That is a statement without meaning. There either is or is not a constitutional right to privacy. There is no such thing as a blanket right. There is no right that is not limited by the rights of others. You can speak but you cannot slander, you can bear arms but you cannot kill without just cause, you have the right of assembly but not in my living room. Trying to marginalize the right because there are instances where it must be infringed in order to serve the rights of others is dishonest.
The right exists. Simple as that.
No, not at all. Those are not instances that have anything to do with privacy. You are mischaracterizing what privacy is. You have the right to privacy but you are essentially waving much of that when you go into public and do the things that you are referring to.
I can parallel this with speech. You clearly have the right to speak, assemble and protest but that does not mean you can do that inside a courthouse, airport or a myriad of other places either. Just because you have a right does not mean that you can exercise it wherever you choose and others that are being trampled on be damned. That was never implied.
Well, no, not IMHO. You are a little off there. Clear threats to safety are a valid concern but more so, I think, has to do with where you are and what you are doing. When you go to a public place and utilize a public service (or a private service provided to the public) others have a reasonable expectation of safety and have a reasonable expectation that certain steps are followed. You willingly wave one or more rights when entering airports and the like. You have no right to a flight. You have no right to enter a building that has metal detectors in the front. Doing so is a decision that you make and an affirmation that you are waiving a right to enter an area.
There is no difference with that and a gun free zone. There is nothing unconstitutional with a gun free zone because it is not infringing on your right to bear arms. You still have that right, you just d not get to demand that you can exercise that right over the right of others to decide what happens on their land (or the government on its land).
Because the judicial process has been followed. This has nothing to do with what we are discussing as this process was directly authorized by the bill of rights.
The right that we are discussing extends naturally from:
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.
Giving the base for legal wiretapping. There is a clear exception for searches in your right after legal processes have been followed.
And this particular offshoot in this thread was not about background checks. You have to go a bit further back but the very first quote that you responded to was directly about requirements to register all weapons. If you read through the beginning of this thread, the one glaring problem is that such a requirement (for universal background checks) is completely and totally unenforceable without some sort of registry. It is no more enforceable than the current law that requires a seller to refuse a sale to anyone that they know cannot legally own a weapon.
In one case, they refuse to acknowledge they knew the original purchaser was not allowed to own a weapon. Under the new law, they would just have to refuse to acknowledge that they sold the gun in the first place.
That is your core problem and where privacy plays into this. Unlike every single example used, a gun registry would be integral to exercising your right. Unlike metal detectors where they are placed in areas that you simply do not enter and land that you do not own a gun registry would demand that you must be registered and recorded just for simply accessing your right in the first place. It is an invasion demanding that what you own be recorded so that the government can keep track of your possessions.
