 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Uncle JD... |
Aaron Scott |
| UncleJD wrote: | Ban trucks. They kill horrifically when the murderer decides to use one of those, and you can rent them at Home Depot to do it and don't even need a background check!
Ban murder, that is the only thing that will work, oh wait, that doesn't work and the punishment is DEATH! So why on earth do you think your little pacifier of "banning black plastic-coated guns", is going to stop anything? Banning something used and owned by literally millions of people will do nothing but appease the left. Did the ban in Belgium and France stop people hell-bent on death from doing what they were going to do? If you spend months planning murder and somehow don't have access to an AR-15, are you done? The immature want something done and done right now and the easiest thing to blame is never the actual cause, facts are only going to anger them, they will scream and yell until they get their way.
The vaunted FBI, the ones that spent one year trying to sway an election then the next year trying to make up for it by blaming Trump and getting nowhere, were told about this guy a month ago! They did NOTHING! There's the blame if you want to point a finger, but nope we don't want to blame them and the real reasons why this has haunted us the last 40 years, lets go after the guns.
I think I'll go to Academy and see what they have with black plastic on it. |
Uncle JD, now, friend, it's not fair to act like ANYTHING that is used to kill people is somehow morally equivalent to an assault rifle. A car may indeed be the thing that kills someone, but it is not DESIGNED to kill. An assault rifle--notice what it is called, by the way--is PRECISELY DESIGNED to kill. Hopefully, only in self-defense. Hopefully, not even that--just a deterrent.
But we have to begin owning that while guns do indeed have their place as a means of protecting one's family and property (which, when you think about it, does a person deserve the death penalty for stealing your car?), an assault rifle is so asymmetrical a response to any reasonable range of scenarios that it begs for some justification. It's not enough to say, "It's all good because the Constitution said it." HOGWASH. Yes, we certainly should value our Constitutional rights, but I will point out that the Constitutional also counted human beings as 3/5ths of person. So, the Bill of Rights is important...but it should never trump common sense and decency. And even with the great respect that it deserves, we at times need to reevaluate whether the 2nd Amendment really means all that the NRA wants us to think it means. I mean, do all of us REALLY think that the First Amendment should protect obscenity and flag-burning, etc.? I don't!
The notion that ANY sort of gun control means we are on a slippery slope to tyranny is the pretty much the same theory that the ACLU uses to claim that any vile obscenity ought to be countenanced, since to not do so means we want our freedom of speech curtailed.
I am not even really arguing that we can't have AR-15s. I AM arguing that to CONTINUE owning one, or to buy one in the future, you ought to have to pass some significant hurdles:
1) An extensive and meaningful waiting period.
2) A full background check that goes beyond whether you were arrested before. We ought to demand to know if there have been violence issues, fringe associations, etc.
3) The requirement (perhaps) of insurance for any damage done by the gun.
4) A psychological profiling.
5) And, any time any certain lines are crossed (e.g., found guilty of violence or threats; any crime committed; any sort of social media that would serve as a reasonable warning, etc.), we find a way to take that gun out of these hands.
You get the idea.
Is that really too big a deal for the NRA to handle...in the face of CHILDREN being killed by those who feel so superior with one of those guns in their hands? |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6036
2/16/18 9:09 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Re: Uncle JD... |
Resident Skeptic |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | UncleJD wrote: | Ban trucks. They kill horrifically when the murderer decides to use one of those, and you can rent them at Home Depot to do it and don't even need a background check!
Ban murder, that is the only thing that will work, oh wait, that doesn't work and the punishment is DEATH! So why on earth do you think your little pacifier of "banning black plastic-coated guns", is going to stop anything? Banning something used and owned by literally millions of people will do nothing but appease the left. Did the ban in Belgium and France stop people hell-bent on death from doing what they were going to do? If you spend months planning murder and somehow don't have access to an AR-15, are you done? The immature want something done and done right now and the easiest thing to blame is never the actual cause, facts are only going to anger them, they will scream and yell until they get their way.
The vaunted FBI, the ones that spent one year trying to sway an election then the next year trying to make up for it by blaming Trump and getting nowhere, were told about this guy a month ago! They did NOTHING! There's the blame if you want to point a finger, but nope we don't want to blame them and the real reasons why this has haunted us the last 40 years, lets go after the guns.
I think I'll go to Academy and see what they have with black plastic on it. |
Uncle JD, now, friend, it's not fair to act like ANYTHING that is used to kill people is somehow morally equivalent to an assault rifle. A car may indeed be the thing that kills someone, but it is not DESIGNED to kill. An assault rifle--notice what it is called, by the way--is PRECISELY DESIGNED to kill. Hopefully, only in self-defense. Hopefully, not even that--just a deterrent.
But we have to begin owning that while guns do indeed have their place as a means of protecting one's family and property (which, when you think about it, does a person deserve the death penalty for stealing your car?), an assault rifle is so asymmetrical a response to any reasonable range of scenarios that it begs for some justification. It's not enough to say, "It's all good because the Constitution said it." HOGWASH. Yes, we certainly should value our Constitutional rights, but I will point out that the Constitutional also counted human beings as 3/5ths of person. So, the Bill of Rights is important...but it should never trump common sense and decency. And even with the great respect that it deserves, we at times need to reevaluate whether the 2nd Amendment really means all that the NRA wants us to think it means. I mean, do all of us REALLY think that the First Amendment should protect obscenity and flag-burning, etc.? I don't!
The notion that ANY sort of gun control means we are on a slippery slope to tyranny is the pretty much the same theory that the ACLU uses to claim that any vile obscenity ought to be countenanced, since to not do so means we want our freedom of speech curtailed.
I am not even really arguing that we can't have AR-15s. I AM arguing that to CONTINUE owning one, or to buy one in the future, you ought to have to pass some significant hurdles:
1) An extensive and meaningful waiting period.
2) A full background check that goes beyond whether you were arrested before. We ought to demand to know if there have been violence issues, fringe associations, etc.
3) The requirement (perhaps) of insurance for any damage done by the gun.
4) A psychological profiling.
5) And, any time any certain lines are crossed (e.g., found guilty of violence or threats; any crime committed; any sort of social media that would serve as a reasonable warning, etc.), we find a way to take that gun out of these hands.
You get the idea.
Is that really too big a deal for the NRA to handle...in the face of CHILDREN being killed by those who feel so superior with one of those guns in their hands? |
The Constitution NEVER counted anyone as a 3/5 of person. A history major should know that. Shameful.
| Quote: | Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. |
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/16/18 9:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Resident...what? |
Aaron Scott |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | UncleJD wrote: | Ban trucks. They kill horrifically when the murderer decides to use one of those, and you can rent them at Home Depot to do it and don't even need a background check!
Ban murder, that is the only thing that will work, oh wait, that doesn't work and the punishment is DEATH! So why on earth do you think your little pacifier of "banning black plastic-coated guns", is going to stop anything? Banning something used and owned by literally millions of people will do nothing but appease the left. Did the ban in Belgium and France stop people hell-bent on death from doing what they were going to do? If you spend months planning murder and somehow don't have access to an AR-15, are you done? The immature want something done and done right now and the easiest thing to blame is never the actual cause, facts are only going to anger them, they will scream and yell until they get their way.
