Post New

Sex Abuse in Catholic Church: Over 1,900 Minors Abused in Illinois, State Says

A new report by the attorney general of Illinois covering decades names more than 450 credibly accused sexual abusers, including priests and lay religious brothers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/23/us/illinois-cat...Ži_id=96954166&segment_id=133704&user_id=e6affdf52fe9bfcd78f41474fda15788

<<Sex Abuse in Catholic Church: Over 1,900 Minors Abused in Illinois, State Says>>


But drag queens are the problem. Right.

<<Sex Abuse in Catholic Church: Over 1,900 Minors Abused in Illinois, State Says>>


But drag queens are the problem. Right. - vsg

-----------------

There can be more than one problem. Of the two, Catholic pedophiles are by far the worse.

And actually there is nothing wrong with drag queening as long as it is not performed in front of children.

'........ there is nothing wrong with drag queening as long as it is not performed in front of children. "

So all the drag shows and resulting culture war uproar is Warner Bros fault for having Bugs Bunny dress in drag?

Were you a low cut front guy like Bugs the vamp, or a frilly fairy type? Bugs went both ways

<<And actually there is nothing wrong with drag queening as long as it is not performed in front of children.>> ~HairyMike

That's great Hairy, maybe you could tell that to the people you vote for? Thanks.

In the meantime...

APPALLING:

1,900 minors were abused by individuals within the Catholic Church in Illinois over a period spanning almost seventy years, according to the Illinois Attorney General.

Guns are the leading cause of death for children in America.

Guns are the leading cause of death for children in America. - vsg

=====================

Actually criminals and crazy people are the leading cause.

<Actually criminals and crazy people are the leading cause.>

I don't want to beat this dead horse, but every country has criminals and crazy people.
Only in America are guns the leading cause of death for children.

This isn't complicated folks every other country figured it out, its the guns.

Have a great day!

<Actually criminals and crazy people are the leading cause.>

I don't want to beat this dead horse, but every country has criminals and crazy people. - vsg

---------------------------

Then you must be the elimination of all guns?

Then you must be the elimination of all guns?

---------------------

Where is that edit feature???

This should be,

Then you must for be the elimination of all guns?

Guns are the leading cause of death for children in America. - vsg

=====================

Actually criminals and crazy people are the leading cause.



Are you saying that it's criminals and crazy people doing the shooting? How about the many many deaths due to children playing with a loaded gun at home that wasn't stored to make it inaccessible?

<<Are you saying that it's criminals and crazy people doing the shooting?
How about the many many deaths due to children playing with a loaded gun at home that wasn't stored to make it inaccessible?>>

Great question and of course no responses...

Republicans will do anything to protect kids from pronouns, Pride merch, books & poems,
but when it comes to guns, the number one cause of death for children in the US, they got nothing but useless thoughts and prayers.

"Great question and of course no responses..."

In keeping with our hosts efforts to maintain civility on these boards,

A little decorum is in order, whattya say?

https://www.aol.com/news/marjorie-taylor-greene-fa...

I mean...who needs union TV writers when MTG has the gavel?

https://twitter.com/i/status/1661488252363350016

Yeah, the one thing TMF did right when they updated the boards is provide an edit feature.

Your conclusion does not really follow from the premise. I point again to Switzerland. They have a higher rate of gun ownership, and virtually no shootings. That's because they have strict rules about who can obtain firearms, and from where (I don't believe you can gift someone with one, for example). They manage to prevent the deranged from getting them, but it is a lengthy process.

What we are for, BHM, is RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. And since the community of gun owners, captained by the NRA, has been unwilling or unable to accomplish anything amid this rising red tide of mayhem, we turn to the government. The government, whose job is TO GOVERN US, is particularly needed here because we, as an American populace, have shown without any doubt, are incapable of governing ourselves.

Within any populus, laws are tailored to encompass the lowest common denominator. And so, lawful and responsible gun owners should be willing and must make some concessions, endure some bureaucracy, for the greater good.

Are you willing to sacrifice one of your children or family members on the altar of "gun freedom"? If not, don't stand in the way of sensible legislation.

fd

Are you willing to sacrifice one of your children or family members on the altar of "gun freedom"? If not, don't stand in the way of sensible legislation.

fd

----------------

First off, no I wouldn't sacrifice my family or even a stranger on the alter of gun freedom. That is unless that stranger was say kicking down my door at 3AM. However this is not a binary choice between the two alternatives you offer.

