, President Obama has killed dozens of innocent Pakistani children and grandmothers in “targeted drone strikes against extremists.” President Trump said something, President Obama actually DID something much worse. Would you say then that President Obama and his supporters are literally Stalin?

        “Well, you have to admit it’s wrong to deport families of terrorists.”
        No, actually, I don’t admit that at all, unless they are citizens. Citizens cannot be deported, or as as it used to be called, exiled. Non-citizens have no right to be here. We can allow them in at our desire, but we don’t have to. And, as I pointed out, the President has not actually done anything of the sort. Would you admit it’s wrong to kill innocents in an undeclared war, one that was called an illegal war when it belonged to President George W Bush?

        “Look, we’re going to have to agree to disagree, because at this point I’m going to have to question either my political ideology or my personal ethics. They seem to be in conflict, and that’s frightening. So let’s compromise. Can we at least agree that Trump and his supporters are literally Hitler?”

        1. avatar David says:

          I think you should be President, since obviously you know you can do better. Elections over, bottom line is don’t hear anyone supporting anything about national security, but it’s all about themselves and how our government should give people what they want and careless about our country.
          I myself have been in a situation that if I didn’t have a gun, I would be dead and my wife and child. It’s easy to say I want to feel safe, or be safe. I wonder how many people actually think if guns were banned no one will have one. A gun is only deadly when the one holding it squeeze the trigger. Let’s ban vehicles also, they kill when a licensed driver chooses to drive wrecklessly. No difference, also ban knives, alcohol, drugs, they all kill.
          I feel safe when I go somewhere with my gun, there is no reason for anyone to fill unsafe around me. If you which believe guns should be banned, were in a situation like an arm robbery and the person is threatening to shoot you, I am there and shoot him, I guess you would just hate it.
          Criminals will still obtain guns even if banned, at least give law abiding citizens a freedom of choice.

    4. avatar bLoving says:

      “It will make people uncomfortable to attend class”
      “Having them in class will be disruptive”
      “We have a right to associate with the sorts of people we want”
      All this and many other arguments we hear about our civil rights were said first several decades ago when black people were not permitted to attend colleges like this one. Same arguments, same small minds…
      Remember folks, our opponents are called “bigots”, it’s the only counter-argument we need.

  6. avatar DaveL says:

    You have a right to feel safe. The government should not throw people in prison or otherwise punish them for feeling safe.

    But that wasn’t what you meant, was it? You think you have a right to restrict the liberty of others in whatever fashion satisfies your neuroses. We can’t all have such power, what with all our competing feelings, therefore it cannot be any species of universal right, QED.

    1. avatar Chief Master says:

      Concise and extremely well-put. I might steal this, if you don’t mind. 😉

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Nice, Dave!

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        By their logic, the city should be required to provide mass-transit buses that are white only so the snowflake riders don’t feel ‘unsafe’ if forced to sit next to someone with the ‘wrong’ skin color who makes them feel ‘unsafe’…

    3. avatar Dm says:

      I agree entirely, unfortunately all too many people who consider themselves conservatives are not dedicated to conserving the constitution. They jeer and laugh at the snowflakes who demand laws based on feelings while in the same breath losing their collective mind at the idea of someone partaking in a freedom that hurts their feelings. Why can’t we all just agree to mind our own business and do our own thing? So long as you aren’t hurting anyone else or depriving them of actual rights I dont give a damn what you do.

  7. avatar Swilson says:

    So he feels much safer with a gay little sign? I guess since concealed means concealed and you never really know who is packing, he must feel mighty squirmy all day long. But that realization would require actual, logical thinking. Actually, I’m tickled to hear him say that; feelings are so super important.

  8. avatar Vhyrus says:

    As asinine as this statement is, we have to dig just a bit deeper on this one. He (or she) readily offers that there is a ‘right to feel safe’ and that concealed carriers are carrying guns into order to exercise this ‘right’. Yet those people exercising their right make him feel unsafe. So, in short, he wants to restrict rights (both real and imagined) in order to placate his feelz.

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Or that he believes his rights are more important than other people’s.

      1. avatar Defens says:

        This ^^^ Precisely, his perceived or imagined “rights” Trump anyone else’s that differ from his.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Pizz on his “rights”, real or imagined. The really amazing thing here is that he seems to believe he has said something meaningful. Dude! If my arms offend you, come and take them!

  9. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Someone needs to tell this snowflake that their feelings of safety are always an illusion, and that the world is a cold, cruel place that does not care about their feelings.

  10. avatar BierceAmbrose says:

    “My right” – A claim to make someone else do want when you don’t have anything to offer them, or an argument.

    Worth a shot if that’s all you have. Sometimes it works.

  11. avatar No one of consequence says:

    Because it’s all about the feels, ’bout the feels, ’bout the feels,
    Don’t you worry ’bout the mugger…

    (With apologies to Meghan Trainor.)

