Does this mean your rights are not absolute? Only if you believe having a right to do something means you are free to violate MY rights without consequence.
Ultimately that is what laws do - provide consequences for violating the rights of others.
In the examples you proposed, you are saying that because one can be punished for harming another that it justifies restricting a person's rights even though he has committed no harm. That thought process is logically flawed.
Laws which punish perjury do not restrict speech, they punish a harmful act. Laws which punish child pornographers do not restrict the press, they punish someone for harming the child.
Laws which state you must be searched as a condition of entering a building are fine as long as entering that building is voluntary. When one is compelled to be there, such as a student at school, then one really doesnt have the right to avoid that search does he?
Your perspective leads to a world which makes legitimate the idea that one should not object to a search unless one has something to hide. Sorry, but i would object to the search on the grounds that you have no legitimate reason to violate my person as I have done nothing wrong. My mere presences is not your justification.
Equating this to my personal favorite - the 2nd Amendment - it is no different than preventing someone from owning a firearm unless they prove they are not a danger. This reverses the entire power flow by making the state the originator of all authority, rather than the people.
Where is the state granted the authority to subject someone to an unreasonable search just because he has decided to avoid prosecution for truancy and attend school?
That's my point. Absolute means without restriction of anykind. Saying a right is absolute except when this or that occurrs is like saying that car is completely blue, except for the red doors, yellow racing stripe, and oranage roof. Since your rights to do not extend to the point where you can legally infringe on my rights, your rights are not absolute.
Laws which punish perjury do not restrict speech, they punish a harmful act. Laws which punish child pornographers do not restrict the press, they punish someone for harming the child.
Laws that punish you for doing something, ie, prevent you from freely doing something, are an infringement. (Go ahead and look the word up: infringement) They are also justified.
Laws which state you must be searched as a condition of entering a building are fine as long as entering that building is voluntary. When one is compelled to be there, such as a student at school, then one really doesnt have the right to avoid that search does he?
Read my posts again. I never claimed to support any such laws. You are now attempting to put words in my mouth.
My posts dealt with Beelzebubba inference that child have a right to keep and bear arms. Their right to keep and bear arms is legally infringed upon by our government because no right is absolute.
Where is the state granted the authority to subject someone to an unreasonable search just because he has decided to avoid prosecution for truancy and attend school?
Why don't you show me where I made any such claim that the state had such an authority?