Firearms

[Shell B]

Fucking hell, Germans. It is widely known fact that the writers and signers did not include slavery in particular because they never would have gotten the document ratified if they had. It was never a Constitutionally protected "right" to own slaves. Had it been, Abe Lincoln would have had no recourse to free them or to chastise the south for disobeying the Constitution with secession. Granted, he hung only to a sliver of lawfulness in the beginning, but no one ever seriously argued that there was a Constitutionally protected right to own slaves -- not even southern slave states.

[Tiberius]

The common person who thinks that even that weapon, or a few guns, is going to protect him from a government that has an army at its call, is plain nuts. All that the government has to do is send a battalion of troops or a drone to that person's house, and it is adios.

We are not living in a French Revolution period where the people can be equally matched with the government in terms of firepower. The government will win, if it decides to turn against the people in that way.

I've covered this objection before. It relies solely on hardly any soldiers defecting to the side of the rebels, which quite frankly, never happens in large rebellions.

With military defections come greater firepower (as the military have access to greater firepower). Problem solved.

If you want a source, how about this list of prominent Syrian figures (members of government and the military, including several generals) during the Syrian civil war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Syrian_defectors

[festive1]

Touché, Tiberious.
I don't think war is necessary to change a democracy. I think the chances for outbreak of civil war in the US or other post-industrial country is very small. I believe the democratic system can work if the people demand it and make it so.
But as you point out it is necessary to own these types of guns in other places.
However, I don't see people in the US ready to stand their ground against the government except for some wacko fringe groups. I think in the US's case, these weapons pose a more serious threat of danger to the public than helping to support people's rights to overthrow their government.

[Something completely different]

Fucking hell, Germans. It is widely known fact that the writers and signers did not include slavery in particular because they never would have gotten the document ratified if they had. It was never a Constitutionally protected "right" to own slaves. Had it been, Abe Lincoln would have had no recourse to free them or to chastise the south for disobeying the Constitution with secession. Granted, he hung only to a sliver of lawfulness in the beginning, but no one ever seriously argued that there was a Constitutionally protected right to own slaves -- not even southern slave states.

You dont understand a damn word I write!?

It remains a fact that slavery was not outlawed when your constitution was writen!
It explicitly underlined that slavery was not outlawed!

Therefor - if one argues that everything in the original constitution is right and applies for today - one may aswell argue that one has the right to own slaves! or deny women the right to vote! or deny those who dont own property the right to vote!

This entire approach towards modern politics is downright authoritarian - it elevates the constitution onto the level of being some kind of devine always correct piece of paper which cannot be questioned.

While it is a 300 year old piece of paper writen by a bunch of slave owners who looked down on non - landowners and lived in a class sociaty. Some of which died of syphilis.

The american revolution historicaly significant? - sure.

The american constitution writen in it`s original form still a lawgiving document? - no


Politics is about finding solutions to current problems by being anlytic and via proposal - debate - conclusion.

And not about applying modern problems into frames which apply to the standerds of a 200 year old piece of paper.

[Shell B]

It does not explicitly underline anything. I think you misunderstand what the word explicitly means, as explicit is precisely what they were not about slavery. Furthermore, the Constitution does not outlaw rape. That does not make it a Constitutionally protected right. No one would argue that slavery was illegal during the time the Constitution was penned, but it is a widely known and accepted fact that the drafters were specifically not explicit so as to streamline ratification.

Bottom lines:

I don't give a shit about the relevance of the document, nor have I joined that discussion.

The verbiage was specifically ambiguous and could easily refer to indentured servants and that was done purposefully. They knew what they were doing in purposefully not mentioning it.

Slavery is neither outlawed nor made a Constitutional right in the Constitution, which is what you said.

The Constitution is not a list of things that are illegal, so it would be outright stupid to list all of the things that are allowed.

You said that the Constitution explicitly upheld slavery. My only point is that you are incorrect on that point. All of your other points are just additional gobbledygook. It can be dispensed of in further posts.