  12. avatar Bosko says:

    How about one year Universal National Service for every American ?
    Self-reliant folks can learn military training, fruits can spend a year feeding elderly poor and wiping their butts.
    No college until that year has been served. Retroactive for ALL professors.

    1. avatar Salty Bear says:

      Involuntary servitude? To the state?! This is not how you freedom.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        So the Kansas snowflake expects to FEEL and someone to protect her. And so do you.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I need the servitude of others to make me feel safe. Now, it’s OK, right? Since I said the magic words? Heck, that’s a double whammy, my “needs” and my “feeling safe” at the same time. Gotta be a winner, for a whiner.

      3. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

        Service guarantees Citizenship

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      ONE year enlistments do NOT work. Contrary to developing a functional military force. Anything less than 3yr is useless to training competent UNITS. Not new concept to military forces around the world.

      DOD does not need hordes of underutilized guys painting rocks, peeling spuds, wasting time & screwing off. That is the real story of grandpas time in the Army of the 50s-70s.

  13. Nobody cares about your feelings Unidentified University of Kansas faculty member.

  14. avatar Isaac says:

    Sounds about right for a Jayhawk…

  15. avatar Alex Waits says:

    This is truly a LMAO moment.

  16. avatar Patrick says:

    Oh, for God’s sake! How many nutjobs walking right through those “gun free zone” signs is it going to take before the snowflakes of the world get it through their thick heads? THE UNIVERSE IS NOT SAFE! And a little paper sign isn’t going to change that, regardless of their feelings on the matter. Jeez…

  17. avatar ThomasR says:

    What’s the cost now a days for a university (indoctrination) education? Anywhere from 24 to 60 thousand a year? And this is the norm for the way the vast majority of the faculty “feelz”.

    The only way this travesty continues is because the parents keep sending their money (and kids) to these re-education camps of political correctness and group think.

  18. avatar Dev says:

    What this person is actually saying is that they don’t trust any of the people around him. Which is WHY we have the right to protect ourselves.

  19. avatar Desertdug08 says:

    I don’t carry to “feel” safer. I carry to be more prepared for “the worst day of my life” situation. Being age “mature”, I also avoid many high risk behaviors and places (getting old sucks). None of this of course, imposes my “feelings” on your life, thus, affecting your “feelings” to feel safe…wait, I’m getting confused.

  20. avatar Merlin says:

    University of Kansas, huh? The place which STILL employs a David Guth as an associate professor of journalism.

    David Guth was the person who issued a death threat to the children of NRA members back in 2013.

    What was that about safety again?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I’m still waiting for the chickenshit. So are my children!

  21. avatar adverse4 says:

    Everyone has the right to be firearm free, exercise that right, if you feel safer. I will defend your right, but I will not defend you. I did not buy a firearm to feel safe. It is strictly to defend against those that threaten my safety anywhere I have a legal right to be. Firearm owners are not a threat to safety, armed/unarmed people with criminal intent are a threat to us all. The criminal rights lobby would prefer an unarmed, defenseless population.

  22. avatar LCSW says:

    Negative rights trump positive rights. In fact, positive rights are phantoms. They don’t exist since they amount to slavery and theft.

  23. avatar Kapeltam says:

    I see your “right to feel safe” and raise you my right to take personal responsibility for my own safety.

  24. avatar Docduracoat says:

    While the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is mentioned in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, the 14th amendment to the constitution only recognizes the rights of life liberty and property
    Since the constitution, not the declaration, is the basis of all law in the land the right to happiness is out the window
    So go ahead and be miserable

    1. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

      There’s a world of difference between the right to the pursuit of happiness and a claim to the right to be happy.

  25. avatar Pg2 says:

    Sounds a lot like some of the comments made here defending the governments use of force in vaccines….

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      I hear that a lot, but never from anyone who also argues against mandatory hand washing and glove wearing for food service workers.

      When it comes to wiping that butt, then making your sandwich, all of a sudden even the most ardent “libertarians” become fervent health code advocates down at the deli.

      Curious, that.

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        You raise a good point, good personal hygiene has been proven to reduce the spreading of disease, and was very much a key in reducing the disease rates for the same diseases we vaccinated for, as was better nutrition, access to clean drinking water, better living conditions, and probably most importantly much better nutrition. Nearly all the diseases we began vaccinating for(and several others including scarlet fever and Typhoid which there were no vaccines used) in the last century were in steep decline in both incidence and mortality before vaccines were introduced.

        1. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

          Ask your grandma what polio is.

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          Great post. Wow. Look up Acute Flacid Myelitis and GBS the current rates for both…and then ask your grandpa about that.

  26. avatar DetroitMan says:

    Progressive logic: the right to feel safe trumps the right to actually be safe or to provide for one’s own safety.

