If there are to be Freedoms, there Must also be Limits to Freedom

   If there are principles of freedom, there are also principles by which freedom should be taken away.
   With freedom comes the ability to abuse freedom. A person who is free to say whatever he will might choose to slander, to lie, and to con. A person who is free to use a weapon might use it to murder. A person with freedom of religion might use it to kill those of another religion, or to lead his followers into suicide.
  Freedom without restraint is anarchy. Freedom taken to extreme is the loss of freedom, for if a person is free to do anything they want, they are free to murder, pillage and plunder, which acts bring to an end the freedoms of others.
   So, If there are to be freedoms, there must also be limits to freedom. And, if there are to be limits to freedom, we should consider the rules to govern when freedom should be taken away. Our nation is considering on Nikolas Cruz, and how he said he was going to become a professional school shooter, and how, therefore, his guns should have been taken away. We would take away his freedom of speech -- his right to pronounce that he would someday be a school shooter? We would take away his Second Amendment right to bear arms? Those are two of our basic freedoms. We would take them away?
   Then, we should consider what principles should govern when freedoms are taken away.
   The old rule is that your freedom ends where my nose begins. It's a good rule. I would look at it just a little differently, but not much. I would say freedom should end whenever you commit an act showing you are not to be trusted with that freedom. Nikolas Cruz committed such an act, threatening to become a professional school shooter. His freedom to bear arms should have ended as soon as he was convicted of the threat.
   But, not simply with the charge. In America, we have due process. To take away his right to bear arms, you should first have a conviction.
   Now, taking away Nikolas Cruz's right to bear arms is prior restraint. He hasn't killed anyone, hasn't shot anyone -- hasn't even shot out any windows. We are taking away his guns before he commits the crime. That is prior restraint. But, we are doing it based on a definite action -- and one prefiguring and suggesting the definite possibility of gun violence.
   Now comes a more difficult question. Do we take away the rights of a whole class of individuals based on the conduct of some of its members? Do we take away the right to immigrate because some of the immigrants are committing crimes, or using our welfare system? Not all, but some. Do we take away the right of everyone to own an assault weapon because some are using the guns in mass killings? Not all, but some.
   It is one thing to say Nikolas Cruz, an individual, committed an unlawful act, and to convict him of it, and then to take his guns away. It is quite another to take all who would own guns, and say that since some people are using their assault weapons wrongfully, no one will be allowed to have them anymore. Especially consider that it is but a small segment of the assault gun-owning population that is abusing the right to own those weapons.
   This is quite a different prior restraint. Restraining a whole class of society who don't commit offenses differs greatly from restraining specific individuals who do commit offenses.
   That does not mean there is not some precedence for taking away guns. And, perhaps, I will discuss as much in a future blog.