Posted on 11/29/2016 11:06:20 AM PST by SeekAndFind
“No, you brought up a non sequitur to move away from the 1A”
Applying your logic consistently (to show its absurdity) is not a non sequitur. It doesn’t seem like you even know what a non sequitur is from the way you are trying to use the term here.
“Wait, no mention in the constitution, as you say, yet they are illegal?”
Certainly. Now you are going to argue that everything that is illegal must be mentioned in the Constitution? That’s a whole new level of absurdity from you.
“Isn’t it unconstitutional to make laws against things not specifically mentioned, as you argue?”
No, it was YOUR argument that only rights that are specifically mentioned in the Constitution are protected (which of course would make the 10th amendment meaningless if it were true). I simply applied YOUR logic to other rights in order to show the absurdity of your thinking. Either way, rights and criminal laws are different subjects, if you want to conflate them, it is just going to make it that much easier to destroy your argument.
“You say regarding the 4A: “Sure, from the government”. So the right to be secure only applies to gov’t??”
The entire Bill of Rights only applies to the government. It is a list of things that the government is constrained from doing, not a list of things that private citizens are constrained from doing. Things that private citizens are constrained from doing would be “criminal laws”, which are not contained in the Constitution at all.
Pissant, you are old enough to have had to take a civics class before you graduated school. How is it that you are so confused about this stuff?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.