Replies

You seem to totally forget the liberties of the people assaulted by these stereo systems - this is not a theoretical harm like a gun lock or an invented one as in the abortion clinics', but real actual harm. People have the right to sleep in their own homes without this audio assault. Those examples simply aren't appropriate. An appropriate example would be claiming the right to shine floodlights into peoples' houses. If you can do sound, why not light (or smell)? Should I have the freedom to make a stinky garbage pile next to my neighbor's house, drowning them in odors? Is that an essential liberty that the Founders fought for?

You are making an argument about the offense itself...the discussion is about the government reaction. Are you saying that if the government asserted the right to kill people who didn't mow their lawn that would be ok simply because high grass in the neighborhood is a nuisance?

Yes, subwoofers are a nuisance...but just because something is a nuisance does NOT give the government the power to do things that the constitution prohibits it. Private property rights are the foundation of the nation. The government can not throw off the chains that bind it in regard to private property rights just because it wants to do so or because some people would like it to do so.

As I said before. Many people think abortion protesting is a nuisance. Are you prepared for the government to assert the right to seize protestors cars because they stepped a foot to close to a clinic and those cars brought them to the site of the illegal nuisance activity? No. You would vigorously argue that the government had no right to seize their private property for such an offense. And you would be right. Unfortunately for you to be consistent, and not just an opportunist, you must defend the subwoofer fellows against illegal seizure as well...even though it would remove a nuisance to you.