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)

19. The two aren't in conflict.

Reply to AndyA (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:14 PM

Dec 2012

Does the right to travel trump the right to life? Of course not.

I think either you're intentionally misunderstanding how rights work, or you're trying to score points, hoping that nobody will notice the lack of logic in your statement.

The right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Broaching someone else's rights is not a right.

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