Firearms

[Something completely different]

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

I know very well what it means

Word is not used.

a euphemism is used - so what bloody diference does that make?

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, how fucking interesting.

Now see how many fucks I give about your language and your opinion on how I decide to use it.

none.

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.

And where am I doing that?

The only inlogical part I am pointing out is your failure to read through the document quotes and sources I provide.

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.

Yes - deliberate - but they meant slaves - which is why they used the euphemism deliberatly - or can you show me a servant who is "owned by the employer"?
No matter how the wording is, as a legal text it always must have a clear meaning because wishywashy language is rejected in legal texts because they have to be understandable.

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.

You did say that! With the attitude of a dumb 12 year old girl who screams inbetween anything just for the sake of screaming something between something.

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

deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerp derp derp derp

Echt jetzt! Geh fick dich selbst!!!

ok, I am going to explain my point for the very last time.

Slavery was legal during that time, the constitution confirmed it`s legality, therefor if arguing that one has the same rights as applied during that time - one might aswell not only demand the right to own arms but the right to slaves because slavery was legal and not seen as illegal by the constitution

-

my conclusion would be that political standerds and laws in general do not come from old documents held as unchangeable but from the thoughtprocesses behind solving current problems.

Did not.

yes it did.

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

says the person who seems to have nothing better to do than annoy people on the internet.

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.

euphemism doesnt change the meaning.

I would really like to understand the thoughtprocess behind you posting an insult and posting some fucking smiley right after that. do you think it makes it less insulting? makes you look nicer? just post the fucking insult if you want to insult me.

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.

it is a german way of saying someone is ignorant

you live in lalaland. you live in disneyland. life isnt a ponyranch.

phrases used to describe someone who lives in a world they sreamt up for themselves and in which they ignore everything which might uprrot the comfort of their delusions.

which fits to you for your ignorance of what I posted.

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.

I adressed this above and will not copy and paste simply you can watch someone copy and paste.

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.

I posted my evidence. with link to the university I got it from.

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.

all of this garbage of yours could be avoided if you had read through the examples I gave.

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

only in the minds of opertunists and people who look away from the reality behind the term or paint it as something which it isnt.

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.

?

Cant you see the irony behind you accusing me of using a strawman and then you posting this? Where do I accuse you of wanting to reinterduce slavery or saying that you think it is ok?

You keep arguing that the right to bear arms is in the original Constitution.

that doesnt change the fact that slavery is mentioned and that both documents were writen in the same short period of time.

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.

I dont need to spend hours, I am not heading towards the 30s and missing the times of useless paperwork, I can quickly search the internet for what I need, and the I can post a link to my source - which I did.

Haha, Internet psychologist. Try harder.

I am not trying. It is simply the only conclusion I can reach from your ignorance. If there is another one which would be correct then please tell me. Cause I dont know why else you would resort to insults and mockery rather than adressing the documents I posted as examples.

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

the constitution underlines the legality of slavery - if one claimst the right to own slaves on the basis of those documents one wouldnt claim it on the basis of "the right to own slaves" but the right to own property.

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

Why?! it is the only correct way to view history! through seeing as much as possible as negative, because everything else is a gloryfication of what is actualy ugly. there is no such thing as a "glorious past".

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.

Slaves were property - therefor one didnt need the right to own slaves but simply the right to own property. All what needed to be done to stop this was to declare that human beings could not be property.

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

Look at all the fucks I give!

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

can you show me the servant who is owned by his employer like property?
Or was the US in it`s early days a feudal sociaty?

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

because they were seen as property. it wasnt the right to own slaves which required ratification - it was a slaves right to no longer be a slave.

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.

look at all the fucks I give

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.

I dont have a supiriority complex, I generaly always accept it when I am proven wrong. And I use this language as I see it fit best and if you dont understand - you can either ask - or leave.

Strawman. This has nothing to do with my debate whatsoever and I have not argued that point.

it was my point from the beginning. when I posted that whatever was law yesterday isnt always correct today. you just overlooked it cause disneyland.

Furthermore, learn how to fucking count.

it is getting close to 300 if you like it or not.

Make me, you angry little bitch.

maybe you should just grow up and stop annoying people for the sake of annoying people. unless it is what you simply cant restrain from doing in which case you should get help.

good bye.