  27. avatar DerryM says:

    At best any concept of a “right to feel safe” is an inference from other referenced or enumerated, Constitutionally-protected rights. Referenced rights are found in the Declaration of Independence, which has NO force of law, as opposed to those specified and protected by the Constitution. One can infer some referenced rights from those protected by the Constitution, but I cannot see a case for inferring a “right to feel safe”, except as the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear Arms. A better case can be made for a right to self-defense inferred from 2A, but that does not imply that one has a “right to ‘feel’ safe”. It only implies one has the right to attempt to defend oneself and there is NO guarantee of outcome.

    1. avatar Wiregrass says:

      I suppose you could infer a “right to feel safe” from “the pursuit of happiness” if that is what makes you happy. I do agree the closest tangible right to this expressed in the Constitution would be the 2nd Amendment, which is basically the “right to defend myself from those that intend me harm” which has components in all the inalienables: “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. But all sorts of “rights” could be inferred from “the pursuit of happiness” if you really want to run with that. Maybe getting drunk makes me happy, what about my “right to get drunk”? Repeal all these statist booze taxes that infringe on my right to get drunk.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        “Pursuit of happiness” is more a right of self-determination. It is referenced in the DoI as a natural right and subject to broad interpretation, as you sort of point-out using drunkenness as an example. One might argue the right of women to choose to abort unwanted babies (in my view, an adjudicated right) can be inferred from “the pursuit of happiness”, but that doesn’t work very well either. It might satisfy a woman’s self-determination, but violates the hell out of her aborted baby’s “right to life” and totally negates that baby’s right to “pursuit of happiness”.
        So, I would not run with “pursuit of happiness”, and purposely chose not to. The concept of a “right to ‘feel’ safe” is not really workable and particularly so if you have to impose a narrow, cowardly, definition on everyone else, as this “Unidentified University of Kansas faculty member” wants to do.

  28. avatar Libertarian says:

    The opt out white metal detectors must remove + open carry choose on campus and k12

  29. avatar Ing says:

    How does anyone else know what makes me feel safe and valued? They don’t. No one can.

    But if I can gather enough people who are willing to attack others to make me feel safe and valued, then the others will begin to tiptoe around me in fear that even the most innocuous action might possibly disturb my inscrutable internal sense of order.

    When an entire society cringes before you in fear, lest you be offended…that is when you become a god.

  30. avatar I1ULUZ says:

    The quoted part of that story was not even the best of it.
    “A student wanted to know why international students and faculty had not been better informed that they would not be permitted to carry a concealed weapon on campus. The student who asked the question said she was concerned that restriction would make those students “feel more vulnerable on campus.””

    Maybe a great way to make her FEEL better about everything is if SHE contacted each one and explained it to them. And do so in their native language. Sure she could do all of that in a day or so and receive extra credit.

  31. avatar Harley says:

    Why is it that all the anti’s want to attack ONLY the law abiding citizen and not the criminal. Criminals will never abide that sign anyway. Why not have a sign put up that no law enforcement officer may enter with their duty weapons as well. This sign thing has always confounded me as to their effectiveness against the criminal and endanger all others at the same time.

    My wife has NO problem letting staff members and management about such signs, legal or not, making all the patrons and her in peril from potential criminal actions. And she and I wont be back to further patronize their business.

  32. avatar styrgwillidar says:

    “Isn’t safety my fundamental right?” one faculty member asked

    – No. Your fundamental rights are in the constitution (assuming it isn’t subject to reinterpretation in the context of the times- if it is you have no rights)

    “why these people want guns so they feel safe. ”
    – Wrong. They want the gun so they are safer than not having one. It isn’t about feelings, it is about having the tools necessary to protect themselves. They want the guns to actually be safe in the event of an attack given they know a law/rule will not stop a criminal.

    “But instead, they are infringing on my right to feel safe.”
    -No, see above. Your feelings are a state of mind which may be independent of the actual reality. The fact that a rule imposing a restriction on the law abiding which will not prevent a criminal willing to violate it somehow makes you ‘feel safe’ is an oddity. The criminal is already free to bring a firearm, shouldn’t you already feel unsafe?

    Would have posted that on the article, but I don’t do FB.

  33. avatar Jason says:

    Does this mean that me, being a 37th degree black belt in arkansan jiu-jitsu, am not allowed to enter the building? After all, I consider myself a weapon. Hmm. Kansas, sunshine, sunflowers, and suns a …I forgot the rest.

  34. avatar explainist says:

    does that right to feel safe extend to the ladies room? or does the right of a born male who opts for gender 13.7(a)*) supersede those womens rights?

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      “does that right to feel safe extend to the ladies room?”

      It absolutely does, if you carry a weapon. The right of the alt-gendered individual to feel safe – not so much.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email