When rights conflict

[AndyA]

There is a right to bear arms in this country, as well as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All too often, those rights seem to conflict with one another. The people who have been killed by someone with a right to bear arms certainly did not have their right to life protected.

Victims of gun violence are not having their pursuit of happiness right protected when they are expected to tolerate a stranger walking into the restaurant and sitting down near them with a gun strapped to their belt, which can be a painful and terrifying reminder of an event from the past.

Are all rights equal? If they are, how do the obvious conflicts between the right to bear arms and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness work themselves out? There is nothing more precious or valuable than life. Without life, there is no need for rights. It would seem that the right to life should be supreme, above all other rights.

From my point of view, the right to bear arms infringes upon the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and as such they cannot co-exist.

I'm sure some won't agree with me. How am I wrong?

[Hoyt]

1. Err on the side of society in this case.

[Lindsay]

2. This one has been nagging at me

as well.

I wish I could figure out rational answers to the questions posed. And I wish there were room in this society for rational answers.

But thank you for formulating the questions clearly.

[marezdotes]

3. I absolutely agree with you.

As a matter of fact I said the exact same thing to my husband last night. What about the right's of those children to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". How is it that the right to own a gun trumps life? I'm so sad

[riderinthestorm]

4. The crux of the matter and a powerful discussion that needs to happen.

Perhaps if the discussion were framed from THIS starting point?

Well done...

[AndyA]

5. I had hoped that some gun rights supporters would respond

But they haven't so far. Perhaps this isn't an easy answer for anyone, but those who have a strong belief in their second amendment rights surely have to understand that there's a conflict with those rights and the rights of others.

[riderinthestorm]

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

A pm kick before I leave for the day. This is a great OP and deserves some convo.

[rbrnmw]

7. I asked the same question

I don't think the 2nd amendment should trump life, liberty, and the pursuit of fuck the nra they need to be shamed.

[X_Digger]

8. I don't see a conflict.

Someone being murdered is not a valid exercise of the right protected by the second amendment, just like someone being slandered is not a valid exercise of free expression protected by the first amendment.

Not liking that someone is carrying a firearm may not make you happy, but your *pursuit* of happiness has not been infringed. Remember, it's not the right to be happy, it's the pursuit. People may find all kinds of things painful or terrifying, for valid or justifiable reasons. That does not give them the right to dictate others' actions.

[AndyA]

9. The right to dictate others' actions

Yet society is expected in many states to tolerate strangers walking around carrying guns. Society is expected to blindly trust that that person is responsible and won't cause any harm. Gun rights supporters are dictating to society that we must tolerate this, as there is no other choice other than never leaving your house.

Survivors and witnesses to mass shootings like this are going to feel terror every time they see someone with a gun, which is certainly a reasonable reaction given the circumstances. Why should these innocent victims constantly have to endure this? It's impossible to pursue happiness when you are subjected to fear constantly, and fear is a normal and natural reaction in this instance.

Someone being murdered is the end result all too frequently of those protected second amendment rights. The victim's right to life is not being protected. That's a conflict.

[X_Digger]

10. Restating your OP doesn't actually address what I said.

Should the survivor of a drunk driving tragedy be able to dictate the actions of the restaurant that serves alcohol across the street from where he lives? They may understandably feel terror every time they see someone leaving the restaurant and getting into their car.

No, there's no conflict with the restaurant patrons' right to travel and the survivor's right to pursue happiness.

Again, there is no right to be happy, just to the pursuit.

[AndyA]

12. Your drunk driving example doesn't make sense

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.

[X_Digger]

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

.. 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.

[AndyA]

14. I still see it as a conflict of rights

Victims of gun violence do not have their rights protected; those who have guns do.

The more guns there are in the hands of more people, the better the chances for gun violence. Just as with drunk driving, or anything else that is a menace or hazard to public health or safety, steps must be taken to prevent future killings.

Doing nothing is not the solution, nor is keeping things the same.

Guns serve no purpose other than to kill. One cannot pursue happiness if constantly placed in a situation they view as threatening, and strangers walking around with guns is a threat to many.

The folks with the guns are infringing on others rights, and when anything is mentioned about laws regarding gun ownership, that's the first thing gun owners scream: their rights are being infringed. The two do not play well together, they conflict.

[X_Digger]

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

[AndyA]

18. Not good enough.

Additional steps must be taken, because the way things are now too many people are losing their lives to gun violence.