The vaunted FBI, the ones that spent one year trying to sway an election then the next year trying to make up for it by blaming Trump and getting nowhere, were told about this guy a month ago! They did NOTHING! There's the blame if you want to point a finger, but nope we don't want to blame them and the real reasons why this has haunted us the last 40 years, lets go after the guns.
I think I'll go to Academy and see what they have with black plastic on it. |
Uncle JD, now, friend, it's not fair to act like ANYTHING that is used to kill people is somehow morally equivalent to an assault rifle. A car may indeed be the thing that kills someone, but it is not DESIGNED to kill. An assault rifle--notice what it is called, by the way--is PRECISELY DESIGNED to kill. Hopefully, only in self-defense. Hopefully, not even that--just a deterrent.
But we have to begin owning that while guns do indeed have their place as a means of protecting one's family and property (which, when you think about it, does a person deserve the death penalty for stealing your car?), an assault rifle is so asymmetrical a response to any reasonable range of scenarios that it begs for some justification. It's not enough to say, "It's all good because the Constitution said it." HOGWASH. Yes, we certainly should value our Constitutional rights, but I will point out that the Constitutional also counted human beings as 3/5ths of person. So, the Bill of Rights is important...but it should never trump common sense and decency. And even with the great respect that it deserves, we at times need to reevaluate whether the 2nd Amendment really means all that the NRA wants us to think it means. I mean, do all of us REALLY think that the First Amendment should protect obscenity and flag-burning, etc.? I don't!
The notion that ANY sort of gun control means we are on a slippery slope to tyranny is the pretty much the same theory that the ACLU uses to claim that any vile obscenity ought to be countenanced, since to not do so means we want our freedom of speech curtailed.
I am not even really arguing that we can't have AR-15s. I AM arguing that to CONTINUE owning one, or to buy one in the future, you ought to have to pass some significant hurdles:
1) An extensive and meaningful waiting period.
2) A full background check that goes beyond whether you were arrested before. We ought to demand to know if there have been violence issues, fringe associations, etc.
3) The requirement (perhaps) of insurance for any damage done by the gun.
4) A psychological profiling.
5) And, any time any certain lines are crossed (e.g., found guilty of violence or threats; any crime committed; any sort of social media that would serve as a reasonable warning, etc.), we find a way to take that gun out of these hands.
You get the idea.
Is that really too big a deal for the NRA to handle...in the face of CHILDREN being killed by those who feel so superior with one of those guns in their hands? |
The Constitution NEVER counted anyone as a 3/5 of person. A history major should know that. Shameful.
| Quote: | Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. |
|
I don’t get what you mean by denying that slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person? Seriously, what do you mean? |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6036
2/17/18 12:44 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Resident...what? |
Resident Skeptic |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | UncleJD wrote: | Ban trucks. They kill horrifically when the murderer decides to use one of those, and you can rent them at Home Depot to do it and don't even need a background check!
Ban murder, that is the only thing that will work, oh wait, that doesn't work and the punishment is DEATH! So why on earth do you think your little pacifier of "banning black plastic-coated guns", is going to stop anything? Banning something used and owned by literally millions of people will do nothing but appease the left. Did the ban in Belgium and France stop people hell-bent on death from doing what they were going to do? If you spend months planning murder and somehow don't have access to an AR-15, are you done? The immature want something done and done right now and the easiest thing to blame is never the actual cause, facts are only going to anger them, they will scream and yell until they get their way.
The vaunted FBI, the ones that spent one year trying to sway an election then the next year trying to make up for it by blaming Trump and getting nowhere, were told about this guy a month ago! They did NOTHING! There's the blame if you want to point a finger, but nope we don't want to blame them and the real reasons why this has haunted us the last 40 years, lets go after the guns.
I think I'll go to Academy and see what they have with black plastic on it. |
Uncle JD, now, friend, it's not fair to act like ANYTHING that is used to kill people is somehow morally equivalent to an assault rifle. A car may indeed be the thing that kills someone, but it is not DESIGNED to kill. An assault rifle--notice what it is called, by the way--is PRECISELY DESIGNED to kill. Hopefully, only in self-defense. Hopefully, not even that--just a deterrent.
But we have to begin owning that while guns do indeed have their place as a means of protecting one's family and property (which, when you think about it, does a person deserve the death penalty for stealing your car?), an assault rifle is so asymmetrical a response to any reasonable range of scenarios that it begs for some justification. It's not enough to say, "It's all good because the Constitution said it." HOGWASH. Yes, we certainly should value our Constitutional rights, but I will point out that the Constitutional also counted human beings as 3/5ths of person. So, the Bill of Rights is important...but it should never trump common sense and decency. And even with the great respect that it deserves, we at times need to reevaluate whether the 2nd Amendment really means all that the NRA wants us to think it means. I mean, do all of us REALLY think that the First Amendment should protect obscenity and flag-burning, etc.? I don't!
The notion that ANY sort of gun control means we are on a slippery slope to tyranny is the pretty much the same theory that the ACLU uses to claim that any vile obscenity ought to be countenanced, since to not do so means we want our freedom of speech curtailed.
I am not even really arguing that we can't have AR-15s. I AM arguing that to CONTINUE owning one, or to buy one in the future, you ought to have to pass some significant hurdles:
1) An extensive and meaningful waiting period.
2) A full background check that goes beyond whether you were arrested before. We ought to demand to know if there have been violence issues, fringe associations, etc.
3) The requirement (perhaps) of insurance for any damage done by the gun.
4) A psychological profiling.
5) And, any time any certain lines are crossed (e.g., found guilty of violence or threats; any crime committed; any sort of social media that would serve as a reasonable warning, etc.), we find a way to take that gun out of these hands.
You get the idea.
Is that really too big a deal for the NRA to handle...in the face of CHILDREN being killed by those who feel so superior with one of those guns in their hands? |
The Constitution NEVER counted anyone as a 3/5 of person. A history major should know that. Shameful.
| Quote: | Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. |
|
I don’t get what you mean by denying that slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person? Seriously, what do you mean? |
Because that is not what the article says. It does not even say "slaves". It says "all other persons" , distinguishing them from the other parties listed previously that would be counted in Congressional representation. Slaves just happened to fall in the group. Thus 3/5 of any slaves in a State would be counted. It is not saying that each slave is "3/5 of a person".
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Last edited by Resident Skeptic on 2/17/18 10:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/17/18 8:17 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| From AR-15 to slaves ... |
Mat |
Sounds like the court appearance of the shooter - guns, race and hate. All we need is a little profanity and we got the same "spirit." I think we all need a mental health day.
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1986
2/17/18 8:37 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Resident...what? |
Aaron Scott |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | UncleJD wrote: | Ban trucks. They kill horrifically when the murderer decides to use one of those, and you can rent them at Home Depot to do it and don't even need a background check!
