Where do you draw the line between "freedom" and "anarchy"?

When the "freedoms" enjoyed by some endanger the lives of others, maybe? 

I'm not sure. 

Only too a point. Everything we do has a danger.  A bad driver is a danger. But should be allowed to drove. 

Only if a definitive danger. Drunk driver should not be allowed to drive. 

I'm not sure how that relates, but that's okay. It's not for me to understand everything. 

There many varied viewpoints about what constitutes freedom, what freedoms are most important, what is acceptable risk, danger, etc. Thankfully the founding fathers had the sense to realize that the Constitution needed to be living and breathing and adjust with "progress". Something we can all agree on! 

It was an example of risk we take daily and when it is and is not an freedom to be limited.

No founder's did not make a living breathing doctument.  There is a process to add an admentment. But they wrote exaxtly what they meant in the Construction and Bill of Rights. And if we have a question as to original meaning we should go back to the original writtings and debates. 

Yes, amendments are what I was referring to - that's what makes it living and breathing; not a 'one and done for this moment in time' document. 

I think it's reasonable to say most Americans are grateful for the amendment process that have granted women and minorities full rights, for example. I know not all do, and this is at the core of what divides people today, in my opinion. 

 

Yes. Those are good even though not truly needed.  They passed them because individual states were ignoring those rights claiming they did not apply to women or minorities....but in truth they did without the amendments. Women voted in the 1800s.  And minorities had the same rights as soon as they became free citizens.  The amendments simply made it clear.