Originally posted by Cactus:
"Our Constitution was written to limit the infringement of the freedoms of the people by the government. The very nature of the Constitution does allow the government to limit and restrict the freedoms of the citizens in many areas. Few freedoms are absolute."
All this is correct. The question is WHEN should government limit and restrict the freedoms of citizens. Libertarians believe government should limit freedoms as I mentioned in my previous post: At the point where one person's freedoms infringe on another's. Thus, in the view of libertarians, the proper role of government is to safeguard the rights of citizens.
"I doubt that many of us would choose to live in a society with absolute freedoms. This would result in the law of the jungle, the strong ruling over the weak by intimidation and violence."
Again, this is the very reason that libertarians believe an individual's freedoms do not extend to the point of infringing on another's freedoms, and why libertarians do not believe in the initiation of force.
"What limitations have been put in place in law are meant to protect the citizens from the actions of others."
If this were true, libertarians would have no problem with our government as currently constituted. The sad fact is that a great many, perhaps the majority ,of our laws are not meant to protect citizens from the _actions_ of others. Case in point: Why is it illegal for me to have a shotgun with a 12-inch barrel? Is my onwership of such a gun a threat to anyone? Certainly not. Using that weapon against someone who hadn't attacked me, or threatening to use it, would be a different matter.
"Laws restricting property rights by the government have also been upheld as Constitutional when a pressing public need is shown."
And libertarians agree that these and other freedoms can and should be limited, but only when the infringe on the freedoms of others.
"The old saying of "you can't legislate morality" is plainly false. We legislate morality every time we pass a law."
You misunderstand the saying. "You can't legislate morality" means that you cannot pass laws that make people moral. You can pass laws that prescribe penalities for people who behave in immoral ways, such as by murdering or raping or stealing. Moral people will not violate those laws because they are moral people. When immoral people follow those laws, it is from fear of penalities they would incur if they were caught. But that doesn't make them moral people.
"As a conservative, I believe in the freedoms given by our Constitution. I also believe that these rights can not be removed pre-emptively such as many anti-gun laws seek to do. However, once a person has shown that they can not follow the laws of this nation, those rights no longer exist."
Rights still exist even though some people break the law. And that's where the role of government come in. The government should step in to protect citizens when their rights are violated.
"Many of the laws that people like to state are un-Constitutional are not. They are a-Constitutional, not being mentioned in the Constitution."
A point that is taken into consideration by the Tenth Amendment, which says 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' This means that if a right isn't mentioned in the Constitution, the federal goverment has no authority over it.
"An example of such a law would be a firearm waiting period. Since it is generally recognized that certain individuals, such as criminals, have no right to posess a firearm, a law attempting to identify such an individual would not be un-Constitutional since it does not infringe upon the right of a law abiding citizen to keep and bears arms. It is un-Constitutional, however, for the federal government to require states to institute these backround checks and waiting periods."
Martin Luther King understood this point better than you do. As he said, "A right delayed is a right denied."