Ban murder, that is the only thing that will work, oh wait, that doesn't work and the punishment is DEATH! So why on earth do you think your little pacifier of "banning black plastic-coated guns", is going to stop anything? Banning something used and owned by literally millions of people will do nothing but appease the left. Did the ban in Belgium and France stop people hell-bent on death from doing what they were going to do? If you spend months planning murder and somehow don't have access to an AR-15, are you done? The immature want something done and done right now and the easiest thing to blame is never the actual cause, facts are only going to anger them, they will scream and yell until they get their way.
The vaunted FBI, the ones that spent one year trying to sway an election then the next year trying to make up for it by blaming Trump and getting nowhere, were told about this guy a month ago! They did NOTHING! There's the blame if you want to point a finger, but nope we don't want to blame them and the real reasons why this has haunted us the last 40 years, lets go after the guns.
I think I'll go to Academy and see what they have with black plastic on it. |
Uncle JD, now, friend, it's not fair to act like ANYTHING that is used to kill people is somehow morally equivalent to an assault rifle. A car may indeed be the thing that kills someone, but it is not DESIGNED to kill. An assault rifle--notice what it is called, by the way--is PRECISELY DESIGNED to kill. Hopefully, only in self-defense. Hopefully, not even that--just a deterrent.
But we have to begin owning that while guns do indeed have their place as a means of protecting one's family and property (which, when you think about it, does a person deserve the death penalty for stealing your car?), an assault rifle is so asymmetrical a response to any reasonable range of scenarios that it begs for some justification. It's not enough to say, "It's all good because the Constitution said it." HOGWASH. Yes, we certainly should value our Constitutional rights, but I will point out that the Constitutional also counted human beings as 3/5ths of person. So, the Bill of Rights is important...but it should never trump common sense and decency. And even with the great respect that it deserves, we at times need to reevaluate whether the 2nd Amendment really means all that the NRA wants us to think it means. I mean, do all of us REALLY think that the First Amendment should protect obscenity and flag-burning, etc.? I don't!
The notion that ANY sort of gun control means we are on a slippery slope to tyranny is the pretty much the same theory that the ACLU uses to claim that any vile obscenity ought to be countenanced, since to not do so means we want our freedom of speech curtailed.
I am not even really arguing that we can't have AR-15s. I AM arguing that to CONTINUE owning one, or to buy one in the future, you ought to have to pass some significant hurdles:
1) An extensive and meaningful waiting period.
2) A full background check that goes beyond whether you were arrested before. We ought to demand to know if there have been violence issues, fringe associations, etc.
3) The requirement (perhaps) of insurance for any damage done by the gun.
4) A psychological profiling.
5) And, any time any certain lines are crossed (e.g., found guilty of violence or threats; any crime committed; any sort of social media that would serve as a reasonable warning, etc.), we find a way to take that gun out of these hands.
You get the idea.
Is that really too big a deal for the NRA to handle...in the face of CHILDREN being killed by those who feel so superior with one of those guns in their hands? |
The Constitution NEVER counted anyone as a 3/5 of person. A history major should know that. Shameful.
| Quote: | Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. |
|
I don’t get what you mean by denying that slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person? Seriously, what do you mean? |
Because that is not what the article says. It does not even say "slaves". It says "all other persons" , distinguishing them from the other parties listed previously that would be counted in Congressional representation. Slaves just happened to fall in the group. Thus 3/5 of any slaves in a State would counted. It is not saying that each slave is "3/5 of a person". |
Resident, PLEASE. This is just poor thinking and research. First, my degree is not in history (although I teach it). Second, you are dead wrong about your point. The SPECIFIC aim of the southern colonies was to have their slaves counted for representation purposes. That's why it was a COMPROMISE. The north didn't think it was right to count ANY slaves; the south wanted to count ALL slaves. Hence, a compromise. Third, if only 3/5ths of the slaves in a state would be counted, then each slave is the equivalent of 3/5ths of a free person. Perhaps you could tell us just who else is counted in that 3/5ths calculation if free people and those bound by a term of service are being counted, but NO Indians are being counted? I wonder who else remains? Hmmmm...oh, wait! It's coming to me! |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6036
2/17/18 9:19 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Uncle JD... |
UncleJD |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | 3) The requirement (perhaps) of insurance for any damage done by the gun. |
Cool. This is more repressive than the poll-tax. Poor people who live in the inner city who have to face violence 100x what you and I do should be subjected to an expense before being "allowed" to defend themselves. Brother, this is as leftist as it gets right here. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3145
2/17/18 10:29 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Resident...what? |
Resident Skeptic |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | UncleJD wrote: | Ban trucks. They kill horrifically when the murderer decides to use one of those, and you can rent them at Home Depot to do it and don't even need a background check!
Ban murder, that is the only thing that will work, oh wait, that doesn't work and the punishment is DEATH! So why on earth do you think your little pacifier of "banning black plastic-coated guns", is going to stop anything? Banning something used and owned by literally millions of people will do nothing but appease the left. Did the ban in Belgium and France stop people hell-bent on death from doing what they were going to do? If you spend months planning murder and somehow don't have access to an AR-15, are you done? The immature want something done and done right now and the easiest thing to blame is never the actual cause, facts are only going to anger them, they will scream and yell until they get their way.
The vaunted FBI, the ones that spent one year trying to sway an election then the next year trying to make up for it by blaming Trump and getting nowhere, were told about this guy a month ago! They did NOTHING! There's the blame if you want to point a finger, but nope we don't want to blame them and the real reasons why this has haunted us the last 40 years, lets go after the guns.
I think I'll go to Academy and see what they have with black plastic on it. |
Uncle JD, now, friend, it's not fair to act like ANYTHING that is used to kill people is somehow morally equivalent to an assault rifle. A car may indeed be the thing that kills someone, but it is not DESIGNED to kill. An assault rifle--notice what it is called, by the way--is PRECISELY DESIGNED to kill. Hopefully, only in self-defense. Hopefully, not even that--just a deterrent.
But we have to begin owning that while guns do indeed have their place as a means of protecting one's family and property (which, when you think about it, does a person deserve the death penalty for stealing your car?), an assault rifle is so asymmetrical a response to any reasonable range of scenarios that it begs for some justification. It's not enough to say, "It's all good because the Constitution said it." HOGWASH. Yes, we certainly should value our Constitutional rights, but I will point out that the Constitutional also counted human beings as 3/5ths of person. So, the Bill of Rights is important...but it should never trump common sense and decency. And even with the great respect that it deserves, we at times need to reevaluate whether the 2nd Amendment really means all that the NRA wants us to think it means. I mean, do all of us REALLY think that the First Amendment should protect obscenity and flag-burning, etc.? I don't!
The notion that ANY sort of gun control means we are on a slippery slope to tyranny is the pretty much the same theory that the ACLU uses to claim that any vile obscenity ought to be countenanced, since to not do so means we want our freedom of speech curtailed.
