There's a right to the security of your person and effects, which requires the right to body autonomy. How can you be secure in your body without being able to control it as you see fit?
Control of your own body is the very first, most fundamental form of freedom. If you don't have it, the rest is window dressing and checkers on a taxi.
The 2a reactionaries drop the 'well-regulated' part when they read it.
> There's a right to the security of your person and effects, which requires the right to body autonomy. How can you be secure in your body without being able to control it as you see fit?
The 4th amendment doesn’t provide some abstract “right to the security of your person.” It provides a very specific right: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
It’s a right to be free of unreasonable and warrantless searches. Nobody seriously believes that this preclude the government from regulating medical procedures such as abortion. You would be outraged if someone tried to read a contract in a similarly hand-wavey fashion in a way that was contrary to your interest.
You’re resorting to divine law again. Who says the right to bodily autonomy is the most “fundamental freedom?” And even if it is, where does the Constitution say it protects anything someone calls a “fundamental freedom?” And even if there is a right to bodily autonomy, how do you figure it bars the government from making it illegal to kill a human life you created?
“Well regulated” means you can require gun licenses and things like that. How do you figure it can be used to ban guns altogether?
> Who says the right to bodily autonomy is the most “fundamental freedom?”
Let's extend that line of argument: Who says the term "fundamental freedom" doesn't include the right not to be enslaved based on your skin color? No, it wasn't the Thirteenth Amendment, which merely codified that right: It was four years of one of the most-destructive wars the world had then ever seen, leaving hundreds of thousands of Americans dead or maimed, and the South impoverished for the better part of a century.
Conversely, the South (purportedly) seceded from the Union because a few thousand of its oligarchs and their acolytes felt that they had a "fundamental right," a divine right even, to continue to enslave millions of kidnapped Africans and their descendants. That didn't work out so well for them (nor, sadly, for the liberated blacks).
Ultimately, when claims of "fundamental rights" mean enough to enough people, those claims will be vindicated — or not — by force of arms.
> Who says the term "fundamental freedom" doesn't include the right not to be enslaved based on your skin color?
EDIT (it's too late to revise the post above): Obviously, it should be, "Who says the term 'fundamental freedom' includes [not, 'doesn't include'] the right not to be enslaved based on your skin color?"
California could invade Texas for violating the “right to abortion.” Texas could invade California for violating the “right to life.” The US could invade Afghanistan for violating “women’s right to an education.” That doesn’t mean “human rights” exist. It just means that one society can impose its moral preferences on another through military force. “Human rights” just rhymes with “exercise of power.”
> How can you be secure in your body without being able to control it as you see fit?
But apparently they still made extra laws for homicides and manslaughter (in the states), and taking drugs is also regulated with explicit laws, even though what you put in your body is a big part of controlling your body, ain't it?
Control of your own body is the very first, most fundamental form of freedom. If you don't have it, the rest is window dressing and checkers on a taxi.
The 2a reactionaries drop the 'well-regulated' part when they read it.