Tyrants - They haven't changed much since 1776.

So you're point is that the constitution can never be changed? Because if so I agree. On a side note, since the entire constitution still applies, are you selling some slaves to a brother my dude?

I have a better idea " 'my dude " how about you provide a line of argumentation by which to support that it ever supported slavery and let's have a detailed discussion about it. Deal?

That was an argument, society changes, therefore a good foundational document should also change in accordance with that society, for example, slavery. Your position against amendments was just taken to its natural conclusion. You put yourself in a double bind, I'm not being unfair, you brought this upon yourself.

No, it was not and argument - It as a unsubstantiated claim. A valid, sound, deductive argument would have two true premises and a logically true conclusion which follows logically from those premises.

" Your position against amendments was just taken to its natural conclusion. You put yourself in a double bind, I'm not being unfair, you brought this upon yourself. "

I think you're confusing me with this other guy. No one put themselves in any binds. You're simply offering rhetoric based on assumptions and you brought nothing to it's logical conclusion because you have not proven or argued a thing - Until you do - All you have is hot hair and arm flailing.

Now. You can start by offering an argument to support that the constitution actually supported slavery, or you can continue to make unsubstantiated claims while claiming you've offered arguments that you haven't and claiming victory.

So what's it gonna be? More drama? Or are you going to offer arguments to support your claims? The choice is yours. Continue with more rhetoric while wearing egg on your face? Or arguments? Which is it gonna be?

What does pre 1865 have to do with anything?

The point that people make when they say the constitution is a living document is that the constitution can be amended and is ever-changing. Since you disagree with that notion, it is logical to say that you disagree with amendments, I'm simply showing why being against amendments, in general, is a bad idea.

That the constitution is " ever changing " is a flatly false statement which can not be historically substantiated. The constitution is not a " 'living document " but a legal document, and these are more important a a distinction than I think you currently realize.

THEN GIVE ME MY SLAVES! (You realize that the original constitution before the thirteenth amendment said that owning slaves was a right? Therefore, by saying the constitution can't change (which it has changed before btw) you indirectly support slavery.

No, it did not say it was a right and you have not offered a single piece of evidence or line of argumentation that it did. You have just made assumptions.

But let me see if I can't get the ball rolling here. Are you talking about the 3/5ths clause? Please tell me that you are so I can give you a much needed education.

Even then, (which I don't buy the argument that the constitution never said owning slaves was a right), but let's entertain the argument, your position that we can't change the constitution, means that in your worldview the 3/5 compromise still applies.

You seem like a good kid, but you need to learn what an argument is. You keep referencing things as arguments that clearly are not. If you continue using terms you don't understand to try and give the appearance of intelligence, you're going to end up looking really dumb instead of intelligent.

I can also tell by the terms you're using and misusing that you've been in my comments history and are simply repeating terms back to me than you learned through me but don't have a clue as to their meaning or proper application. I'm flattered that you're imitating me, but it would be better if you learned the meaning and proper application of the terms your'e using first.

If you want to learn some things I can point you to some good material, but you'd first have to swallow your pride and put away these foolish theatrics. .

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but telling you what I know to be true. The Constitution currently does not and never contained an amendment or any other text that supported or even alluded to the owning of a slave being a right.

I'm not speculating about this, I'm telling you what I absolutely know to be an unequivocal fact. if you deny this, please provide the evidence to refute it, but I already know you can't, because no such amendment or right ever existed.

I'm not sure who told you that the constitution supported slavery, but I can only guess you've learned this from some progressive news source or website like Huffington post or something. Just a guess.

The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written.” — Franklin Roosevelt, President

Conservative normie logic: Adding impact font captions to images changes history to make us right.

Speaking of logic. What you have just posted is what's known in logic as an appeal to motive fallacy.

Maybe. However, you can't compare the ones taking guns away to present day liberal protesters.

Yeah. You actually can, because that's exactly what they're attempting to do and have done in some states. Only now, we have 350 million guns in America to prevent them - So they must attempt to do it incrementally and politically or it would cause a civil war and they know it.

However, the government we have right now is ignoring the fact that people are being hurt by their actions, which is what the British did back during the Colonial Era.

Secondly, they aren't taking away guns to limit citizens' power. They want guns gone because of the events that have happened recently involving guns, mainly the recent murders of American citizens, specifically children in our schools.

Obviously, 350 million guns in American citizens' hands is the best way to prevent shootings.

I agree. People are being hurt by the government's actions, but I know from your posts what I think they're doing to hurt people is for different reasons than you do.

Yes, they in fact are taking away citizens guns to limit power, and they've been encroaching on our freedom and rights consistently for years now, but until they take away the 2nd amendment right they can't take away other rights in full measure - but just restrict them.

And even if they were taking away guns to preserve life, which they clearly are not, that says nothing about the ends justifying the means if they were successful in stopping shootings.

Like Thomas Jefferson, I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery any day. You want to live in bondage just to have the government be your mommy and daddy and dictate your life? Fine, I and other freedom loving Americans do not.

The 2nd amendment was intended to defend all other rights. Without the 2nd amendment the government can do what they want at will and no one could do anything about it.

350 million guns in the hands of Americans has been increasing since 1994 while gun crime has gone down. it has nothing to do with it.

"Yes, they in fact are taking away citizens guns to limit power, and they've been encroaching on our freedom and rights consistently for years now, but until they take away the 2nd amendment right they can't take away other rights in full measure - but just restrict them. "

Show me proof from a non-biased website that proves that the government is trying to limit citizen power by taking away guns, and that they're setting that as a priority over trying to decrease child deaths.

"Like Thomas Jefferson, I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery any day. You want to live in bondage just to have the government be your mommy and daddy and dictate your life? Fine, I and other freedom loving Americans do not. "

Thomas Jefferson lived during a time when school was limited, and when guns were hardly powerful, so he had no knowledge of how bad a school shooting could be. Mind you, you and other "freedom loving Americans" are quite small in number these days because of the children who lose their freedoms from being killed.

Reports say: Americans are willing to keep their rifles at the cost of childrens' lives!

"The 2nd amendment was intended to defend all other rights. Without the 2nd amendment the government can do what they want at will and no one could do anything about it. "

Generally, that was the 1st Amendment. The 2nd amendment basically allows violence, while the 1st allows speech.

"350 million guns in the hands of Americans has been increasing since 1994 while gun crime has gone down. it has nothing to do with it."

Gun crime has gone down =/= 18 shootings since the beginning of 2018 in the matter of 2 months.

242 years actually

Oh boy, I don't know why but people have forgotten that nukes and bombs exist or something? Funny, isn't it?

I think my IQ went down 20 points just by reading this. I'm going to guess you're about 15 yrs old or younger.

First of, nice ad-hominem, secondly it's called democide and it's happened many times before (look @ Nero of Rome, or any other dictator), thirdly, your using a strawman, mixing satire with the argument. Let's make things clear for you; The government has weapons like fighter jets, of which you have no access to, that make your handgun useless, if the government wants to take over, they can do it even if you have your tiny pellet shooter on you.

An ad hominem is a personal attack in lieu of an argument. I offered both an insult and an argument, but will admit is was uncalled for and will gladly stop if you stop using terms you clearly don't understand.

A government murdering their own people with chemical weapons and conventional weapons and nuking their own people - making their own land inhabitable and potentially creating a nuclear winter are entirely different issues. If it has " happened many times before " please provide the historical evidence to support a government nuking their own people.

You are comparing apples and oranges and even Tyrants are not stupid enough to nuke themselves to control their own people for personal benefit - Which is the purpose of Tyranny to begin with. You can't control people for your benefit if everyone, including the Tyrant, is dead and their own land uninhabitable for decades to come.

Amazing!

Maybe not nukes. Tanks, perhaps? Chemical weapons? F-35s? Think about what our government has rather than what you have if you're going to fight it.

Facts

Black people still worth 2/5 of a human in the US or has that been changed?

Did you mean 3/5s? It never existed. You're simply parroting popular progressive nonsense. The infamous three-fifths clause, which more nonsense has been written than any other clause, does not declare that a black person is worth 60 percent of a white person. It says that for purposes of determining the number of representatives for each state in the House (and direct taxes), the government would count only three-fifths of the slaves, and not all of them, as the Southern states, who wanted to gain more seats, had insisted. The 60,000 or so free blacks in the North and the South were counted on par with whites.