Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If those sought to be the enslaved, were armed with the same firepower, as those wishing to enslave them, would there be slaves?
This goes for all of time, until the year 2015.
One must know how to use firearms properly. It's nice to have AR-15s but if you don't realize the safety is on when pointing it at others or off when pointed at your toes, firearms won't help you. That and knowing when to shoot and where to shoot rather than shooting like a NYPD at a doorway checking someone's papers. This is why besides cops, I don't buy into the good guy with a gun logic.
The original* Constitution was silent on slavery, and deliberately so; it was as anti-slavery of a document as the slave-dependent states would accept, and since the entire purpose of it was to establish a union between all the states that was how it was written. So you could say that slavery is constitutional, but prohibition of slavery was also constitutional**; it just wasn't an issue that was federal domain until the states delegated their power over the slavery issue to the federal government via the 13th Amendment. As Frederick Douglass points out, the Constitution is not a pro-slavery document. Everything else that was going on at the time suggests that if the Founding Fathers could have outlawed slavery nationwide right then, they would have.
Indeed, the language of the Declaration of Independence, whose promise is the end to which the Constitution serves as the means, implies that the existence of slavery is a violation of human liberty. The Declaration of Independence and the Founding Fathers created a revolutionary (in every sense of the word) new order based upon freedom and a justice based on equal and absolute liberty; post-revolutionary American society was born free, but too many people were excluded from that society. The ideology of the Founding Fathers, however, all but mandates extending that society to everyone; the Jacksonians extended it to all people free, white, and over 21, and the Abolitionists tried (and only partially succeeded) to extend it to everyone over 21. Since the Age of Jackson America lost its way in this mission, where instead of including more people in the free society the society was made less free in the name of inclusion; that might be an improvement for some demographics, but not nearly as much as they would experience if we had a free society to include them in.
*The "original Constitution" wasn't even fully ratified until 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) were added onto it; so taking the view that it wasn't fully formed until the last state (Rhode Island of all states) had ratified it, the Constitution was born with the 10 Bill of Rights amendments attached .
**Slavery was legal everywhere in the continent until Vermont abolished it in 1777, and by 1820 every state except those south of the Ohio River and Mason-Dixon line had abolished slavery. The Northwest Ordinance, passed in 1787 (same year they started writing the Constitution) prohibited any state formed from the Northwest Territory (the Great Lakes states west of Pennsylvania) from having legal slavery. So the entire legal structure that was created as of the Constitution being written was hostile to slavery's existence - not bad for a pack of rich white male racist slavers, was it? The one hurdle they couldn't overcome was the Southern states, whose agricultural economies were dependent on slavery at the time, and whose continued existence was (wrongly as we now know) thought at the time to only be possible through the use of slave labor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
You see slavery through the eyes of business rather than humanity? That's disturbing.
That's the way the slavers themselves saw it when the institution of slavery was brought to America: business and economics. People have been trained now to view any inhuman treatment of a race as motivated by racism, but the slave trade and Western Hemisphere slavery was motivated by business, not racism. The first people to be enslaved in the Americas were the natives, but there weren't enough of them; they made do with indentured whites for a while, but whites in that era couldn't easily be coerced. So the closest and easiest-to-get supply of slaves to run those plantations was in West Africa, where a slave trade conveniently already existed, and so it began. If Africans had looked like Aryan supermen instead of blacks it wouldn't have made any difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
I'm surprised anyone is still slogging away at this. Can't people put the slavery issue behind us? The U.S. didn't invent slavery, and it was African Muslims that ran the Atlantic Slave Trade, not white people. America ended slavery, while it still exists elsewhere in the world (Muslims are still taking adults and children for slaves).
Get over it.
Indeed, and the cruel irony is that the largest population of slaves today as a percentage is in Mauritania*, which just so happens to be in West Africa. All told that region has likely been plagued by slavery and slave trading more than any other in the world. Slavery there (and everywhere else for that matter) long predated the white man's arrival, and unfortunately in that region slavery long outlasted the white man's departure.
*To be fair slavery is illegal in that part of the world, but enforcement is just not there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Just think if the slaves had firearms equal to white men?
Would they be slaves?
The eternal mistake peoples make is not resisting oppression and defending themselves against it in its early stages, when it can be dismantled with the greatest effectiveness and the least bloodshed; the most effective way to stop oppression is to rise up (with violence and guns if necessary) at its first manifestation and have a revolution then rather than at a much later stage. The American Revolution is one of the few where the people rose up at the first sign of oppression, and if you ask me it partially explains why the Americans had a much more successful revolution than most places do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
If those sought to be the enslaved, were armed with the same firepower, as those wishing to enslave them, would there be slaves?
This goes for all of time, until the year 2015.
Indeed. A case in point is the Scottish and Irish versus the Romans - their fierce resistance dissuaded all attempts to incorporate them into the empire. A fiercely isolationist stance towards outsiders, like many an alien society in Star Trek, can work in one's favor under certain circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d
If the 2nd amendment was so important that it couldn't be changed, why is it the 2nd amendment and not the 1st?