Why? Because "sensible" is in the eye of the gun control advocate and is like an onion. Peel off one layer of sensible legislation and all of a sudden the is a new layer revealed that becomes fashionable because all of the gun deaths that are still occurring. How about itemizing the list of gun freedoms you would consider as sacrosanct along side the control measures you would implement if you were king.

Also, while we are at it, how about describing the mechanism by which criminals will be forced to obey your common sense controls. You know the answer to that but can't say it.

Mike

I am correct when I point out that states with sensible gun legislation, ie background checks, waiting periods, red flag laws, regulated gun shows, etc, generally have lower rates of gun death than states that don't.

Be part of the solution, don't perpetuate a failed policy.

I am correct when I point out that states with sensible gun legislation, ie background checks, waiting periods, red flag laws, regulated gun shows, etc, generally have lower rates of gun death than states that don't.

Seems logical. But you don't state what additional restriction you would favor when gun deaths don't get down to near zero as these measure will only put a small dent in gun deaths.

You also don't state if there is any limit to the restrictions you would place on gun owners. What gun owner rights are absolute? Do you favor restrictions on the number of guns a private law abiding citizen can possess. Or maybe a separate limit on the number of each type, shotguns, revolvers, semi-automatic pistols, hunting rifles. Maybe separate sub limits on hunting rifles - scary looking vs traditional. Or maybe on calibers - you can have .22LR's than 5.56 nato. Or how about some restriction on magazine capacity. Or the ability to loan a gun to a friend or a family member. Since gun deaths will still be occurring, where do you stop along this spectrum. Do you end up allowing only one black power squirrel rifle per household (thank to Dope for the spot on example). Oops left off another area ripe for restrictions - how often would you be able to buy ammo and how much at any one time. I buy my 9mm in 1,000 round case lots, cheaper that way, but that makes me a terrorist and you can't allow that.

And still no comment on the mechanism by which criminals will be forced to abide by whatever restrictions you implement. There is only one that will mostly work but your side doesn't want to say it.

What we are for, BHM, is RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.

Uh, huh. So are 99.99% of gun owners. Our version is different than yours, and 99.99% of left wingers can't make themselves understand that.


The government, whose job is TO GOVERN US, is particularly needed here because we, as an American populace, have shown without any doubt, are incapable of governing ourselves.



And there it is. The tell. All liberals have it.
This statement is the bottom line: you don't trust your fellow citizens, never have and never will, and that's why you want the government to come in and tell The Other what time it is.

Sorry, but unless you folks want to suddenly start respecting everyone's rights there can be no dealing with this kind of mindset.

All liberals have it.

That is almost certainly false. When dealing with people, there is no "all". I could say "all Republicans are fascists", but that isn't true either. Some are. Some (most) are not.

Our government is made up of our fellow citizens. We vote for the leaders, and they appoint underlings, and then there's the civil service. And rules and regulations governing all of that.

I tend to disagree with the notion we are incapable of governing ourselves. We're a democracy. That's what we do, pretty much by definition. We (humans) do have an unfortunate tendency to favor strong-men, which leads to dictatorship. That's not to say that we don't make a mess of things frequently. But we learn, and generally fix it.

I submit that it is many/most gunowners that do not trust their fellow citizens. That's why they feel the need to arm themselves against them. You're convinced that some subset of our population is going to burst into your home and kill you. Even though the data show that this is an exceedingly rare event. Much more common is a child playing with a firearm and shooting themselves, a playmate, or even a parent. Or hearing a sound in the middle of the night and shooting a figure in your hallway that turns out to be your son (true story). 22x more likely than being used on an intruder.

I submit that it is many/most gunowners that do not trust their fellow citizens. That's why they feel the need to arm themselves against them. You're convinced that some subset of our population is going to burst into your home and kill you. Even though the data show that this is an exceedingly rare event. - 1pg

--------------------

Home invasion is probably one of the least frequent crimes where defending oneself is up to the potential victim. So that tiny probability is no justification to take fire arms away from law abiding business owners in bad neighborhoods, your wife or daughter who choose to carry which is about the only way then can protect themselves from assault or worse by an assailant much bigger and stronger than themselves, or campers who are concerned about two or four legged intruders (btw that happened to me, I didn't have a gun with me that time but I did have a baseball bat in my hand when I "asked" him to leave), or having to be out on the road at night for some reason, or for all sorts of reason including being attacked by the enraged methhead you walk by on the street.

I am fine with the many people don't feel those threats are a good reason, or that the police will protect them, of that guns are just plain icky. So they don't own one. Fine, just don't project your choices on the millions of law abiding gunowners who choose differently.

