Ah, how sanctimonious. But wait a minute. Liberals are quite happy living in an America with all kinds of restrictions on our First Amendment right to Free Speech; for the greater benefit of society, of course. And Democrats were quite fine with their recent proposal that any government official who wanted to add a name to the Terrorist Watch List, which would thereby take away the Second Amendment rights of that individual, could do so without Due Process or recourse to the courts. And when Liberals wanted to eliminate a religious conscience exception to a government mandate regarding abortion, they said the Free Exercise of Religion is not absolute, either.

Here’s where it gets interesting, so think carefully. When Liberals want to infringe on one or another of our rights, they say rights are not absolute, but are subject to limitation and reasonable regulation for the greater good; like with gun control. But when it comes to, let’s say, membership in a criminal gang like MS-13, which is terrorizing and murdering Americans, well, that can’t be criminalized because the right of Free Association is absolute. So they say. And when it comes to stopping and frisking some neighborhood thug known to be in a gang and possessed of a long rap sheet, well, that can’t be sufficient reasonable cause, because the right against Unreasonable Search is absolute. So they say. And so you say, too. And dead Americans are irrelevant.

So which is it? Are the rights in the Bill of Rights absolute, including Free Speech, Free Exercise of Religion, the Right to Bear Arms? Or are they conditional and regulable for the immediate and greater good of society, including Free Association and Reasonable Cause for Search? Or, like proper Liberals, do you believe it is your prerogative to declare which rights you can abridge and which ones other people cannot abridge?