Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

AndyA

(16,993 posts)

12. Your drunk driving example doesn't make sense

Reply to X_Digger (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:10 PM

Dec 2012

A restaurant does not have the right to get people drunk so they can get in a car and kill someone. A restaurant can be held liable if that happens, based on a "know or should have known" duty.

A drunk restaurant patron does not have the right to travel if they are driving a vehicle. They are a danger to public safety. If a restaurant continues to allow drunks to drive away, it becomes a menace and at that point can lose its license to sell alcohol completely.

You didn't address the right to life. All too often, a person's right to have a gun conflicts with someone else's right to live their life. It seems the right to life should be a supreme right above all others, because without it, there is no need for any other rights.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

When rights conflict [View all] AndyA Dec 2012 OP

Err on the side of society in this case. Hoyt Dec 2012 #1

This one has been nagging at me Lindsay Dec 2012 #2

I absolutely agree with you. marezdotes Dec 2012 #3

The crux of the matter and a powerful discussion that needs to happen. riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #4

I had hoped that some gun rights supporters would respond AndyA Dec 2012 #5

Me too. Honestly, I'm going to guess its because this argument really IS the toughie. riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #6

I asked the same question rbrnmw Dec 2012 #7

I don't see a conflict. X_Digger Dec 2012 #8

The right to dictate others' actions AndyA Dec 2012 #9

Restating your OP doesn't actually address what I said. X_Digger Dec 2012 #10

Your drunk driving example doesn't make sense AndyA Dec 2012 #12

It actually was apt- as long as the restaurant (and drivers) are following the law(s).. X_Digger Dec 2012 #13

I still see it as a conflict of rights AndyA Dec 2012 #14

If victims of gun violence didn't have their right to life protected, murder would be legal. n/t X_Digger Dec 2012 #17

Not good enough. AndyA Dec 2012 #18

The two aren't in conflict. X_Digger Dec 2012 #19

I think you've bought into the crazy gun culture in this country AndyA Dec 2012 #21

All rights represent some danger to society. Rights are dangerous things! X_Digger Dec 2012 #22

K&R. forestpath Dec 2012 #11

You are not wrong. 99Forever Dec 2012 #15

The right to bear arms is an antiquated notion. frustrated_lefty Dec 2012 #16

What would make each and every person in that resturant happy? rrneck Dec 2012 #20

Many people consider people brandishing guns to be a threat AndyA Dec 2012 #23

A holstered gun is not brandishing. rrneck Dec 2012 #24

It's not unreasonable to fear a stranger with a gun AndyA Dec 2012 #25

Attitudes may indeed change. rrneck Dec 2012 #27

Thank you for having this conversation in a respectful manner AndyA Dec 2012 #28

You're very welcome. And thank you. nt rrneck Dec 2012 #29

you are not wrong - these rights are inalienable DrDan Dec 2012 #26

How did Berserker Dec 2012 #30

I don't understand your questions. n/t AndyA Dec 2012 #31