All that said, keep in mind you are not required to provide a reason to exercise a right.

"So that tiny probability is no justification to take fire arms away from law abiding"

I don't think most pf us want to take all fire arms away, in fact I think as long as a hundred or so each of rifles, handguns, or shotguns are available, the 2d is fulfilled. I'd rather keep semi-auto unless it becomes a big problem. so I agree with limiting the magazines to 10 shots each. I wouldn't think of someone not having an arm in the home. I haven't seen a problem with carry yet, but I'd prefer concealed so people don't get alarmed. I also simultaneously recommend changes in policing and neighborhood support.

I think the Bruen decision sets us back, and it will take time to deal with that. Time we don't have.

I submit that it is many/most gunowners that do not trust their fellow citizens. That's why they feel the need to arm themselves against them. You're convinced that some subset of our population is going to burst into your home and kill you. Even though the data show that this is an exceedingly rare event. Much more common is a child playing with a firearm and shooting themselves, a playmate, or even a parent. Or hearing a sound in the middle of the night and shooting a figure in your hallway that turns out to be your son (true story). 22x more likely than being used on an intruder.

This misses the larger point, actually the larger points:

1. We as citizens have the right to bear arms. It's a natural right, up there with free speech.
2. We as citizens have the right to self defense.

It's far better to have something and not need it than not have it and suddenly need it.

Fundamental rights are also...fundamental. There's zero need to justify why this or why that. They just...are.

It's far better to have something and not need it than not have it and suddenly need it.

Unless having it is dangerous - so much so that the dangers of having it when you don't need it are greater than the danger of not having it when you need it. In which case it would be better not to have it.

Fundamental rights are also...fundamental. There's zero need to justify why this or why that. They just...are.

True....but you do have to support the claim that the right is, in fact, fundamental. And even then, most fundamental rights are subject to some limits. You have a right to free speech, but not to commit slander. You have a right to freedom of exercise of religion, but not using practices that violate laws of general applicability (ie. no human sacrifice). Etc.

Every society (I think?) that allows people to bear weapons in self-defense places limits on that right. Some weapons, and not others. Even in the US, your ability to bear a weapon in self-defense stops at fully automatic weapons - well short of most explosives and other ordinance. In other countries (like Japan or Singapore), your ability to bear a weapon in self-defense stops before firearms - you're just not allowed to have one, save in exceptional situations. Their right to self-defense and have weapons simply doesn't extend to firearms.

Just declaring that X is a right doesn't avoid all of the difficult questions about why you think X is, in fact, a right - and what the limits and bounds of X are.

Unless having it is dangerous - so much so that the dangers of having it when you don't need it are greater than the danger of not having it when you need it. In which case it would be better not to have it.

Do you have bleach and Dran-o in your house?
If so, do you realize that you're sitting on a bomb?

All life is risk. Your argument that "risk is higher" is noted, but it doesn't move the needle. It's possible to train members of a household in how to safely handle, use and store firearms. Just as it is to safely store bleach and Dran-o without blowing up your home.

Just declaring that X is a right doesn't avoid all of the difficult questions about why you think X is, in fact, a right - and what the limits and bounds of X are.

Slight problem. X is in fact a right, it's in the Constitution and courts have ruled it as such, so there's no "you think" left.

It's possible to train members of a household in how to safely handle, use and store firearms.

Sure - but that simply means it's possible to reduce the risk. And again, a lot of the risk that firearms present have little to do with firearm safety - but rather, the risk that the owner of the firearm will intentionally use the firearm in a way that destroys their life, either by firing it in a circumstances they shouldn't (like the recent spate of homicides by shooters mistaking innocent people for threats) or turning what would be a non-fatal domestic disturbance into a homicide.

Slight problem. X is in fact a right, it's in the Constitution and courts have ruled it as such, so there's no "you think" left.

Sure, but you were arguing that it was a "natural" right or a "fundamental" right - which is far more than simply arguing that the Constitution and SCOTUS currently recognize owning firearms for self-defense is a right. The US is rather an outlier in that position - very few countries on earth provide a protected right to bear firearms. So there is a fairly strong argument that this is neither a fundamental nor a natural right, but rather a construct of our specific (but peculiar in this regard) Constitutional framework - much like the Third Amendment.

Sure - but that simply means it's possible to reduce the risk. And again, a lot of the risk that firearms present have little to do with firearm safety - but rather, the risk that the owner of the firearm will intentionally use the firearm in a way that destroys their life, either by firing it in a circumstances they shouldn't (like the recent spate of homicides by shooters mistaking innocent people for threats) or turning what would be a non-fatal domestic disturbance into a homicide.