[Tiberius]

This entire approach towards modern politics is downright authoritarian - it elevates the constitution onto the level of being some kind of devine always correct piece of paper which cannot be questioned.

No it doesn't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Fiv...nstitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ame...nstitution

[Something completely different]

It does not explicitly underline anything. I think you misunderstand what the word explicitly means, as explicit is precisely what they were not about slavery.

I wrote:

It explicitly underlined that slavery was not outlawed!

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:

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. It states:
"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight. . ."

not 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:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due . . .

source: http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/ps/10199.html

Furthermore, the Constitution does not outlaw rape.

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

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

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:

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. It states:
"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight. . ."

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due . . .

source: http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/ps/10199.html

That does not make it a Constitutionally protected right.

No, because it is not mentioned! Unlike slavery!

No one would argue that slavery was illegal during the time the Constitution was penned, but it is a widely known and accepted fact that the drafters were specifically not explicit so as to streamline ratification.

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.

The verbiage was specifically ambiguous and could easily refer to indentured servants and that was done purposefully. They knew what they were doing in purposefully not mentioning it.

They did mention it.

what intentions might have been behind them mentioning it is irrelevant.

Slavery is neither outlawed nor made a Constitutional right in the Constitution, which is what you said.

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.

The Constitution is not a list of things that are illegal, so it would be outright stupid to list all of the things that are allowed.

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

You said that the Constitution explicitly upheld slavery. My only point is that you are incorrect on that point.

You said that the Constitution explicitly upheld slavery. My only point is that you are incorrect on that point.

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

All of your other points are just additional gobbledygook. It can be dispensed of in further posts.

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?

---

No it doesn't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Fiv...nstitution

LOL

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Touché, Tiberious.
I don't think war is necessary to change a democracy. I think the chances for outbreak of civil war in the US or other post-industrial country is very small. I believe the democratic system can work if the people demand it and make it so.
But as you point out it is necessary to own these types of guns in other places.
However, I don't see people in the US ready to stand their ground against the government except for some wacko fringe groups. I think in the US's case, these weapons pose a more serious threat of danger to the public than helping to support people's rights to overthrow their government.

"I could never happen here, not to me". I don't think that many governments (or their citizens) think -beforehand- that John Q might be willing to stand his ground (the thought might give them pause....). History tells a different tale. It's not really -necessary- to own any specific type of weapon at all, or even a weapon in general, that doesn't mean that ownership of a specific weapon or a weapon in general doesn't have it's benefits. To be honest, you can do much more "rebellious" things by attacking the gears of war - rather than shooting at soldiers. It's a bit like a whack-a-mole game. You could spend your time trying to hit the little fuckers with a rubber mallet -or- you could take of the rubber sheathing and go to work on the damned game console. Soldiers shooting at each other (or just people, soldiers/civilians) is more an issue of taking or holding ground. Oddly enough, that's another reason that a large standing army with better guns doesn;t translate directly into being able to fend off a popular rebellion. You already own the ground, the smart rebel isn't trying to take any ground. Your advantage (in firepower) is removed. That being said, having some sort of firearm does make the task of getting to - and away- from the place where you set your charge a little easier. Sure, you could just slaughter the populace wholesale - but at best that's counterproductive (remember, they grow your food, they build your weapons, they run the utilities, they manage the comms network) - at worst it swells your enemies ranks - possibly with former allies and as Tib noted- soldiers themselves.

[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?"

[CleanShavenJesus]

"Accidental" gets to be ambivalent. I was pulling out of a Cracker Barrel parking space (don't judge me, I live in the South) and I FUCKING CHECKED BEHIND ME, and all of a sudden I was backed into a minivan, who had also been backing out.

I had just bought my Scion, and it was only a scratch, but whose fault was it? She said mine. I goddamn checked - I say it was hers. Do we both get punished? I had a scratched fender - she just had to pop some plastic back in place.

Hey, don't knock Cracker Barrel. Whether I'm here in Long Island, going down Virginia, or all the way in backwoods upstate NY, I can never go on a road trip without stopping at Cracker Barrel.