DANCES UP TO and then issues a brilliant savatte kick under the chin to the notion that there can be reasonable restrictions on rights.
Rights are binary. They either are or they are not. If they are not, they have been infringe or abdriged — even if only traduced.
Rights are absolute until they meet a boundary. The only possible boundaries are two: 1) the physical (and legal) borders of the nation state which purports to defend them, 2) the equal rights of some other individual resident within the same.
You do not have the right or authority to waive my rights. Period. End of discussion.
Joe Huffman has his Just One Question. I have another:
If it is proper for a citizen to use force — even lethal force — to prevent or halt the commission of a felony (in the interest of preserving the life and property of the innocent), how much more-so to prevent an ongoing violation of a provision of the Constitution — given that the latter is the source of authority for the former?
When is it proper, for example, to use force to stop a legislator engaged in unconstitutional actions? Indeed, when is it required of those who have sworn oaths to… protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic…?