I disagree. Cite authority figures if you want, but their mere opinions will not change my opinion.
You are entitled to your opinion. I however disagree.
Now who's talking about personal desires? You seem to be suggesting that freedom doesn't matter, and what the constitution actually says doesn't matter.
I said no such thing. I like the constitution and think it should be interpreted correctly. All I said is that not everything you mentioned can be considered a freedom. You however want to create a fiction that I'm somehow against all freedom or the constitution in order to build some preposterous argument.
Judges' interpretations can (and have been wrong), and saying otherwise is paradoxical and an appeal to authority. I disagree with the judges.
You may not agree with a judge's ruling but they are better qualified than the both of us. I am not saying they are infallible but the system exists for a very good reason. In addition we have an appellate system in place so more than one judge can look at the issue.
What I personally want people to do is irrelevant, but I do want people to have certain freedoms, even if I disagree with their actual actions. You are no different, and saying that certain things are not "human rights" doesn't make you objectively correct, but nor would me saying that they are human rights.
This looks like one of those preposterous arguments I was talking about earlier.
Copyright infringes upon fundamental private property rights and free speech rights (which I consider a fundamental right), so it's intolerable. Patents infringe upon the former, so they're intolerable. Both create artificial scarcity and government-enforced monopolies for certain people, which I also find intolerable.
You may want to revisit what constitutes free speech. Your ability to disregard copyright and distribute something isn't what most would consider protected free speech. However, I do find the longevity of copyrights objectionable.
Patents on the other hand is not as clear cut as copyright. There is nothing wrong with patents in general, but like a firearm (which is the original subject btw) it can be used to infringe someone else's right. Examples include a farmer's right being infringed by a corporation because patented genetically modified crop growing nearby tainted his goods, or a business being sued into non-existence because another business obtained a patent on a very obvious business method. I blame the patent office for incompetence more than I blame the existence of patents.
You know what else isn't a "human right"? Safety at the expense of freedom. In a country that is *really* "the land of the free and the home of the brave," we would not so haphazardly sacrifice freedom for safety like a pack of worthless cowards. Freedom has risks, and they're worth it.
The United States was never meant to be a land where IonOtter can do as he pleases. The US was founded on providing fundamental freedoms while insuring that those freedoms will be protected from aggressors. I do not agree with the heavy handiness of the patriot act, but an overwhelming majority of congressmen responded to the fears of their constituents and passed it. I personally believe it outlasted its usefulness. In fact, I didn't like its passage.
Too bad the party that vehemently defends an interpretation of the 2nd amendment doesn't feel as strongly about the rest of the amendments.