Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Read your response in the context of slavery. Have you seen the Constitution?
|
Are we looking at the SAME constitution?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.
This was the work of the original framers and owning a slave was Constitutionally protected. It was a right. Of course from the Southern perspective (to paraphrase you) rights went from unalienable to subjective because people in the North want to control people in the South.
|
Is this how you justify backdooring the constitution? by warping reality and blurring your vision? Back then, slaves were considered 'property', therefore, people had a 'right' to own them. Property and persons were two totally seperate entities, so i'm finding it difficult, near impossible, to understand why you are confusing the two.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
So either you must admit that you are okay with the idea that the framers made mistakes and were fallible (and thus the Constitution isn't always perfect), or you have to admit that you support slavery.
|
EVERYBODY is fallible, including the founders/framers, so I greatly resent your intimation that I support slavery...especially since you can't seem to understand that while WE agree that the constitution has never and will never be perfect, that WE can't agree that there is a LEGAL and PROPER way to amend it instead of saying 'fuck the constitution, my way is the right way'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
"Destroy the Constitution"? Is it in your capacity not to exaggerate or make appeals to emotion?
|
I call it like I see it will. If you can't do something the correct way, you fudge it til it turns out the way you want it, hence you destroy the constitution. If it can overlooked in one instance, why can't it be done for all instances? Why even have it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I'm not sure what a gun control amendment would look like. What would be better? Maybe the Supreme Court actually makes a clear decision about the Second Amendment instead of dancing around it or avoiding it.
No one is helped by having a ban on guns in DC, while West Virginia, only a few miles away, has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. It was doomed to fail.
|
so, in essence, what you're really saying is that you KNOW making laws banning handguns does nothing, because CRIMINALS will just ignore them, so you want to remove EVERYBODIES rights for the shortcomings of a few.