|
It comes down to this: "absolute" is ABSOLUTE, whereas "reasonable" is open to debate.
If you're going to have absolute rights (which the Constitution explicitly doesn't grant--you're confusing it with the Declaration of Independence, which was a political declaration, not a law-making document) then my right to swing my fist DOESN'T end at your nose. I have an absolute right to swing my fist all the way through your head.
Since that's obviously a) not the law of the land, and b) ridiculous, you have to concede that there's no such thing as absolute (as in ABSOLUTE) rights.
Now: should the definition of "reasonable" fall more on the side of the person exercising rights? Or more on the side of society being protected from the repercussions of such exercise? THAT'S something we could debate. But the OP as framed is nonsense.
|