More to the point, not everyone who is working illegally is in the country illegally.

We all disagree with various rulings of the Supreme Court. I would guess (though I cannot be certain) that you may be a proponent of certain decisions that place limitations on various listed Constitutional protections as well as non-specific. I really do not propose to know for sure. Even the staunchest civil libertarians might support smoking bans on private property or campaign finance laws.

All I know is that the second amendment says I can have firearms, but there are laws restricting that freedom. I know the first amendment says I can say what I want, but there are laws on the books that prohibit ads critical of elected officials 60 days prior to an election.

Umm...Strangler....it was meant to be humorous not literal. That's why I said I found it to be humorous.

And I respectfully disagree that it is the white and black working class complaining about the Latinos. A large portion of hispanics that are here legally have problems with hispanic illegals. And while hispanics no doubt represent the vast majority, the objection is to illegal immigration from anywhere regardless of race.

The biggest opponent of illegal immigration was a hispanic labor organizer that is honored here in AZ named Cesar Chavez. He understood that every illegal immigrant working here drove down the wages for those that were here legally, and he encouraged those he organized to turn in the illegals and have them deported.

If you support the idea of non-specific constitutional protections, you're more liberal than I thought.

Is there a level of destructive power, the possession of which you would think could be prohibited?

The First Amendment has been interpreted to permit reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. Everyone can't parade down the street at the same time or block the steps to City Hall. The law you describe sounds like it goes beyond that and restricts content.

This is bordering on an argument in semantics. Take driving for an example:

To one, driving is a privilege bestowed because you've proven yourself to be a good driver. To another, driving is a right because you've proven yourself to be a good driver.

Humm...

It's funny, I should have a stronger opinion on the topic of immigration, but I just don't.

I hate when the words "right" and "privilege" are bandied about as axioms. The idea that every person has an equal right to anything at all is a very young creation of modern times. We only have rights because we decided we did. Same goes for "privilege", as well.

Um, no CP ... with all due respect, you've got that completely backwards. Humans are endowed with inalienable rights by nature ... and we have only been denied them on a vast scale until modern times in modern places.

The problem with this, whether I think there is a level or not, is that there are thousands (millions?) of differing opinions as to what could (or should) be prohibited. This doesn't just go for firearms, but for any right, enumerated or not.

Even as a non smoker it fries me that private property owners can't allow smoking on their property. A majority clearly believes this ban is OK.

So we come down to a line where society determines, whether through the courts, passage of laws, or a popular vote, as to where the right to whatever should begin and end.

In regards to firearms, I see no reason as to why someone should need a fully automatic firearm. Someone else may have what they believe to be a valid reason. Therefore, why not just allow the possession and prosecute any crime that comes as a result of that possession? Same with drugs. Why is it that someone can't shoot heroin if they so choose? As long as they pay for their own healthcare and don't commit crimes to gain that heroin, then what harm has come?

Same with smoking, fatty food, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, prostitution, selling my left kidney or cornea, and whatever other kind of law there may be. If I'm willing to take the responsibility for my actions, I should pretty much be able to do what I want. The problem? No one wants to take responsibility for their actions. It isn't the fault of the smoker for getting lung cancer, it's those tricky tobacco companies.

However....society has deemed that certain things are harmful to society and are therefore disallowed. I have my issues that bug me, you have yours, as does everyone. Debates such as this will rage for eternity because there will never be agreement as to what should be allowed or restricted in the name of freedom.

The example of alcohol and cigarettes (our two widely available legal drugs) would seem to argue against this.

While there is a certain black market for these products it is minimal and rather than attempting to undercut the manufacturer it is almost entirely focused on avoiding the taxes.

Make sense?