And this risk is...how much, exactly?
20% chance?
10%?
Or is more like...0.00002% chance?

Sure, but you were arguing that it was a "natural" right or a "fundamental" right - which is far more than simply arguing that the Constitution and SCOTUS currently recognize owning firearms for self-defense is a right. The US is rather an outlier in that position - very few countries on earth provide a protected right to bear firearms. So there is a fairly strong argument that this is neither a fundamental nor a natural right, but rather a construct of our specific (but peculiar in this regard) Constitutional framework - much like the Third Amendment.

1. What other countries say about firearm ownership is completely irrelevant. Madison wrote Federalist 46 and noted that the US was SUPPOSED to be completely different from everyone else ESPECIALLY on the topic of firearms.

2. There is no time basis on whether or not the Supremes currently recognize it or figured it out 100 years ago. By that logic since slavery wasn't outlawed until 1865 then basic human freedom isn't fundamental either.

I was addressing the points you raised.

There are no "natural rights". There are the rights granted us by the Constitution. That's it. If the Constitution changes, our rights change with it. Usually for the better (i.e. given new rights, like women's suffrage, or the right not to be owned as property). Then there are laws which can refine rights (e.g. in some places you have to try to escape before you can exercise "self defense", other places allow "stand your ground").

The justification is necessary, but that justification is the Constitution. Which is interpreted by SCOTUS. They render really bad decisions (like Dredd Scott, Heller, and "money is equivalent to speech"), and some really good ones (e.g. the "you can't discriminate against people" decisions). Which is where the arguments arise, and message boards and media light-up from time to time.

And this risk is...how much, exactly?
20% chance?
10%?
Or is more like...0.00002% chance?

The most likely outcome for a firearm for home protection is always going to be...nothing. It will never be used - for anything. You're almost certainly wasting your money. Any other scenario is remote. The only other non-trivial outcome is that it will be stolen:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/report/nfcta-vol...

If you're balancing benefits and costs, both the defense scenario and the life-destroying scenario are incredibly unlikely. You're almost certainly never going to use that gun, for good or bad. But the bad outweighs the good.

1. What other countries say about firearm ownership is completely irrelevant. Madison wrote Federalist 46 and noted that the US was SUPPOSED to be completely different from everyone else ESPECIALLY on the topic of firearms.

2. There is no time basis on whether or not the Supremes currently recognize it or figured it out 100 years ago. By that logic since slavery wasn't outlawed until 1865 then basic human freedom isn't fundamental either.

The prevalence of a right's recognition is significant in arguing whether it is a fundamental or natural right, vs. a right that exists because of the particular or unusual terms of a nation's constitution. Virtually every nation outlaws slavery. You would have no argument that basic human freedom from slavery is a fundamental right. Virtually no other nation has constitutional prohibitions on quartering troops; and I think you would have very little argument that our Third Amendment does not address a natural or fundamental right, and that other nations could morally (if they chose) decide that they wanted to allow troop quartering.

The Second Amendment leans more towards the Third Amendment than the Thirteenth, IMHO. Only a bare handful of other nations provide that owning firearms is a protected right. There are several nations that prohibit civilian ownership of firearms for personal defense. These nations are generally not regarded as acting immorally by not allowing firearm ownership. So whether firearm ownership is to be a protected right appears to be a choice that different nations can legitimately make either way, rather than something that is so fundamental to the human condition that any society that orders itself in a way that doesn't protect that right is inherently immoral.

There are no "natural rights".

Interesting. You're arguing that anything we have can be taken away. Sure you want to do that?

If the Constitution changes, our rights change with it. Usually for the better (i.e. given new rights, like women's suffrage, or the right not to be owned as property). Then there are laws which can refine rights (e.g. in some places you have to try to escape before you can exercise "self defense", other places allow "stand your ground").

So a coalition of states can suddenly decide that women can't vote, is that it? Sure you want to make that your argument? Good luck with that.

I'll help you out:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Seriously, guys.

The most likely outcome for a firearm for home protection is always going to be...nothing. It will never be used - for anything. You're almost certainly wasting your money. Any other scenario is remote.

Sorry, counselor. You've evolved your emotional argument into one of numbers and so now I'm going to hold you to producing something.

If you're balancing benefits and costs, both the defense scenario and the life-destroying scenario are incredibly unlikely. You're almost certainly never going to use that gun, for good or bad. But the bad outweighs the good.

