Well, I agree that there is a balance of individual rights and collective safety, to a point.

It’s honestly not, and I learned something new today.  So it’s a good day.

Those that are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.  This is a reference to states encouraging their citizens with cash rewards for tattling on their neighbors for minor infractions that, really, don’t mean shit.

OK, this is the one I’ll pick. The only “amendments” have been to ADD rights, not to remove them. You’re right on a technicality there, but your arguments are all about LIMITING rights.

Are you saying this scenario has not happened?  Because it has.

It would be an attack if I called you an idiot. I argued a point instead. Saying your argument is shit is a very different thing than calling you shit, but you don’t seem to understand the difference.

Yes, I place them both in groups whose opinion I will generally ignore.

People that have practiced con law agree with my position, and the other.

I no longer support the ACLU as they are too selective on what rights they will support.  And, yes, I was a member for many years.

Might want to take a look at the comment history...

Can you not read? When did I state my believe in the earth being flat?

Having the police arrest you for walking alone on the street, a threat to approximately zero people, is over the top.

I literally said I believe in gender identity being a continuous construct. I have changed my mind on that over the years.

I agree with that.

I get it.  Still, it’s edge cases of edge cases.

I agree with that.  But let’s not kid ourselves on this.  Bill Nye is not a scientist.

It really does depend on the topic.

Before? yes. Now? No.  His saves the world special is pure cringe.

Yea, on the restriction of movement, those have all the legal teeth of suggestions. Just about anyone with common sense follows them. In this case, people driving to their own home doesn’t even come close to fitting your example.

That is not a rebuttal.  I’d call it a logical fallacy.