"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

[!Jones]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

From this statement, I derive the term *universal*... or, IOW, obvious
to anyone, anywhere, anyplace.

"... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with [...] Rights"

Here, the clear implication is that rights are intrinsic to the human
experience and that any human right for one is a human right for all
human beings on the planet. The question pending is: "Are there any
other properties of these Rights?" (I'm glad you asked!)

"Men are [...] endowed by their Creator with [...] unalienable
Rights..."

If you were to look that word up, you will find a long discussion of
"unalienable" versus "inalienable" because, apparently, there was a
version issue in the DOI, and you will see it both ways in different
original texts. In the definition of the words, however, "indelible"
appears frequently as a synonym.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

Human rights pre-date the government; since human rights were not
granted by a government, it is not possible for them to be removed by
a government. If you say a freedom *may* be removed, you're admitting
it is not a human right.

Now, perhaps *you* disagree with the enumeration of the properties of
a "right" (it really isn't a definition) as "intrinsic", "indelible",
and "universal"; however, it would be flatly inaccurate to argue that
*nobody* agrees because, obviously, the founders did.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Post by !Jones
If you say a freedom *may* be removed, you're admitting
it is not a human right.

Um, no, you moronic troll.

But that's not surprising, given your inability to understand due
process.

[Scout]

Post by Klaus Schadenfreude

Post by !Jones
If you say a freedom *may* be removed, you're admitting
it is not a human right.

Um, no, you moronic troll.
But that's not surprising, given your inability to understand due
process.

Yep, what Baxter doesn't seem to understand is that even a court can not
remove their rights.. the MOST they can do is infringe upon such rights more
or less... as punishment for their crimes. That is how people are punished..
by restricting their rights.

Which makes one wonder why Baxter would want to punish people who have done
no wrong.....

[!Jones]

On Mon, 1 May 2023 07:39:06 -0500, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"

Post by Scout

Post by !Jones
If you say a freedom *may* be removed, you're admitting
it is not a human right.

Yep, what Baxter doesn't seem to understand is that even a court can not
remove their rights.. the MOST they can do is infringe upon such rights more
or less... as punishment for their crimes. That is how people are punished..
by restricting their rights.
Which makes one wonder why Baxter would want to punish people who have done
no wrong.....

I dunno who "Baxter" is, but *my* point was that, since a government
did not create a human right, the government cannot administratively
remove it. The question, then, is: "does a person have a human right
*not* to be jailed?" This is a problem. To solve it, we turned to
the idea of the jury, which was created by law, then placed outside of
the government's control... as good of a solution as humans can get, I
suppose.

I'm *very* stingy as to what I'm willing to call a "human right" IMO,
the UN goes *way* overboard with it. Many of what you're calling
"rights", I call "freedoms". You have the freedom to do anything that
does not violate a law; however, these change with the weather.

[Scout]

Post by !Jones
On Mon, 1 May 2023 07:39:06 -0500, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"

Post by Scout

Post by !Jones
If you say a freedom *may* be removed, you're admitting
it is not a human right.

Yep, what Baxter doesn't seem to understand is that even a court can not
remove their rights.. the MOST they can do is infringe upon such rights more
or less... as punishment for their crimes. That is how people are punished..
by restricting their rights.
Which makes one wonder why Baxter would want to punish people who have done
no wrong.....

I dunno who "Baxter" is, but *my* point was that, since a government
did not create a human right, the government cannot administratively
remove it. The question, then, is: "does a person have a human right
*not* to be jailed?"

Yes

Post by !Jones
This is a problem.

No, it's not, but I'm sure you're going to try to turn it into one.

Post by !Jones
To solve it, we turned to
the idea of the jury,

Which has nothing to do with whether you have a right not to be jailed.

What you fail to consider is such a right CAN be violated. Properly as
punishment for a recognized crime. Improperly as a form of enslavement.

Which of course is why we have the 5th Amendment.. otherwise your liberty
could never be violated by imprisoning you.