By how much? BTW, every life is precious, and if I have to use a firearm to protect myself, isn't it worth it?

What if I save a whole troop of Girl Scouts because I was there? Don't their lives matter?

The prevalence of a right's recognition is significant in arguing whether it is a fundamental or natural right, vs. a right that exists because of the particular or unusual terms of a nation's constitution. Virtually every nation outlaws slavery. You would have no argument that basic human freedom from slavery is a fundamental right.

Oooo, that's not what your compatriot is arguing in this very thread. According to 1pg anything that's in the Constitution can be revoked at any time.

And again, when it comes to the Constitution of the United States, what other countries do is entirely irrelevant. It literally DOES NOT MATTER that other nations don't trus their citizens to be armed; Madison covered that:

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone, they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it.

Sorry, counselor. You've evolved your emotional argument into one of numbers and so now I'm going to hold you to producing something.

I would have thought it would be obvious to you. In any given year, the overwhelming majority of homes are not broken into. They're not invaded. They're not threatened. Fewer than 1% of homes in the U.S. are the subject of a burglary in any given year - and only a fraction of those take place when there's an occupant at home. If you buy a gun and keep it in your drawer for a few decades, the thing that's most likely to happen - by a huge margin - is nothing at all.

As noted in the BATF link above, every year more than 200K firearms are reported as stolen to law enforcement. Estimates of how many are stolen but are not reported vary - but it's certainly more than zero. You'll note that number is an order of magnitude higher than all homicides - whether at home or not.

Studies of homicide rates show that having a gun in the home basically doubles the risk of the occupants of being victims of homicide. Again, your odds of being a homicide victim are astonishingly low to begin with - but they're much higher if there's a gun in the house than not, which demonstrates that the gun is far more likely to kill an occupant than an invading stranger.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3...

By how much? BTW, every life is precious, and if I have to use a firearm to protect myself, isn't it worth it?

Not if you consider the possibility that you might use the firearm to kill an innocent person - then, whether it's "worth it" depends on whether it's more likely that the firearm will result in an innocent person dying than protecting yourself. Because if you use your firearm to kill an innocent person, your life will basically be completely destroyed as well - it's not like Kevin Monahan has anything left in their life, even though they allegedly thought (mistakenly) that he was using his gun to protect himself.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/18/us/woman-shot-wrong...

Oooo, that's not what your compatriot is arguing in this very thread. According to 1pg anything that's in the Constitution can be revoked at any time.

But you're not arguing that. You're arguing the existence of natural rights. If natural rights exist, they generally will cover those things that it would be egregiously immoral for any country to deny to their citizens. Yet we have many, many countries that do not protect bearing firearms as a right - and those nations are never (to my knowledge) criticized as depriving their citizens of their basic human rights in a way we would criticize a nation that allowed slavery (for example).

I don't think you've come anywhere close to establishing that owning and bearing firearms is a natural or fundamental right, rather than a contingent one that's specific to (and peculiar to) our own Constitution like the Third Amendment.

There are no "natural rights". There are the rights granted us by the Constitution. That's it.

What about the catch-all and somewhat squishy Ninth Amendment:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

But if a right is NOT listed in the constitution, then where IS it listed? The dreaded Federalist Papers?

I would have thought it would be obvious to you. In any given year, the overwhelming majority of homes are not broken into. They're not invaded. They're not threatened. Fewer than 1% of homes in the U.S. are the subject of a burglary in any given year

Sure. I also have a very small chance of being hit by lightning. Does that mean I should run around in a thunderstorm with a 2-iron in my hand? After all, the joke goes "Even God can't hit a 2 iron".

Again, what does my risk profile look like?
Do I have a 0.00001% chance of shooting myself? Or is it 50%?

Not if you consider the possibility that you might use the firearm to kill an innocent person - then, whether it's "worth it" depends on whether it's more likely that the firearm will result in an innocent person dying than protecting yourself.

And what is that probability? If you insist on making numeric arguments you need to show some numbers.

You're arguing the existence of natural rights. If natural rights exist, they generally will cover those things that it would be egregiously immoral for any country to deny to their citizens.

You guys understand that literally the entire premise of the United States is the concept of natural rights...right?

Here it is again: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If you an pg1 want to argue that Natural Rights don't exist, you're essentially arguing against the 1 single ideal on which the country was founded. An ideal, by the way, that negates your notion of bringing in other countries to back up your position. It. Doesn't. Matter.

