Firearms

[Something completely different]

Cute that you use the term gestapo. I didn't even mention grammar or spelling once, knucklehead.

nope, but acused me of not knowing the meaning of the words I use.

I mentioned the fact that you said explicit when nothing about slavery was made explicit in the Constitution.

It is. It mentions slavery, even when it doesnt use the word "slavery". Yet that doesnt change the fact that the word is used.

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.

I dont have to act like that in any kind of way.

It is you who resorts to pointing out grammer mistakes or making assertions over the writers understanding of the english language when you are not willing or capable to present an argument in support of your motion.

It was always legal to free a slave if you owned it, dippy.

WOW! You can nitpick! Brilliant!!!

The constitution clearly says that a freed slave has to be returned to his or her master.
To then simply state that "but the master can free his slave" is simply cherrypicking and doesnt change the fact that slavery was still legal and that the constitution didnt criminalise it but even mentioned it as being not illegal. Your idiotic cherrypick almoust gives the impression as if you were looking for an excuse for the then slave owners.

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

They did write that - I showed you the example - you ignore it.

Why should it be worth a damn, talking to someone who ignores things which dont fir into her disneyland view of the world?????

By not criminalising slavery and by actualy implying that it is legal - one makes it legal in a court of law. It is as simple as that.

(she types again with some disdain for Germans' cognitive abilities).

The fact that you write about yourself in third person might explain that childish behavior of yours in which ignore every single piece of evidence which I present.

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

nope I didnt. Because I showed how the constitution mentioned slavery.

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

a euphemism does not change the nature of the thing described.

final solution - holocaust
great leap forward - great chinese famine

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

the euphemism does not change the nature of the subject! If you would fall for that you would be just as redicilous as the people who created that euphemism in order to whitewash what it really was.

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.

My source is: U.S. Constitution (original version), 1787.
And my argument doesnt center arround a specificaly mentioned right to own slaves - it centers arround the fact that the constitution doesnt prohibit it - and therefor of one argues on the basis that one has the same legal constraints upon him or her as the then documents had - one might aswell argue for the right to own slaves because it is mentioned to be not illegal.

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

They did, and on purpose, and I showed you where, and you ignored it. because you enjoy yourr disneyland worldview and dont want it shattered.

I just said it wasn't outlawed. That it is then a Constitutionally protected right does not then follow from that.

of course it is, because it falls under the category of property rights.

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.

nope. but understanding a historic time period by seeing it through its negative aspects rather than good ones is. and it remains a fact that the constitution outlines that slavery is not illegal and therefor owning slaves remains a right since it falls under property rights.
You see this document through your modern viewpoint where you overlook that the slaves rights were not subject of the debate but the slave owners right to property - which is why it clearly says that his property needs to be returned.
The right to own slaves need not be mentioned - merely the right to own property needs to be mentioned - together with the clausel which underlines that slavery isnt illegal - which declares slaves to be property - which makes slaves fall under the right to own property.

Is not.

It is, I showed you, you ignored it, because you live in disneyland.

Yes, you are.

and can you show how I am incorrect.

no

because you never show anyone how they are incorrect other than their grammer - which you do for insulting and not argumentative reasons.

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.

even the least literate historian will agree that one should not live to the laws, rights and standerds of a sociaty which existed 300 years ago.

Have a great day.

and you may shove that emoticon - up your ass.

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?"

the bill of rights is an addition to the constitution - the constitution outlines the seperations of powers and the capabilities of what a goverment can do - the declaration of independance is as it says a declaration independence.

I know the differences, I know which oes are legaly binding, I know they were all writen within a timespan of 15 years.

Now finaly give an argument supporting the motion, that when demanding to live under the same rules of then one doesnt get the right to own slavery.