I am not even really arguing that we can't have AR-15s. I AM arguing that to CONTINUE owning one, or to buy one in the future, you ought to have to pass some significant hurdles:
1) An extensive and meaningful waiting period.
2) A full background check that goes beyond whether you were arrested before. We ought to demand to know if there have been violence issues, fringe associations, etc.
3) The requirement (perhaps) of insurance for any damage done by the gun.
4) A psychological profiling.
5) And, any time any certain lines are crossed (e.g., found guilty of violence or threats; any crime committed; any sort of social media that would serve as a reasonable warning, etc.), we find a way to take that gun out of these hands.
You get the idea.
Is that really too big a deal for the NRA to handle...in the face of CHILDREN being killed by those who feel so superior with one of those guns in their hands? |
The Constitution NEVER counted anyone as a 3/5 of person. A history major should know that. Shameful.
| Quote: | Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. |
|
I don’t get what you mean by denying that slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person? Seriously, what do you mean? |
Because that is not what the article says. It does not even say "slaves". It says "all other persons" , distinguishing them from the other parties listed previously that would be counted in Congressional representation. Slaves just happened to fall in the group. Thus 3/5 of any slaves in a State would counted. It is not saying that each slave is "3/5 of a person". |
Resident, PLEASE. This is just poor thinking and research. First, my degree is not in history (although I teach it). Second, you are dead wrong about your point. The SPECIFIC aim of the southern colonies was to have their slaves counted for representation purposes. That's why it was a COMPROMISE. The north didn't think it was right to count ANY slaves; the south wanted to count ALL slaves. Hence, a compromise. Third, if only 3/5ths of the slaves in a state would be counted, then each slave is the equivalent of 3/5ths of a free person. Perhaps you could tell us just who else is counted in that 3/5ths calculation if free people and those bound by a term of service are being counted, but NO Indians are being counted? I wonder who else remains? Hmmmm...oh, wait! It's coming to me! |
-
Aaron, as I stated, this was indeed about Congressional representation. It is obvious that the southerners believed that a slave was 5/5 of a person since, as you stated, they wanted all of them counted in Congressional representation. The compromise was to allow 3/5 of them to be represented. This was not some eugenics debate. Stop spewing left-wing lies.
My research is just fine. I simply do not allow it to be tainted by political correctness as you do yours. You made a false statement about our Constitution when you said....
| Quote: | | the Constitutional also counted human beings as 3/5ths of person |
Shameful.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/17/18 10:51 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Hey RS, you mention the south was so awesome because they wanted slaves to count as 5/5ths of a person... quick question... could slaves cast 5/5ths of a vote during elections? Or could they only cast 3/5ths of a vote? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
2/17/18 11:25 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Lets see if I can get this back on topic. |
UncleJD |
| The NRA believed in arming former slaves and helping them exercise their rights to defend themselves according to the Constitution. I strongly support both the NRA and the rights of law-abiding Black Americans (5/5ths of them), to own whatever type of rifle they need to meet the threat of violence with equal and even overwhelming force. I further equate the suggestion of Aaron that they should have to pay a fee to obtain this right, as repressive and even worse than the Jim Crow laws such as Poll Taxes, as its designed to keep the poor in their place. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3145
2/17/18 11:31 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| No, Uncle JD... |
Aaron Scott |
| UncleJD wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | 3) The requirement (perhaps) of insurance for any damage done by the gun. |
Cool. This is more repressive than the poll-tax. Poor people who live in the inner city who have to face violence 100x what you and I do should be subjected to an expense before being "allowed" to defend themselves. Brother, this is as leftist as it gets right here. |
No, you are incorrect. You are assuming that an AR-15 is ESSENTIAL. Now, if we were doing WATER that way, say, then, yes, you'd be right. But you might as well argue that it's unfair that the rich can own more gold than the poor. Yes, that's right, they can...but gold is not an essential need.
Neither is an AR-15. A shotgun or pistol (as I have mentioned elsewhere) is MORE THAN ENOUGH to deal with virtually ANY range of reasonable scenarios that any American citizen will face.
I'm not leftist...you're NRA-ist (SMILE). |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6036
2/17/18 11:52 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Resident...what? |
Aaron Scott |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | UncleJD wrote: | Ban trucks. They kill horrifically when the murderer decides to use one of those, and you can rent them at Home Depot to do it and don't even need a background check!
Ban murder, that is the only thing that will work, oh wait, that doesn't work and the punishment is DEATH! So why on earth do you think your little pacifier of "banning black plastic-coated guns", is going to stop anything? Banning something used and owned by literally millions of people will do nothing but appease the left. Did the ban in Belgium and France stop people hell-bent on death from doing what they were going to do? If you spend months planning murder and somehow don't have access to an AR-15, are you done? The immature want something done and done right now and the easiest thing to blame is never the actual cause, facts are only going to anger them, they will scream and yell until they get their way.
The vaunted FBI, the ones that spent one year trying to sway an election then the next year trying to make up for it by blaming Trump and getting nowhere, were told about this guy a month ago! They did NOTHING! There's the blame if you want to point a finger, but nope we don't want to blame them and the real reasons why this has haunted us the last 40 years, lets go after the guns.
I think I'll go to Academy and see what they have with black plastic on it. |
Uncle JD, now, friend, it's not fair to act like ANYTHING that is used to kill people is somehow morally equivalent to an assault rifle. A car may indeed be the thing that kills someone, but it is not DESIGNED to kill. An assault rifle--notice what it is called, by the way--is PRECISELY DESIGNED to kill. Hopefully, only in self-defense. Hopefully, not even that--just a deterrent.
But we have to begin owning that while guns do indeed have their place as a means of protecting one's family and property (which, when you think about it, does a person deserve the death penalty for stealing your car?), an assault rifle is so asymmetrical a response to any reasonable range of scenarios that it begs for some justification. It's not enough to say, "It's all good because the Constitution said it." HOGWASH. Yes, we certainly should value our Constitutional rights, but I will point out that the Constitutional also counted human beings as 3/5ths of person. So, the Bill of Rights is important...but it should never trump common sense and decency. And even with the great respect that it deserves, we at times need to reevaluate whether the 2nd Amendment really means all that the NRA wants us to think it means. I mean, do all of us REALLY think that the First Amendment should protect obscenity and flag-burning, etc.? I don't!
The notion that ANY sort of gun control means we are on a slippery slope to tyranny is the pretty much the same theory that the ACLU uses to claim that any vile obscenity ought to be countenanced, since to not do so means we want our freedom of speech curtailed.
I am not even really arguing that we can't have AR-15s. I AM arguing that to CONTINUE owning one, or to buy one in the future, you ought to have to pass some significant hurdles:
1) An extensive and meaningful waiting period.
2) A full background check that goes beyond whether you were arrested before. We ought to demand to know if there have been violence issues, fringe associations, etc.
3) The requirement (perhaps) of insurance for any damage done by the gun.
4) A psychological profiling.