Again, what does my risk profile look like?
Do I have a 0.00001% chance of shooting myself? Or is it 50%?

Almost certainly closer to the former than the latter. There are just under 50,000 suicides per year in the US. A slight majority (more than any other method) are by firearm, so figure between 23K-24K. It's higher for men than women. There's probably about 57 million households with a firearm in them (about 44% of 130 million). So figure a 0.02% chance of shooting yourself in a given year.

You guys understand that literally the entire premise of the United States is the concept of natural rights...right?

That's not "the entire premise" of the U.S., of course - but I take your point that the Founders argued their case for liberty by an appeal to natural rights, and they certainly believed in them. But that doesn't mean that everything in the Constitution is a natural right, and none of the Founders would ever argue it was. Most of the document isn't. There's obviously no "natural right" to have a bicameral Legislature or to have patent law decided at the federal level rather than the state level. There's no "natural right" to be free from having troops quartered in your homes or to have two witnesses to be found guilty of Treason. Our recognition of those things as "rights" is contingent on the specifics of our document, arising out of specific annoyances with England, not a recognition by the Founders that these were natural rights or an argument that they are inherent in the nature of humanity.

The Second Amendment is almost certainly more of a contingent right than a natural or fundamental one. Most state constitutions didn't have it as a right at the time of the Founding - the limitation was on the federal government disarming the populace, not the state governments. Unlike speech and free exercise and some of the other rights, which were protected in almost all the state Constitutions against infringement by state governments.

What about the catch-all and somewhat squishy Ninth Amendment:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It's not that squishy. It basically says the government shouldn't be running around taking away things from the people.

But if a right is NOT listed in the constitution, then where IS it listed? The dreaded Federalist Papers?

I don't get the fear attached to the Federalists Papers. They're the reason why the US Constitution is the marvel that it is: in only 13 pages it lays out a very clear and very succinct form of government. The Federalist Papers are the Appendices that tell you what the Founding Fathers were thinking/intending at the time and IMO is something that should be taught far more than it is.

Interesting. You're arguing that anything we have can be taken away. Sure you want to do that?

Yes. Because they can. Even some Euro-nations won't allow me to exercise the same rights I have within the USA. The Socialist Worker's Party is banned in some nations, which would not be possible here. Apparently I can get in trouble if I criticize in certain ways governments while under their jurisdiction.

Our rights are the result of whatever social contract we have in place. Many nations have constitutions, but they vary somewhat. The people of England have the rights guaranteed by their government. We (USAians) have the rights guaranteed by ours. Etc. In our case, you could repeal the 19th Amendment, in principle, and women would no longer have the right to vote. That would -rightly- cause a major excrement-storm, but it is allowed within our framework. It's not that a coalition can decide suddenly. There is an entire process to change the Constitution, and therefore the rights therein. It's arduous for a good reason. But it is possible to do it if there is sufficient support.

Make no mistake, our rights can disappear in an instant if we aren't vigilant. Which is why democracy is hard work.

The Preamble is cool, and I agree with it. It doesn't actually have the power of law, of course. In fact, that entire document was more of an open letter to King George than it was a legal document. The SCOTUS does not (nor does anyone else) makes rulings based on it because it is not a document of law.

That's not "the entire premise" of the U.S., of course - but I take your point that the Founders argued their case for liberty by an appeal to natural rights, and they certainly believed in them.

I think that was more to avoid saying "god-given" rights. Because they went to great pains to NOT mention god, or religion, except to say
that government should not entangle itself in it. I give you the title that Thomas Paine used for his book that was -arguably- the basis for the entire thinking of our Founders: Common Sense. The Founders then constructed a document that reflected the attitudes and concerns of the 1780s, which did not include (among other things) women's suffrage. Women got the right to vote because of the 19th Amendment, not because of any "natural" right.

Our rights are granted by the government which as authority over us. You don't have the right to criticize Xi in China, I cannot criticize the Canadian government in Canada, etc. But I can criticize my government all I like in the USA because that is a [government] protected right, where that isn't the case in Canada.

Our rights are granted by the government which as authority over us.

There are lots of different definitions of what a "right" is. You're using a very formalistic term - rights are the entitlements that a particular governmental system protects. Many people (including Dope) use the term to encompass inherent entitlements that all humans have, and which it is always wrong for a government to deny to a people.

In the latter definition, a government that permits slavery is depriving the slaves of their human rights. The government isn't violating any rights that the government granted - by definition, the laws of that society allow one group to enslave another. Yet we still describe that as a violation of the slaves' human rights, because slavery is always and everywhere a deprivation of the rights of the enslaved, regardless of whether the slavery is legal or prohibited.

