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

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)

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

Reply to AndyA (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:15 PM

Dec 2012

.. no survivor of drunk driving can expect to dictate others' behavior based on their 'pursuit of happiness' or what *might* happen.

Abridging someone's right to life is already criminal- laws against homicide.

No, I thought I addressed that with my first sentence in the previous reply. Just as slander isn't a protected exercise of speech, murder isn't a protected exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

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