arma virumque cano (et alia)
As I said before:And by that logic, it is also laughable to suggest a fundamental human right to freedom of the press, freedom from bondage, freedom to chose medical procedures, freedom of religion, etc.Basically the only freedom your suggestion would leave is...what? Maybe the freedom to eat bugs, fruit, and to run around naked?Since you seem to buy into this guy's logic, please explain to us how any of these rights, only recently recognized, and many regarding technologies only recently invented, can be considered fundamental human rights.Why can the government not censor communication online? Computers and the internet are much younger than guns? How dare you claim a right to communicate using them.Humans owned slaves as far back as we have records, so how can freedom from bondage be a fundamental human right? After all, abolitionism is much younger than guns.As the other Anonymous respondent to the original spouting of this silliness pointed out, it's not a right to "guns," it is a right to "arms" for self and collective defense. The implements protected change through time, but the principle stands. If you reject this principle, you have no grounds to claim protection for recent inventions like the printing press, much less computers, the use of television and the internet, etc.
Mikeb, you're clearly backing the wrong Anon. Embarrassing, ain't it?
Right, that's why you gun loons are always screaming about the right to GUNS. You are laughable.
I believe that would be the right to ARMs anon, but you are the one that's laughable by your constant reference to guns.So keep sounding off like a loon, the more you sound off, the more we laugh. HARD!!
It would be moron, but that's not what you gun loon scream, you scream GUNS.
Well, it does put the whole debate into a different light. By recognizing the fact that humans identified certain things as rights at different points in their history, we put the ridiculous notion that the right of gun ownership, and according to some fanatics, the right to carry, does not harken back to the dawn of civilization as is inferred by such silly expressions as "fundamental human" and "basic human."
AnonymousSeptember 25, 2014 at 10:00 AM"It would be moron, but that's not what you gun loon scream, you scream GUNS."Alright MORON. I believe I just made the point of arms, not guns. So why are you calling me a moron?? What an idiot.
Then those terms, "fundamental human right" and "basic human right" are just as silly when applied to rights to free press, free speech, due process, freedom from bondage, etc.So, Mike, are you really willing to live in a world where there are no fundamental rights? Only the legal rights imposed by whatever government is in charge?Because, if that's the case, you can argue against Iran and ISIS all you want on the matters of taste--you don't WANT to live under a theocracy--but you can't argue that they're violating "basic human rights" since they don't recognize the rights you're talking about.
Because moron that's the first time you used arms instead of guns. You are just an outright liar and fool.
You are the one that's a liar, moron. There are so many anons here that you have no clue who is who.
Thanks for admitting you said it so there is no confusion about anons, you are the moron liar that said it.
Admitted it? What a liar! Thanks for showing the world that you are a true moron, a retarded, uneducated one at that!
You really get wound up, especially when I have to constantly refer you to sources to educate you. You should consult GC to widen your choices of insulting, childish words to use, your vocabulary is lacking.
Your funny. I use the same content that you do since you seem to relate to those words better. You know the content you use all the time.
Wrong shit mouth breath, that language got reinserted when you came back and started name calling everyone. Just responding in kind.
See, "wrong shit mouth breath", some more words I can use from YOUR vocabulary. Thanks for proving my point.