The Founders used "inalienable rights" in this latter sense as well. They weren't being deprived of any rights defined by the British government. Instead, they were claiming the existence of rights outside of the formal British system, and because the British were violating those rights, rebellion was justified.

<<Madison wrote Federalist 46 and noted that the US was SUPPOSED to be completely different from everyone else...>>

You care about what Madison thought?
Very interesting...

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial.
What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy,
ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." ~Madison

I've never read truer words.

Many people (including Dope) use the term to encompass inherent entitlements that all humans have, and which it is always wrong for a government to deny to a people.

You give Dope too much credit. :p In my minds eye we were dealing with a King and a Parliament. We aren't represented in the Parliament. So we had certain fictions so we can discuss rights among ourselves and establish them outside of a King or a Parliament. No one thinks the states of nature discussed were meant to represent the actual state of nature, but they do allow a process of thought to be built, a scaffolding to be erected and discussed. Rights spring from nature or were God given, not granted. But after it's stripped down, the one solid thing we can point to is that we agreed to it, we ratified it, and that agreement is very real. So I realize how the scaffolding was built (in my own way), the arguments, etc., but I also realize The Constitution was the least worst that we could agree on, but we agreed.

Many people (including Dope) use the term to encompass inherent entitlements that all humans have, and which it is always wrong for a government to deny to a people.

However, different people have differing ideas about what rights other people have. Some (possibly even on this board) don't think people should have the right to marry people of the same sex/gender. Within my lifetime it was actually illegal to marry someone of a different ethnicity (so you and I would be in trouble if Loving wasn't on the books).

To get more modern, many people think you don't have a right to healthcare. It is a privilege of the monied classes. Others strongly disagree. We may get near unanimity about slavery -though apparently some xians think it wasn't that bad since it's god-approved in EX21-, but many other topics we would get wild disagreement. So, in the end, government grants (or not) those rights. They can come from nowhere else, and are really just an agreement within society (democracy) or the whim of a single leader (dictator).

Or the 2A. We have that right because of the 2A, not because of something "inalienable". There is vehement disagreement about whether that right exists on it's own. I don't think it should exist, but the Constitution grants it; even if I think recent interpretations are highly partisan and wrong.

Instead, they were claiming the existence of rights outside of the formal British system, and because the British were violating those rights, rebellion was justified.

Yes, while avoiding "god-given" wording. As I recall, it was mostly the wealthy landowners that were unhappy. They managed to get the common peasant whipped-up, but in the end very little had changed for the peasant. The well-to-do ended up with more say about their affairs, and -as I recall- didn't have any income or property tax (instead relying on tariffs). They didn't like King George's taxes.

To get more modern, many people think you don't have a right to healthcare. It is a privilege of the monied classes. Others strongly disagree. We may get near unanimity about slavery -though apparently some xians think it wasn't that bad since it's god-approved in EX21-, but many other topics we would get wild disagreement. So, in the end, government grants (or not) those rights. They can come from nowhere else, and are really just an agreement within society (democracy) or the whim of a single leader (dictator).

Again, that's one way to define rights. Rights are whatever your specific legal system says are your rights. It's not the only definition. I'm not even sure it's the most widely-held definition.

I think most societies and cultures believe that there exists some bundle of fundamental rights (whether characterized as "natural" or "fundamental" or "granted by a Creator") that every human is entitled to even if they live in a society that doesn't recognize them. By not granting them their human rights, their society is denying them their human rights. The person has a legitimate claim that the government is doing something intolerably wrong by failing to respect their rights, even though that claim wouldn't be recognized or honored by the government itself.

This can lead to some weird phrasing. "People in the Dictatorship of Albabia don't have the right to worship freely, so Albabia is committing human rights violations" - a sentence which simultaneously denies a right exists and that it is being violated. This is almost always limited to rights that are considered "Universal" - speech, religious practice, freedom from slavery, etc.

There are plenty of rights that aren't universal. They are contingent on a particular political or legal system. Here in Florida, I have the state constitutional right that my primary residence (my homestead) cannot be subjected to a forced sale for reasons other than taxes or obligations incurred in financing the purchase or development of that property. That's a very specific right that everyone would agree is only a product of Florida's policy preference - not an inherent Universal Human Right. It's just a choice that we Floridians made back in the day in balancing the competing interests of creditors and people's desire for their home to be protected from same.

