• Whoever whines the loudest and can afford the most expensive lawyer. or the Democratic party.
  • The right of the free should be prevailed. The right to be free is something that shouldn't be bothered, even when something else is also right. However, it is best that it should be taken up respectfully during this case. The decesion should go to a higher authority.
  • Whoever has the biggest gun. no but really, the right to be free should always prevail, but sadly it almost never does.
  • Very good question! I would say your right should prevail, but it depends! My right to shoot a gun or swing a knife should in no way be comparable to your right to live, hence if I shoot/stab you I am wrong! However, your right to cross a road should not effect my right to drive on that road! Unless you cross at a specific crossing at the right time (a green for you, red for me for example) you would have no right to make me stop driving to cross the road ofc there are exceptions to both examples but generally they are true, good question, very good question!
  • It says in the constitution you have the rights of freedom of speech/press/ etc. as long as it does not interfere with the rights of someone else.
  • There is no way to preserve everyone's rights. Freedom is relative and so are rights. There has to be moral decisions made to help moderate and balance everyone's so-called rights. How do you let everyone have their rights? If I want the right to use my money the way I see fit, then what right does the government have to take it in taxes? If I want the right to drive 100 MPH on the road and you want the right to drive 25, who's rights prevail? If you want the right to listen to loud music all night but I want the right to a good night's sleep, who wins? Someone wants to smoke in a hospital room shared by two others. The others don't want him to. Again, whose rights prevail. Society has taken it upon themselves to set up judges and rule makers because we can't decide case by case who should prevail. So I can't decide. I try to be as reasonable as possible but not everyone agrees with what is reasonable. And common sense doesnt' work because it's in short supply, too.
  • But if you insisted on a law banning them from smoking then you're violating their rights. You could try and work it out with them by talking to them, thats the way this country was designed, that not *everything* had to be law to make it work. Oops meant to reply this to a comment, clicked the wrong button :(. anyway I can delete it?
  • 1-24-2017 You are not talking about rights, you are talking about manners. Big difference! People give lip service to freedom until somebody does something actually free. Then they start saying "Uh oh, we gotta put a stop to that."
  • Where I live, Rosie, it would probably be your right to be free of the result of my action, although it depends what the Government think about it. We've lived in a dictatorship since I was old enough to vote, although I never voted for it. Good question, Rosie. Happy Wednesday!:)
  • Cities frequently have noise ordinances that attempt to clarify where that line is drawn---noise ordinances, for instance; construction near property lines---even who goes first at a four way stop. Other than that, we have to work out in a reasonable way. And if we cannot agree on what is reasonable, then the biggest gun may be the default solution. Unfortunately, then that becomes another situation where my right to do something infringes on your right to be free from the result of my action. In which case, perhaps a 3rd party with another gun could put one of us out of our misery.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy