Firearms

[Shell B]

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

Okay. You either don't know what it means or knowingly used in incorrectly. Either way, you're the ass in that scenario.

Yet that doesnt change the fact that the word is used.

Word is not used.

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.

I'm a bloody writer, for crying out loud. Of course, I am going to notice usage errors and point them out for the sake of clarity. The fact that your arguments are as muddy as the Ganges is obvious to anyone with a minimal grasp of English. You want an argument to support my motion?

1. It is grammar, not grammer.

2. Even if making assertions over made any fucking sense, it would be writer's or writers', not writers.

3. It is English, not english.

4. Capable to present? No, it is "capable of presenting." To which I must counter that you are clearly incapable of comprehending what is explicitly stated.

5. Holy fucking run-on, Batman.

WOW! You can nitpick! Brilliant!!!

And you can dodge that you made a retarded statement and make it seem like me pointing out your mistake is not a logical part of a discussion.

The constitution clearly says that a freed slave has to be returned to his or her master.

Does not. He never says the word slave or master. Again, this was deliberate. If you knew a cunt hair's worth of Revolution-era history, you would know this.

To then simply state that "but the master can free his slave"

I didn't say that. You did and then I stated that was always the case, as you worded it as if it only became the case with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, which is incorrect.

is simply cherrypicking and doesnt change the fact that slavery was still legal

Strawman. I have always agreed that slavery was legal and, again, you were the one who mentioned that slaves had to be returned.

and that the constitution didnt criminalise it but even mentioned it as being not illegal.

Did not.

Your idiotic cherrypick almoust gives the impression as if you were looking for an excuse for the then slave owners.

Haha, I would ignore this if it weren't such an obviously horrible argument. You, sir, post drivel.

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

No. You posted something else and then expected me to be as illiterate as you. It says slave nowhere, which was and has always been my only argument, you overzealous angermongering fucktard.

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

Well, I'm sorry. I don't know what fir in means, Disneyland is a proper noun, multiple instances of the same punctuation is juvenile and you are incorrect. Even if I did fit your stereotype as some whitey American who wants to own slaves, that is still not Disneyland. Try harder.

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.

You said implying. Assuming you know what that means, you have just argued my argument for me. Also, I reiterate that I have always maintained that slavery was legal then. You simply do not comprehend that.

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.

No, no. I ignore your drivel. If you have evidence, I will happily pay attention to it. For now, I am just watching you get mad.

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

Wasn't that in response to nosepicking not being explicitly made illegal by the Constitution? Oh, it was. Looks like someone forgot to take notes.

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

Ah, bet it makes it less fucking explicit, doesn't it, chowdahead?

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.

Oh my god. You are precisely right. I just want slavery to be okay and my great white forefathers to be exonerated of these horrible accusations. Dumbass.

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.

You keep arguing that the right to bear arms is in the original Constitution. You have said it numerous times. And, again, I'm not even involved in that argument. I'm simply telling you it doesn't say slavery and why it does not say that. When you have spent hours that likely add up to weeks poring over the relevant documents, you might understand what I am saying too. If you don't want to hear it from me, read it from elsewhere.

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.

Haha, Internet psychologist. Try harder.

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

Not explicitly. In a roundabout way, certainly, but not explicitly, as you stupidly stated and to which I argued.

nope. but understanding a historic time period by seeing it through its negative aspects rather than good ones is.

So, you admit your only advantage in this argument is that you have a skewed perception of the period? Dumbass.

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.

Nope. Owning slaves was not considered a right, which, afuckingain, is precisely why Abraham Lincoln was able to issue the Emancipation Proclamation without being a total fucking hypocrite.

You see this document through your modern viewpoint

Wrong again. Did I happen to mention what I do for a living? Hint: It has to do with history.

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 problem with your argument is that it could have easily referred to indentured servants, which was intentional. Infuckingtentional. Do you understand?

The right to own slaves need not be mentioned

And better not be if you expect it to be ratified.

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

You got me there. Sick burn. Disneyland. That will take forever to heal. I have never even been to Disneyland. What a dick you are for reminding me.

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

It's goddamn grammar, you dumb fuck! (Dumb fuck was for insulting. Grammar correction was for your benefit only.) Now, if you could speak plain English or understand what you read, you would see that you get like this every time you debate someone. The reason for this is because you can't tell you are getting a good argument from your opponent or you're just an ass with a superiority complex.

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.

Strawman. This has nothing to do with my debate whatsoever and I have not argued that point. Furthermore, learn how to fucking count.

and you may shove that emoticon - up your ass.

Make me, you angry little bitch.