5) And, any time any certain lines are crossed (e.g., found guilty of violence or threats; any crime committed; any sort of social media that would serve as a reasonable warning, etc.), we find a way to take that gun out of these hands.
You get the idea.
Is that really too big a deal for the NRA to handle...in the face of CHILDREN being killed by those who feel so superior with one of those guns in their hands? |
The Constitution NEVER counted anyone as a 3/5 of person. A history major should know that. Shameful.
| Quote: | Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. |
|
I don’t get what you mean by denying that slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person? Seriously, what do you mean? |
Because that is not what the article says. It does not even say "slaves". It says "all other persons" , distinguishing them from the other parties listed previously that would be counted in Congressional representation. Slaves just happened to fall in the group. Thus 3/5 of any slaves in a State would counted. It is not saying that each slave is "3/5 of a person". |
Resident, PLEASE. This is just poor thinking and research. First, my degree is not in history (although I teach it). Second, you are dead wrong about your point. The SPECIFIC aim of the southern colonies was to have their slaves counted for representation purposes. That's why it was a COMPROMISE. The north didn't think it was right to count ANY slaves; the south wanted to count ALL slaves. Hence, a compromise. Third, if only 3/5ths of the slaves in a state would be counted, then each slave is the equivalent of 3/5ths of a free person. Perhaps you could tell us just who else is counted in that 3/5ths calculation if free people and those bound by a term of service are being counted, but NO Indians are being counted? I wonder who else remains? Hmmmm...oh, wait! It's coming to me! |
-
Aaron, as I stated, this was indeed about Congressional representation. It is obvious that the southerners believed that a slave was 5/5 of a person since, as you stated, they wanted all of them counted in Congressional representation. The compromise was to allow 3/5 of them to be represented. This was not some eugenics debate. Stop spewing left-wing lies.
Really? They thought they were FULLY human? But wouldn't let them vote. Enslaved them. In many cases, would not even permit them to learn to read and write?
They wanted to count them NOT because they considered them equal to white men, but because they didn't want the north to have more representatives than them. When you claim they considered them 5/5ths of a person, what you mean is that they wanted them to COUNT as 5/5ths of a person...NOT that they considered them the equals of whites or even DESERVING to be the equals of whites in terms of freedom, rights, consideration, etc.
C'mon, get your stuff together, friend.
My research is just fine. I simply do not allow it to be tainted by political correctness as you do yours. You made a false statement about our Constitution when you said....
| Quote: | | the Constitutional also counted human beings as 3/5ths of person |
Again, the Constitution DID consider slaves to be 3/5ths of a person, since a slave counted for only a little over half of a person. The North's claim was that if the south wouldn't even let them vote or what have you, then the south had no right to count them, as that would be the moral equivalent of counting one's cattle.
The south wanted all the benefits of having the slaves counted, but NONE of the accountability that comes with having to actually win the votes of slaves.
Slaves were basically the ONLY people in America that counted as 3/5ths of a person. Indians counted even less--they didn't count at all. Foreigners obviously didn't count either. Pretty much everyone else DID count.
Shameful. |
What's shameful is you trying to act avoid the awful truth about matters. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6036
2/17/18 12:05 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: No, Uncle JD... |
UncleJD |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | UncleJD wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | 3) The requirement (perhaps) of insurance for any damage done by the gun. |
Cool. This is more repressive than the poll-tax. Poor people who live in the inner city who have to face violence 100x what you and I do should be subjected to an expense before being "allowed" to defend themselves. Brother, this is as leftist as it gets right here. |
No, you are incorrect. You are assuming that an AR-15 is ESSENTIAL. Now, if we were doing WATER that way, say, then, yes, you'd be right. But you might as well argue that it's unfair that the rich can own more gold than the poor. Yes, that's right, they can...but gold is not an essential need.
Neither is an AR-15. A shotgun or pistol (as I have mentioned elsewhere) is MORE THAN ENOUGH to deal with virtually ANY range of reasonable scenarios that any American citizen will face.
I'm not leftist...you're NRA-ist (SMILE). |
Ok Joe Biden, I guess when they come to your house with AR-15s just fire your double-barrel shotgun up in the air. So self defense isn't "essential", wow, more leftism. I guess "voting" isn't essential either so go ahead and tax them. Tax, tax, tax, restrict rights, guide and direct everyone's lives for them. Yep, that's a leftist. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3145
2/17/18 12:06 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Resident...what? |
Resident Skeptic |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | UncleJD wrote: | Ban trucks. They kill horrifically when the murderer decides to use one of those, and you can rent them at Home Depot to do it and don't even need a background check!
Ban murder, that is the only thing that will work, oh wait, that doesn't work and the punishment is DEATH! So why on earth do you think your little pacifier of "banning black plastic-coated guns", is going to stop anything? Banning something used and owned by literally millions of people will do nothing but appease the left. Did the ban in Belgium and France stop people hell-bent on death from doing what they were going to do? If you spend months planning murder and somehow don't have access to an AR-15, are you done? The immature want something done and done right now and the easiest thing to blame is never the actual cause, facts are only going to anger them, they will scream and yell until they get their way.
The vaunted FBI, the ones that spent one year trying to sway an election then the next year trying to make up for it by blaming Trump and getting nowhere, were told about this guy a month ago! They did NOTHING! There's the blame if you want to point a finger, but nope we don't want to blame them and the real reasons why this has haunted us the last 40 years, lets go after the guns.
I think I'll go to Academy and see what they have with black plastic on it. |
Uncle JD, now, friend, it's not fair to act like ANYTHING that is used to kill people is somehow morally equivalent to an assault rifle. A car may indeed be the thing that kills someone, but it is not DESIGNED to kill. An assault rifle--notice what it is called, by the way--is PRECISELY DESIGNED to kill. Hopefully, only in self-defense. Hopefully, not even that--just a deterrent.
But we have to begin owning that while guns do indeed have their place as a means of protecting one's family and property (which, when you think about it, does a person deserve the death penalty for stealing your car?), an assault rifle is so asymmetrical a response to any reasonable range of scenarios that it begs for some justification. It's not enough to say, "It's all good because the Constitution said it." HOGWASH. Yes, we certainly should value our Constitutional rights, but I will point out that the Constitutional also counted human beings as 3/5ths of person. So, the Bill of Rights is important...but it should never trump common sense and decency. And even with the great respect that it deserves, we at times need to reevaluate whether the 2nd Amendment really means all that the NRA wants us to think it means. I mean, do all of us REALLY think that the First Amendment should protect obscenity and flag-burning, etc.? I don't!
The notion that ANY sort of gun control means we are on a slippery slope to tyranny is the pretty much the same theory that the ACLU uses to claim that any vile obscenity ought to be countenanced, since to not do so means we want our freedom of speech curtailed.
I am not even really arguing that we can't have AR-15s. I AM arguing that to CONTINUE owning one, or to buy one in the future, you ought to have to pass some significant hurdles:
1) An extensive and meaningful waiting period.
2) A full background check that goes beyond whether you were arrested before. We ought to demand to know if there have been violence issues, fringe associations, etc.