Yes, while avoiding "god-given" wording.

I mean, not really. The actual language was "[all men] are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights...." There's not much difference between "god-given" and "Creator-endowed" - the phrases are synonymous, and both involve the same appeal to the divine as the source of rights that exist independent of whether a human sovereign chooses to recognize them.

That's in the Preamble of a document that has no legal force. As you know. Roughly half of the Founders were not theists. They did not believe in a creator god. I believe they only used that phrase to convey the idea that the rights were independent of any human decrees, as you said.

But yours or my opinion about a right is irrelevant to whether it exists in any given society. I find slavery heinous. That doesn't mean it is somehow sacrosanct. Theists actually ask that question as a "gotcha"..."where do you get your morals, where do you get your rights". It isn't a deity. It's my opinion, argued (much better than I) by smart folks for centuries, that then became a part of the societal culture and norms. Slavery is bad because we think it's bad, and for no other reason. At various points in the past, society was either conflicted about that, or actually supported it. Today, we don't. Morality and rights are -in a democracy- a consensus of opinion, and what is written in the law (including the Constitution). All of which is subject to change/revision through whatever processes are described in the laws.

Which is why I have hard time looking back as Jefferson and saying "he's bad because he had slaves". For that time period, he was conforming to societal norms. Today, he would be a pariah if he engaged in that activity. Most (or all?) of our Founders would be castigated when viewed through a 21st century lens.

Morality and rights are -in a democracy- a consensus of opinion, and what is written in the law (including the Constitution). All of which is subject to change/revision through whatever processes are described in the laws.

I would disagree. I think you're conflating concepts - morality, opinion, rights, and laws - that are subtly and importantly different from each other. Something can be legal but immoral; a society can have a legal requirement that deprives people of fundamental human rights; people can form a consensus of opinion on what they believe is moral and can still be wrong. One need not posit a creator in order to identify universal human rights that it is wrong for any society to violate. A country that commits genocide against a religious or ethnic minority isn't acting morally or consistent with that minority's rights just because the genocide is sanctioned by duly-adopted law.

To try to keep nominally on the point I was trying to make, though, it's pretty clear that the "right" to gun ownership is not a fundamental or natural or universal human right. Some rights are simply decisions made by one society to resolve a particular issue in one way or another - such as our right to be free from quartered troops. At most (and it is disputed) we have chosen to adopt for ourselves a guarantee of the ability to own firearms. But contrary to Dope1's assertion, that is neither a fundamental or natural right.

To try to keep nominally on the point I was trying to make, though, it's pretty clear that the "right" to gun ownership is not a fundamental or natural or universal human right. Some rights are simply decisions made by one society to resolve a particular issue in one way or another - such as our right to be free from quartered troops. At most (and it is disputed) we have chosen to adopt for ourselves a guarantee of the ability to own firearms. But contrary to Dope1's assertion, that is neither a fundamental or natural right.

Well, we can agree to disagree here.
We have multiple rights that are extremely fundamental. Freedom of speech is one; freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures of property would be another.

Another is one of self-defense. The best means of that is firearm ownership, hence the 2A.

Except that morality is a fuzzy concept. It is completely relative. Those who speak of morals usually (though not always) do it in reference to some religious tome.

It is my opinion that slavery is wrong. Enough people agree with me that it is illegal in most countries. But I can't actually reference anything "higher" to justify that. It's a shared opinion that was enacted into law.

I understand Harris' argument about "human well-being", but that also is an opinion. A postulate. I'm OK with that since quantum mechanics is based on three (unprovable) postulates. We want to maximize human well-being, so how do we do that. You can then argue against many things (like discrimination and slavery), and argue for many things (like healthcare, clean water, due process, etc). Given any moral framework, be it Harris' or some other, you will find laws that contradict it, and laws that coincide with it. So, yes, something can be moral but illegal, or vice-versa. But that framework is still arbitrary. It must be postulated, and then -like QM- it either works or it doesn't. QM seems to work on everything except gravity, so we keep that one.

To try to keep nominally on the point I was trying to make, though, it's pretty clear that the "right" to gun ownership is not a fundamental or natural or universal human right. Some rights are simply decisions made by one society to resolve a particular issue in one way or another - such as our right to be free from quartered troops. At most (and it is disputed) we have chosen to adopt for ourselves a guarantee of the ability to own firearms. But contrary to Dope1's assertion, that is neither a fundamental or natural right.

That I agree with. It can in no way be considered "innate" or "fundamental". It was a shared opinion that made it into the Constitution.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.