Firearms

[Shell B]

and unlike you, who thinks she can weasle out by playing the grammer gestapo, I can prove that the constitution explicitly does not outlaw slavery:

Cute that you use the term gestapo. I didn't even mention grammar or spelling once, knucklehead. I mentioned the fact that you said explicit when nothing about slavery was made explicit in the Constitution. If you want to pretend that you mistakenly used the word, I don't mind, but don't fucking act like I was being some sort of grammar freak.

[quotenot only that, I can also prove that the constitution does not take messures which deem it legal to take action against slavery by making it illegal to free a slave or to not return a free slave to his previous owner:[/quote]

It was always legal to free a slave if you owned it, dippy. If you could read, you would know that my point is that there is nothing in the Constitution giving you a right to own slaves. Saying that a person has to return a runaway or stolen slave is different and they didn't even say that. They purposefully made it ambiguous (she types again with some disdain for Germans' cognitive abilities).

]

Are you serious?! You want to go down that road?!

The constitution also doesnt mention picking your nose, biting fingernails or fucking donkeys.

Precisely. Thank you for helping my argument, though I hardly required it.

What the constitution does mention is that slavery is not to be made illegal until 1808 and it does not even take messures condeming it but rather messures preserving it, as I had pointed out with given examples which you chose to ignore and which I shall post again so you dont have an excuse:

It. does. not. say. slavery. One more time for posterity. It. does. not. say. slavery.

No, because it is not mentioned! Unlike slavery!

Are you really this retarded or do you just want it to say "slaves, slaves, slaves" in the Constitution?

And therefor, if one argues to have a right to whatever was given in the original document - one may aswell claim a right to every single thing granted in the original document.

Hey, derpenstein, the Bill of Rights is not the original document. That is where the right to bear arms is mentioned. No right to own slaves is ever mentioned. Not once, not ever.

They did mention it.

Did fucking not . . . on fucking purpose. Gah.

It is not oulawed and it is made clear that outlawing it is not an option - therefor one can say that the original document gives the right to own slaves, or at least the right to have slavery not abolished.

I just said it wasn't outlawed. That it is then a Constitutionally protected right does not then follow from that. Individual fucking rights do not come into play until the Bill of Rights. The very fucking reason so many people did not want to see the Constitution ratified was the very lack of rights in it. Seriously, American Revolution era history is not exactly your strong suit.

correct, which is why it was mentioned as being not illegal.

Is not.

And my point is - that I am not incorrect - and that I can prove it by quoting your constitution - which you ignore.

Yes, you are.

I only made one point. And even if I did make further points, on the basis of which arguments can you show me that they are irrelevant?

Wrong. You have continued to discuss the relevance of the Constitution with me, which has nothing to do with the point I argued. If you want to continue to spit in the face of Constitution historians, have at it, you angry illiterate knucklehead. Have a great day.

the fact that the constitution needs to be constantly altered and mentios that itself simply proves my point that by pointing to the original document and claiming to have a right to something because it is mentioned in the original is wrong.

Psst. Still not part of the original document. Thanks for playing, "Do you even know what the Constitution is?" Tomorrow night, we will be playing, "Is the Declaration of Independence a legally binding document?"