I wonder how the gun spinners will respond to this one. I know they can, so let's hear it, boys. Just because you say you need certain inanimate objects in order to do proper self-defense, does that make it so?One of the more bizarre comments that medieval peasants did have rights, the fact that they did not know about these rights and were unable to exercise them did not matter, the right existed.
The problem with that is that is it seems an absurdity. The point of a right is to be able to exercise that right, The fact that a right is claimed, or even exists, which is unable to be exercised makes it irrelevant.
For example, Dred Scott v. Sandford pointed out that slaves were property and were unable to exercise rights. In fact, slavery is the big bugaboo in the inalienable right argument: after all, can someone consent to be a slave?
Please leave a comment.