I don't get the impression from either the original text of the Bill of Rights nor anything its authors wrote that the amendments were supposed to be in any particular order with regard to importance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
It isn't about whether he needs to worry about it. We established that early on. It's basically now just about him insisting that his proprietary, erroneous understanding of constitutional law is correct, so he can use his chosen corruption as rationalization for subsequent perspectives he wishes to promote.
And people say my posts are much verbosity about nothing...
Last edited by Patricius Maximus; 02-16-2015 at 08:11 AM..
I'll never admit that, "shall not be infringed" means, may be infringed.
One would have to be a complete idiot, to think everyone else is an idiot, to redefine it to mean that.
It's still just words on paper. The constitution has meaning and force only because we choose to abide by it.
Your personal feelings are not immutable law for everyone else.
One must know how to use firearms properly. It's nice to have AR-15s but if you don't realize the safety is on when pointing it at others or off when pointed at your toes, firearms won't help you. That and knowing when to shoot and where to shoot rather than shooting like a NYPD at a doorway checking someone's papers. This is why besides cops, I don't buy into the good guy with a gun logic.
I like to dance, but this isn't the song........
Answer the question.
If the slaves were armed with the same firepower as those trying to enslave them, would there have ever been slaves?
You know the answer. Only those willing to surrender.
Give me liberty or give me death, rings true today, as it did then.
Yes, shall be....
Is defined much differently than, shall not.
Congress has the power to tax and always has, and the wording shall not be infringed was not in the direct tax clause of the constitution. It told the government no you cannot tax directly. It didn't say you can never tax directly as shall not infringe, defines.
We fought a bloody war over direct taxes from a central government..... Taxes can be used to oppress the ruled.
From 1900-1920, government seized a lot of power from the people. The 16th amendment being just one.
The only thing good to come from that time, was women's suffrage creating the right for them to cast a vote.
The 1930's, started where 1920 left off. More grabbing of liberty and making it a privilege.
It's no sense trying to argue facts and logic with someone who isn't interested in facts and logic. You're not going to convince him that "shall not be infringed" means what it says because he's already got a preconceived bias for gun control. That means he isn't interested in what the constitution actually says about it. He's interested in how he can justify gun control, not in an accurate interpretation of the amendment. It's useless to prove how his interpretation of the amendment isn't correct when he isn't interested in whether it's correct or not to begin with. He's interested in how he can use the wording to justify his preconceived ideology, not in accurately applying the text.
I like to dance, but this isn't the song........
Answer the question.
If the slaves were armed with the same firepower as those trying to enslave them, would there have ever been slaves?
You know the answer. Only those willing to surrender.
Give me liberty or give me death, rings true today, as it did then.
They wouldn't surrender until after several are killed, this happened under U.S. slavery. Remember the Fugitive Slave Act and Dred Scott Case? Slaves were beaten even killed as examples of defiance. One or two sacrifices, The rest stood in line. In the case of kill or be killed, The strong always win. Slaves even with fire power aren't the stronger out the two...
It's no sense trying to argue facts and logic with someone who isn't interested in facts and logic. You're not going to convince him that "shall not be infringed" means what it says because he's already got a preconceived bias for gun control. That means he isn't interested in what the constitution actually says about it. He's interested in how he can justify gun control, not in an accurate interpretation of the amendment. It's useless to prove how his interpretation of the amendment isn't correct when he isn't interested in whether it's correct or not to begin with. He's interested in how he can use the wording to justify his preconceived ideology, not in accurately applying the text.
The post he replied to was not about guns, it was about policy that was on the constitution that were considered fine in 1787 when drafted and 1791 upon final ratification but later got removed such as no taxes on the federal level, equal protection and due process under the law, and slavery. Could guns go that way, perhaps if we have another several emotional heartstring shootings similar to Sandy Hook on defenseless innocent children, bring up the debate again.
They wouldn't surrender until after several are killed, this happened under U.S. slavery. Remember the Fugitive Slave Act and Dred Scott Case? Slaves were beaten even killed as examples of defiance. One or two sacrifices, The rest stood in line. In the case of kill or be killed, The strong always win. Slaves even with fire power aren't the stronger out the two...
Yet, many more still defied oppression.
The tree of liberty, is best watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
— Declaration of Independence, 1776
Let's not forget that, George Washington, who owned hundreds of slaves, denounced it as “repugnant.”
Although one can NEVER judge history by perfect 20/20 hindsight, I think it is pretty safe to assume that slavery is never constitutional.
The tree of liberty, is best watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Few did, most took the path of least resistance to survive. What's more important, the right to life or liberty. Slaves really didn't get to chose and still don't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
The one hurdle they couldn't overcome was the Southern states, whose agricultural economies were dependent on slavery at the time, and whose continued existence was (wrongly as we now know) thought at the time to only be possible through the use of slave labor.
