View Poll Results: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

Voters
54. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, because...

    6 11.11%
  • No, because...

    46 85.19%
  • Other

    2 3.70%
Page 31 of 32 FirstFirst ... 2129303132 LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 313

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

  1. #301
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Jerry; 05-28-09 at 11:47 PM.

  2. #302
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Ethereal; 05-29-09 at 01:43 AM.

  3. #303
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Jerry; 05-29-09 at 09:20 AM.

  4. #304
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    So we agree that revolution is, in fact, unconstitutional.
    We might even call it treason.
    "Unconstitutional" simply means that it violates a provision of the constitution, or is an action pursuant to power not granted to the government by it.

    Given that rights are assumed to exist w/o any grant from the constition, absent any limitation on a right specified by said constitution, a right is assumed to exist.

  5. #305
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    "Unconstitutional" simply means that it violates a provision of the constitution, or is an action pursuant to power not granted to the government by it.

    Given that rights are assumed to exist w/o any grant from the constition, absent any limitation on a right specified by said constitution, a right is assumed to exist.
    You're saying we can simply violate the constitution because the constitution doesn't expressly state that we must comply with the constitution...well hell's bells I think you just shot down all the anti-waterboarding people.

  6. #306
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    You're saying we can simply violate the constitution because the constitution doesn't expressly state that we must comply with the constitution...well hell's bells I think you just shot down all the anti-waterboarding people.
    Revolution doesnt vioplate the constitution.
    But then, neither does putting one down.

  7. #307
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Revolution doesnt vioplate the constitution.
    But then, neither does putting one down.
    Ahh well neither does waterboarding then. Good deal.

  8. #308
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Ethereal; 05-29-09 at 04:10 PM.

  9. #309
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I know the DoI is not law -REPEAT- I know the DoI is not law.
    The DoI is therefore irrelevant.

    Demonstrate where this alleged right to revolt currently exists in actual Positive Law.

  10. #310
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    The DoI is therefore irrelevant.

    Demonstrate where this alleged right to revolt currently exists in actual Positive Law.
    Until you address the entirety of my argument, I will assume you cannot rebutt it.

Page 31 of 32 FirstFirst ... 2129303132 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •