View Single Post
  #52  
Old 09-09-2019, 05:02 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves
They still don't necessarily mean what you want them to, no matter how frantically you handwave. That's been pointed out to you multiple times. You're telling us that you don't want the clause to mean anything, so it doesn't. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.
Except that we know it does because, again, the folks who wrote the thing also wrote extensively on the subject. That's always been the flaw in your argument because you have never bothered to really read what their thoughts were, instead just wanting to use a modern interpretation of a jumbled mashup of concepts that eventually got voted on....by a committee. In a hot room. With politicians with various goals and desires...one of which was to finish the vote and go somewhere else.

I didn't say the clause means nothing. Again, not like this should surprise you as we've discussed this before, so your feigned ignorance of this aspect is probably really convincing to everyone who hasn't seen these ridiculous debates with you in them for the last decade. If you REALLY don't recall I can go over it once again, but I think you know the answer...and why it DOES work that way.

Quote:
If you're declaring the rights of slaveholders to suppress insurrections, you're welcome to. Are you really?
Am I? Why no, I'm not. But clearly you DO know why it was worded the way it was, and who it applied too (namely...white folks). Of course, a lot of rights were set out with that exact same premise. The fact that the US was a slave holding state and that such accommodations were made in the past is distasteful, but I don't see you using a similar argument to get rid of the other rights that were intended for exactly the same set of people. Doing so would basically toss the entire Constitution out, which I doubt anyone really wants. Today, there aren't any slave holders...and, happily enough (though this still has massive flaws), nearly every citizen, regardless of race or religion can own a gun. Definitely not what the original authors wanted, to be sure...but not in the way that you are trying to make it. As the concept of who could and did have the franchise has expanded, so have the folks who are protected by the various rights.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 09-09-2019 at 05:04 PM.