3) The requirement (perhaps) of insurance for any damage done by the gun.
4) A psychological profiling.
5) And, any time any certain lines are crossed (e.g., found guilty of violence or threats; any crime committed; any sort of social media that would serve as a reasonable warning, etc.), we find a way to take that gun out of these hands.
You get the idea.
Is that really too big a deal for the NRA to handle...in the face of CHILDREN being killed by those who feel so superior with one of those guns in their hands? |
The Constitution NEVER counted anyone as a 3/5 of person. A history major should know that. Shameful.
| Quote: | Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. |
|
I don’t get what you mean by denying that slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person? Seriously, what do you mean? |
Because that is not what the article says. It does not even say "slaves". It says "all other persons" , distinguishing them from the other parties listed previously that would be counted in Congressional representation. Slaves just happened to fall in the group. Thus 3/5 of any slaves in a State would counted. It is not saying that each slave is "3/5 of a person". |
Resident, PLEASE. This is just poor thinking and research. First, my degree is not in history (although I teach it). Second, you are dead wrong about your point. The SPECIFIC aim of the southern colonies was to have their slaves counted for representation purposes. That's why it was a COMPROMISE. The north didn't think it was right to count ANY slaves; the south wanted to count ALL slaves. Hence, a compromise. Third, if only 3/5ths of the slaves in a state would be counted, then each slave is the equivalent of 3/5ths of a free person. Perhaps you could tell us just who else is counted in that 3/5ths calculation if free people and those bound by a term of service are being counted, but NO Indians are being counted? I wonder who else remains? Hmmmm...oh, wait! It's coming to me! |
-
Aaron, as I stated, this was indeed about Congressional representation. It is obvious that the southerners believed that a slave was 5/5 of a person since, as you stated, they wanted all of them counted in Congressional representation. The compromise was to allow 3/5 of them to be represented. This was not some eugenics debate. Stop spewing left-wing lies.
Really? They thought they were FULLY human? But wouldn't let them vote. Enslaved them. In many cases, would not even permit them to learn to read and write?
They wanted to count them NOT because they considered them equal to white men, but because they didn't want the north to have more representatives than them. When you claim they considered them 5/5ths of a person, what you mean is that they wanted them to COUNT as 5/5ths of a person...NOT that they considered them the equals of whites or even DESERVING to be the equals of whites in terms of freedom, rights, consideration, etc.
C'mon, get your stuff together, friend.
My research is just fine. I simply do not allow it to be tainted by political correctness as you do yours. You made a false statement about our Constitution when you said....
| Quote: | | the Constitutional also counted human beings as 3/5ths of person |
Again, the Constitution DID consider slaves to be 3/5ths of a person, since a slave counted for only a little over half of a person. The North's claim was that if the south wouldn't even let them vote or what have you, then the south had no right to count them, as that would be the moral equivalent of counting one's cattle.
The south wanted all the benefits of having the slaves counted, but NONE of the accountability that comes with having to actually win the votes of slaves.
Slaves were basically the ONLY people in America that counted as 3/5ths of a person. Indians counted even less--they didn't count at all. Foreigners obviously didn't count either. Pretty much everyone else DID count.
Shameful. |
What's shameful is you trying to act avoid the awful truth about matters. |
So you are affirming that you believe the 3/5 compromise was a eugenics type debate?
The compromise was to count slaves as “three-fifths†of a person for representation purposes. The fewer slaves counted the fewer number of representatives. It had NOTHING to do with the worth of a person and EVERYTHING to do with diminishing the power of the Jeffersonian, anti-Hamiltonian/anti-Federalist Party states.
Please explain what it is I am supposed to be feeling guilty about or what "awful truth" I am denying.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Last edited by Resident Skeptic on 2/17/18 1:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/17/18 12:58 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: From AR-15 to slaves ... |
Cojak |
| Mat wrote: | Sounds like the court appearance of the shooter - guns, race and hate. All we need is a little profanity and we got the same "spirit." I think we all need a mental health day.
Mat |
 
Honestly most controversial subjects have great points or the ideas would go away.
I don't mind reading both sides of the coin here, but of course I do come down on the side I prefer. I have never fired the controversial weapon. All my life I have preferred accuracy rather than fire power, learned that from dad's family who fed the family with better shots to save meat.
But times have changed, no one is saving ammo anymore. I do prefer my shotgun for home defense, but it too is locked under the bed and I would never get to it in an emergency. I had a son near killed in my dad's home because as he got old he loaded his shotgun and my sons were visiting. One blew a hole in the wall beside the other one's head.
No telling what would have happened had it been an automatic.
RESPONSIBILITY is the key, but determining who is responsible, logically, legally, and reasonable cost wise.
I like discussions even if no one arguing will ever change their opinions, but I enjoy it when brothers/sisters can agree to disagree on subjects not involving their salvation. I wrote all that and have no idea why, because I am not sold on either side completely. 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24282
2/17/18 1:07 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Resident..oh, my goodness.... |
Aaron Scott |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | UncleJD wrote: | Ban trucks. They kill horrifically when the murderer decides to use one of those, and you can rent them at Home Depot to do it and don't even need a background check!
Ban murder, that is the only thing that will work, oh wait, that doesn't work and the punishment is DEATH! So why on earth do you think your little pacifier of "banning black plastic-coated guns", is going to stop anything? Banning something used and owned by literally millions of people will do nothing but appease the left. Did the ban in Belgium and France stop people hell-bent on death from doing what they were going to do? If you spend months planning murder and somehow don't have access to an AR-15, are you done? The immature want something done and done right now and the easiest thing to blame is never the actual cause, facts are only going to anger them, they will scream and yell until they get their way.
The vaunted FBI, the ones that spent one year trying to sway an election then the next year trying to make up for it by blaming Trump and getting nowhere, were told about this guy a month ago! They did NOTHING! There's the blame if you want to point a finger, but nope we don't want to blame them and the real reasons why this has haunted us the last 40 years, lets go after the guns.
I think I'll go to Academy and see what they have with black plastic on it. |
Uncle JD, now, friend, it's not fair to act like ANYTHING that is used to kill people is somehow morally equivalent to an assault rifle. A car may indeed be the thing that kills someone, but it is not DESIGNED to kill. An assault rifle--notice what it is called, by the way--is PRECISELY DESIGNED to kill. Hopefully, only in self-defense. Hopefully, not even that--just a deterrent.
But we have to begin owning that while guns do indeed have their place as a means of protecting one's family and property (which, when you think about it, does a person deserve the death penalty for stealing your car?), an assault rifle is so asymmetrical a response to any reasonable range of scenarios that it begs for some justification. It's not enough to say, "It's all good because the Constitution said it." HOGWASH. Yes, we certainly should value our Constitutional rights, but I will point out that the Constitutional also counted human beings as 3/5ths of person. So, the Bill of Rights is important...but it should never trump common sense and decency. And even with the great respect that it deserves, we at times need to reevaluate whether the 2nd Amendment really means all that the NRA wants us to think it means. I mean, do all of us REALLY think that the First Amendment should protect obscenity and flag-burning, etc.? I don't!