The right to life trumps the right to own guns.

[X_Digger]

19. The two aren't in conflict.

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.

[AndyA]

21. I think you've bought into the crazy gun culture in this country

and don't want to accept that the right to keep and bear arms is harmful to society.

Ask the parents of any of the kids killed in Connecticut on Friday if they think their kids rights were protected as well as those of the gun owner whose guns killed all those people. You want to talk about interfering with someone else's rights? Seems to me those folks in Connecticut had their rights broached on Friday.

Score points? On a forum? Not worth the time. I'm just trying to have a civil discussion on this subject because I feel like the second amendment right is considered the supreme right among many gun owners, and I think they've forgotten that they aren't the victims here, the dead people are. And so are the ones they leave behind, who have to piece together their lives, lives which have changed dramatically and will never be the same. All so that gun owners can keep their guns.

As far as logic goes, there's not much logic in allowing things to continue as they have been. That's insanity, we already know what the end result will be.

I appreciate your posts.

[X_Digger]

22. All rights represent some danger to society. Rights are dangerous things!

The right to privacy prevents police from searching the house of a suspected pedophile without probable cause for a warrant- an action that puts neighborhood children in danger.

The right to not incriminate oneself prevents police from coercing a confession from a rapist, freeing him to rape again.

The right to travel could be used by a murderer to flee pursuit into another jurisdiction.


I am for protecting *all* rights. I'm an advocate for the first, the second, the fourth, the fifth... I'm frequently disappointed in the general lack of support at DU for the first and fourth amendment- search my username and 'schoolcraft tapes', or that nutjob Phred Phelps (much as it pains me, btw.)

[forestpath]

11. K&R.

[99Forever]

15. You are not wrong.

This is the essence of the battle. Which is more important? Lives or guns? All of the rest is just bullshit to muddy the waters.

[frustrated_lefty]

16. The right to bear arms is an antiquated notion.

While a musket may have provided a means of preserving liberty in the face of tyranny a century ago, today's tyrants have far superior tools today to control the citizenry and ensure our obedience. The threat of unemployment, the denial of healthcare, impediments to retirement all do more to control us than any tyrant could have envisioned in years gone by, and be damned if a pistol does anything in the face of those threats.

The right to bear arms is an American opiate which gives the illusion of self-determination. The simple fact is the weapons gun advocates demand are primarily used by the peons to kill the peons. Guns and drugs are the bread and circuses of modern America.

[rrneck]

20. What would make each and every person in that resturant happy?

We all have bad memories, emotional triggers, and heebie geebies. I hate it when the staff in a restaurant sings happy birthday. To anybody. But I don't demand it not happen.

We cannot be held responsible for the feelings of others without some qualification for those feelings.

[AndyA]

23. Many people consider people brandishing guns to be a threat

I think that's a pretty good qualification. And as we all know too well, that fear is often justified.

There's a big difference between having to deal with a stranger with a gun sitting next to you and a 30 second song.

[rrneck]

24. A holstered gun is not brandishing.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brandish

1
: to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly
2
: to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner

Now, you may think the sight of a gun on someone's belt is exhibited in an "ostentatious or aggressive manner", but your sensibilities are not the sole arbiter of that evaluation. If you don't like guns, that's fine. But they exist, and people carry them around. I don't like people singing happy birthday in restaurants, and I know that my dislike of that activity is unreasonable. That's why I keep my mouth shut about it when it happens.

[AndyA]

25. It's not unreasonable to fear a stranger with a gun

Especially given the events of the last few months, including last Friday.

In your opinion, merely wearing a gun may not be considered aggressive, but many do not agree with you.

Things will change. Events like the one in Connecticut will force that change. Meanwhile, people die, but perhaps that isn't as important as having a gun to some.

[rrneck]

27. Attitudes may indeed change.

Newtown was terrible. While I don't express personal emotions much here I am probably as shaken as anyone. Time will tell. My fearless if not foolish prediction is that they not change one whit. But I could be wrong.

[AndyA]

28. Thank you for having this conversation in a respectful manner

I realize this is a sensitive topic for everyone, regardless of which side they're on.

[rrneck]

29. You're very welcome. And thank you. nt

[DrDan]

26. you are not wrong - these rights are inalienable

[Berserker]

30. How did

you get the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Guns and the right to bare arms?

[AndyA]

31. I don't understand your questions. n/t