Thread: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

Originally Posted by Ethereal

What about it is an opinion?

Your claim that this specific right exists at all.

I could take your argument and insert any "right" I make up off the top of my head and *poof* it exists.

Originally Posted by Ethereal

The Founding Fathers wrote the following sentence and agreed upon it as being valid:

They also wrote this one:

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Therefore, if this right exists under the constitution as you say, than the authority of the Christian God also exists under the Constitution, which violates the 1st amendment and renders the entire Constitution void.

The DoI is not law, you will need to produce legal evidence that such a right exists in order to assert that it exists under the Constitution and retain any shred of credibility.

Originally Posted by Jerry

Your claim that this specific right exists at all.

Yes, it's an opinion, but it's an opinion which is heavily supported by:

A. Evidence
B. Logic

Therefore, of the many opinions that exist on the matter, mine is most likely the correct one. If you care to address my "evidence and logic" then the quality of your rebuttals will increase substantially.

I could take your argument and insert any "right" I make up off the top of my head and *poof* it exists.

And depending upon the "evidence and logic" you use in support of you position, it will either be a correct or an incorrect opinion.

They also wrote this one:


Therefore, if this right exists under the constitution as you say, than the authority of the Christian God also exists under the Constitution, which violates the 1st amendment and renders the entire Constitution void.

Except...

"Nature's God" is in no way specific to a particular religion and the language in that clause directly and explicitly contradicts a portion of the Constitution; the same cannot be said of the following clause:

…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…

Furthermore, the actual meaning of "Nature's God" could be argued without end. Therefore, the analogy does not hold water.

The DoI is not law

I never claimed that it is, but it certainly informs upon Constitutional law, as evidenced by its sweeping application throughout American jurisprudence.

you will need to produce legal evidence that such a right exists in order to assert that it exists under the Constitution

I have. Several times.

The Ninth Amendment affirms explicitly the existence of unenumerated rights (fact). In order to determine whether or not something is an "unenumerated right" we must look to the "spirit of the law" as well as the "letter of the law" (fact). In looking to the spirit of the law, we find that our Founding Fathers spoke of such a right earlier within another equally crucial document (fact):

…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…

In looking to the letter of the law, we find that our government may not govern without the consent of the people (fact):

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Based upon these facts, it stands to reason that the dissolution of government is indeed a right (an unenumerated one) retained by we the people.

and retain any shred of credibility.

With whom?

Originally Posted by Ethereal

Yes, it's an opinion, but it's an opinion which is heavily supported by:

A. Evidence
B. Logic

Therefore, of the many opinions that exist on the matter, mine is most likely the correct one. If you care to address my "evidence and logic" then the quality of your rebuttals will increase substantially.

And depending upon the "evidence and logic" you use in support of you position, it will either be a correct or an incorrect opinion.

Except...

"Nature's God" is in no way specific to a particular religion and the language in that clause directly and explicitly contradicts a portion of the Constitution; the same cannot be said of the following clause:

…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…

Furthermore, the actual meaning of "Nature's God" could be argued without end. Therefore, the analogy does not hold water.

I never claimed that it is, but it certainly informs upon Constitutional law, as evidenced by its sweeping application throughout American jurisprudence.

I have. Several times.

The Ninth Amendment affirms explicitly the existence of unenumerated rights (fact). In order to determine whether or not something is an "unenumerated right" we must look to the "spirit of the law" as well as the "letter of the law" (fact). In looking to the spirit of the law, we find that our Founding Fathers spoke of such a right earlier within another equally crucial document (fact):

…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…

In looking to the letter of the law, we find that our government may not govern without the consent of the people (fact):

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Based upon these facts, it stands to reason that the dissolution of government is indeed a right (an unenumerated one) retained by we the people.

With whom?

How can I make this clearer...the Deceleration of Independence is NOT evidence.

Anything the DoI says is completely and totally irrelevant.

I know that you think you're right so you don't need to keep fluffing your posts by tossing in pulp-terms "evidence" and "logic" in random places just to make yourself feel better.

What you need to do is start providing evidence and using logic.

So far you haven't don either of these.

The 9th Amendment doesn't create just whatever right you think you want to exist, and SCOTUS is not about to uphold anything the DoI says as law. SCOTUS never has and they have no reason to start now.

So again, the DoI was drafted by an extra-US Congressional body, as such it is not law and is NOT evidence.

You may as well be quoting the bible.

Originally Posted by Jerry

How can I make this clearer...the Deceleration of Independence is NOT evidence.

Yes, you've repeated this sentiment many times, yet you've failed to offer up any reasoning in support of your assertion. Simply saying, "The DoI is NOT evidence" does not make it so. I've already demonstrated how it is entirely relevant to interpreting the Constitution. Feel free to address the substance of my argument instead of regurgitating the same unsupported opinions again and again.

Anything the DoI says is completely and totally irrelevant.

This is complete nonsense. The DoI has served as an interpretative instrument throughout the whole of American jurisprudence. It is the document upon which this country was founded and it is a window into the minds of the Founding Fathers. It is entirely relevant and your obtuse insistence to the contrary does nothing to alter this immutable legal fact.

I know that you think you're right so you don't need to keep fluffing your posts by tossing in pulp-terms "evidence" and "logic" in random places just to make yourself feel better.

And I know you actually think you're making an argument, but you until you address the ensuing points all you will have done thus far is proffer your disagreement:

1. The Ninth Amendment and how it's interpreted.
2. The limit of governmental authority per the US Constitution.
3. The explicit mention of such a right by the same men who wrote the US Constitution.
4. The fundamental purpose of the Second Amendment.

What you need to do is start providing evidence and using logic.

So far you haven't don either of these.

Yes, I absolutely have. You are just ignoring it because you don't want to engage me in a debate about Constitutional law.

The 9th Amendment doesn't create just whatever right you think you want to exist

Obviously not - I've never claimed anything remotely resembling this. Tell me, Jerry, how does one determine what rights fall under the Ninth Amendment?

and SCOTUS is not about to uphold anything the DoI says as law. SCOTUS never has and they have no reason to start now.

So again, the DoI was drafted by an extra-US Congressional body, as such it is not law and is NOT evidence.

You may as well be quoting the bible.

How many times do I have to say it!? I know the DoI is not law -REPEAT- I know the DoI is not law. It is, however, an interpretative instrument used by legal scholars and judges to clarify ambiguities within the Constitution (FACT). Stop repeating yourself and make an argument.