The notion that ANY sort of gun control means we are on a slippery slope to tyranny is the pretty much the same theory that the ACLU uses to claim that any vile obscenity ought to be countenanced, since to not do so means we want our freedom of speech curtailed.
I am not even really arguing that we can't have AR-15s. I AM arguing that to CONTINUE owning one, or to buy one in the future, you ought to have to pass some significant hurdles:
1) An extensive and meaningful waiting period.
2) A full background check that goes beyond whether you were arrested before. We ought to demand to know if there have been violence issues, fringe associations, etc.
3) The requirement (perhaps) of insurance for any damage done by the gun.
4) A psychological profiling.
5) And, any time any certain lines are crossed (e.g., found guilty of violence or threats; any crime committed; any sort of social media that would serve as a reasonable warning, etc.), we find a way to take that gun out of these hands.
You get the idea.
Is that really too big a deal for the NRA to handle...in the face of CHILDREN being killed by those who feel so superior with one of those guns in their hands? |
The Constitution NEVER counted anyone as a 3/5 of person. A history major should know that. Shameful.
| Quote: | Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. |
|
I don’t get what you mean by denying that slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person? Seriously, what do you mean? |
Because that is not what the article says. It does not even say "slaves". It says "all other persons" , distinguishing them from the other parties listed previously that would be counted in Congressional representation. Slaves just happened to fall in the group. Thus 3/5 of any slaves in a State would counted. It is not saying that each slave is "3/5 of a person". |
Resident, PLEASE. This is just poor thinking and research. First, my degree is not in history (although I teach it). Second, you are dead wrong about your point. The SPECIFIC aim of the southern colonies was to have their slaves counted for representation purposes. That's why it was a COMPROMISE. The north didn't think it was right to count ANY slaves; the south wanted to count ALL slaves. Hence, a compromise. Third, if only 3/5ths of the slaves in a state would be counted, then each slave is the equivalent of 3/5ths of a free person. Perhaps you could tell us just who else is counted in that 3/5ths calculation if free people and those bound by a term of service are being counted, but NO Indians are being counted? I wonder who else remains? Hmmmm...oh, wait! It's coming to me! |
-
Aaron, as I stated, this was indeed about Congressional representation. It is obvious that the southerners believed that a slave was 5/5 of a person since, as you stated, they wanted all of them counted in Congressional representation. The compromise was to allow 3/5 of them to be represented. This was not some eugenics debate. Stop spewing left-wing lies.
Really? They thought they were FULLY human? But wouldn't let them vote. Enslaved them. In many cases, would not even permit them to learn to read and write?
They wanted to count them NOT because they considered them equal to white men, but because they didn't want the north to have more representatives than them. When you claim they considered them 5/5ths of a person, what you mean is that they wanted them to COUNT as 5/5ths of a person...NOT that they considered them the equals of whites or even DESERVING to be the equals of whites in terms of freedom, rights, consideration, etc.
C'mon, get your stuff together, friend.
My research is just fine. I simply do not allow it to be tainted by political correctness as you do yours. You made a false statement about our Constitution when you said....
| Quote: | | the Constitutional also counted human beings as 3/5ths of person |
Again, the Constitution DID consider slaves to be 3/5ths of a person, since a slave counted for only a little over half of a person. The North's claim was that if the south wouldn't even let them vote or what have you, then the south had no right to count them, as that would be the moral equivalent of counting one's cattle.
The south wanted all the benefits of having the slaves counted, but NONE of the accountability that comes with having to actually win the votes of slaves.
Slaves were basically the ONLY people in America that counted as 3/5ths of a person. Indians counted even less--they didn't count at all. Foreigners obviously didn't count either. Pretty much everyone else DID count.
Shameful. |
What's shameful is you trying to act avoid the awful truth about matters. |
So you are affirming that you believe the 3/5 compromise was a eugenics type debate?
My original point--which apparently took place about 40 years ago now--was that the Constitution, especially the 2nd Amendment, is often held up as almost the equivalent of scripture. My point was that if the Constitution was wrong about counting people as only 3/5ths of a person (that is, accepting that some people were not going to be valued like other people), that the Constitution could be wrong about some other things too. Namely, that there is not some sacred right to any and all firearms. In fact, in many ways, it's not even a natural right at all. Yes, it's a natural right to defend oneself, but plenty of other enlightened countries--which have far fewer mass killings than we do--do not hold that owning firearms is an essential right.
My intent was only to say that we don't have to simply swallow everything the Constitution says as right...when it may not be.
The compromise was to count slaves as “three-fifths†of a person for representation purposes. The fewer slaves counted the fewer number of representatives. It had NOTHING to do with the worth of a person and EVERYTHING to do with diminishing the power of the Jeffersonian, anti-Hamiltonian/anti-Federalist Party states.
It has EVERYTHING to do with the worth of a person. Why? Because if slaves had been considered of equal worth with whites, then the north would not have had any grounds for NOT wanting them counted...and the south would have had not grounds for holding them as slaves.
Please explain what it is I am supposed to be feeling guilty about or what "awful truth" I am denying.
You should feel guilty about making me waste my time trying to explain this to you! As for the awful truth: the Civil War was about slavery. (Just so we don't have to have another long discussion, I posted this paragraph in jest.
|
|
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6036
2/17/18 1:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
UncleJD |
| can you guys PLEASE find a way to quote a little less of the entire thread? Its REALLY annoying. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3145
2/17/18 2:18 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Resident..oh, my goodness.... |
Resident Skeptic |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | UncleJD wrote: | Ban trucks. They kill horrifically when the murderer decides to use one of those, and you can rent them at Home Depot to do it and don't even need a background check!
Ban murder, that is the only thing that will work, oh wait, that doesn't work and the punishment is DEATH! So why on earth do you think your little pacifier of "banning black plastic-coated guns", is going to stop anything? Banning something used and owned by literally millions of people will do nothing but appease the left. Did the ban in Belgium and France stop people hell-bent on death from doing what they were going to do? If you spend months planning murder and somehow don't have access to an AR-15, are you done? The immature want something done and done right now and the easiest thing to blame is never the actual cause, facts are only going to anger them, they will scream and yell until they get their way.
The vaunted FBI, the ones that spent one year trying to sway an election then the next year trying to make up for it by blaming Trump and getting nowhere, were told about this guy a month ago! They did NOTHING! There's the blame if you want to point a finger, but nope we don't want to blame them and the real reasons why this has haunted us the last 40 years, lets go after the guns.
I think I'll go to Academy and see what they have with black plastic on it. |
Uncle JD, now, friend, it's not fair to act like ANYTHING that is used to kill people is somehow morally equivalent to an assault rifle. A car may indeed be the thing that kills someone, but it is not DESIGNED to kill. An assault rifle--notice what it is called, by the way--is PRECISELY DESIGNED to kill. Hopefully, only in self-defense. Hopefully, not even that--just a deterrent.
But we have to begin owning that while guns do indeed have their place as a means of protecting one's family and property (which, when you think about it, does a person deserve the death penalty for stealing your car?), an assault rifle is so asymmetrical a response to any reasonable range of scenarios that it begs for some justification. It's not enough to say, "It's all good because the Constitution said it." HOGWASH. Yes, we certainly should value our Constitutional rights, but I will point out that the Constitutional also counted human beings as 3/5ths of person. So, the Bill of Rights is important...but it should never trump common sense and decency. And even with the great respect that it deserves, we at times need to reevaluate whether the 2nd Amendment really means all that the NRA wants us to think it means. I mean, do all of us REALLY think that the First Amendment should protect obscenity and flag-burning, etc.? I don't!
The notion that ANY sort of gun control means we are on a slippery slope to tyranny is the pretty much the same theory that the ACLU uses to claim that any vile obscenity ought to be countenanced, since to not do so means we want our freedom of speech curtailed.
I am not even really arguing that we can't have AR-15s. I AM arguing that to CONTINUE owning one, or to buy one in the future, you ought to have to pass some significant hurdles:
1) An extensive and meaningful waiting period.
2) A full background check that goes beyond whether you were arrested before. We ought to demand to know if there have been violence issues, fringe associations, etc.
3) The requirement (perhaps) of insurance for any damage done by the gun.
4) A psychological profiling.
5) And, any time any certain lines are crossed (e.g., found guilty of violence or threats; any crime committed; any sort of social media that would serve as a reasonable warning, etc.), we find a way to take that gun out of these hands.
You get the idea.
Is that really too big a deal for the NRA to handle...in the face of CHILDREN being killed by those who feel so superior with one of those guns in their hands? |
The Constitution NEVER counted anyone as a 3/5 of person. A history major should know that. Shameful.
| Quote: | Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. |
|
I don’t get what you mean by denying that slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person? Seriously, what do you mean? |
Because that is not what the article says. It does not even say "slaves". It says "all other persons" , distinguishing them from the other parties listed previously that would be counted in Congressional representation. Slaves just happened to fall in the group. Thus 3/5 of any slaves in a State would counted. It is not saying that each slave is "3/5 of a person". |
Resident, PLEASE. This is just poor thinking and research. First, my degree is not in history (although I teach it). Second, you are dead wrong about your point. The SPECIFIC aim of the southern colonies was to have their slaves counted for representation purposes. That's why it was a COMPROMISE. The north didn't think it was right to count ANY slaves; the south wanted to count ALL slaves. Hence, a compromise. Third, if only 3/5ths of the slaves in a state would be counted, then each slave is the equivalent of 3/5ths of a free person. Perhaps you could tell us just who else is counted in that 3/5ths calculation if free people and those bound by a term of service are being counted, but NO Indians are being counted? I wonder who else remains? Hmmmm...oh, wait! It's coming to me! |
-
Aaron, as I stated, this was indeed about Congressional representation. It is obvious that the southerners believed that a slave was 5/5 of a person since, as you stated, they wanted all of them counted in Congressional representation. The compromise was to allow 3/5 of them to be represented. This was not some eugenics debate. Stop spewing left-wing lies.
Really? They thought they were FULLY human? But wouldn't let them vote. Enslaved them. In many cases, would not even permit them to learn to read and write?
They wanted to count them NOT because they considered them equal to white men, but because they didn't want the north to have more representatives than them. When you claim they considered them 5/5ths of a person, what you mean is that they wanted them to COUNT as 5/5ths of a person...NOT that they considered them the equals of whites or even DESERVING to be the equals of whites in terms of freedom, rights, consideration, etc.
C'mon, get your stuff together, friend.
My research is just fine. I simply do not allow it to be tainted by political correctness as you do yours. You made a false statement about our Constitution when you said....
| Quote: | | the Constitutional also counted human beings as 3/5ths of person |
Again, the Constitution DID consider slaves to be 3/5ths of a person, since a slave counted for only a little over half of a person. The North's claim was that if the south wouldn't even let them vote or what have you, then the south had no right to count them, as that would be the moral equivalent of counting one's cattle.
The south wanted all the benefits of having the slaves counted, but NONE of the accountability that comes with having to actually win the votes of slaves.
Slaves were basically the ONLY people in America that counted as 3/5ths of a person. Indians counted even less--they didn't count at all. Foreigners obviously didn't count either. Pretty much everyone else DID count.
Shameful. |
What's shameful is you trying to act avoid the awful truth about matters. |
So you are affirming that you believe the 3/5 compromise was a eugenics type debate?
My original point--which apparently took place about 40 years ago now--was that the Constitution, especially the 2nd Amendment, is often held up as almost the equivalent of scripture. My point was that if the Constitution was wrong about counting people as only 3/5ths of a person (that is, accepting that some people were not going to be valued like other people), that the Constitution could be wrong about some other things too. Namely, that there is not some sacred right to any and all firearms. In fact, in many ways, it's not even a natural right at all. Yes, it's a natural right to defend oneself, but plenty of other enlightened countries--which have far fewer mass killings than we do--do not hold that owning firearms is an essential right.
My intent was only to say that we don't have to simply swallow everything the Constitution says as right...when it may not be.
The compromise was to count slaves as “three-fifths†of a person for representation purposes. The fewer slaves counted the fewer number of representatives. It had NOTHING to do with the worth of a person and EVERYTHING to do with diminishing the power of the Jeffersonian, anti-Hamiltonian/anti-Federalist Party states.
It has EVERYTHING to do with the worth of a person. Why? Because if slaves had been considered of equal worth with whites, then the north would not have had any grounds for NOT wanting them counted...and the south would have had not grounds for holding them as slaves.
Please explain what it is I am supposed to be feeling guilty about or what "awful truth" I am denying.
You should feel guilty about making me waste my time trying to explain this to you! As for the awful truth: the Civil War was about slavery. (Just so we don't have to have another long discussion, I posted this paragraph in jest.
I did not realize we were discussing the Civil War. I simply responded to a false narrative you tried to impose upon our Constitution. And no, the war was fought over economics. In short, the north 's economy depended on the south being in the Union. Thus the south could not be allowed to be independent. Had the south been allowed to go (which was their right), there would have been no war. Secession was , in a particular sense, about slavery. But an article of Secession is not a declaration of war. Thus, no war "over slavery".
So no, I do not subscribe to your revisionist, politically correct view of history that is designed to promote white guilt.
|
|
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/17/18 2:50 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| UncleJD wrote: | | can you guys PLEASE find a way to quote a little less of the entire thread? Its REALLY annoying. |
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
2/17/18 3:29 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
It is obvious that we have some well-meaning souls in this discussion who ultimately blame the Constitution and freedom for what happened at Parkland High School. Included among the "guilty" are those of us who adamantly defend our Constitution and freedoms.
How will these same ones react when local Sheriffs don't wait for or seek Washington to intervene, but take mattes into their own hands by posting armed guards at our High Schools?
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/17/18 3:45 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
