Originally Posted by patriot2342001

Will, I think you are operating under a fog. Your argument that the writers of the 2 amendment never argued it was to control slaves is a pretty bad argument. Slavery isn't even mentioned in the Constitution but the document was written with the idea of bending over backwards to keep the slave holders happy. Really, it was a pro-slavery document all the way, yet it never mentions slavery directly. If a document was so pro-slavery--only an extremely ignorant person can deny this--yet tries to hide that fact, then it isn't so far fetched to think that an amendment added to that document inorder to get it ratified could also be for the purpose of protecting slavery. You claiming its "far fetched" to suggest this makes me wonder if you understand how deeply a part of the nations social, economic and political structure slavery was. I mean slavery was the cause of the greatest war this country has ever known. It would be no surprise at all that it was such an overiding concern--yet, an embarassing one-- that they didn't even have to come out and say it openly.

In fact the Virginia militia had been used for just such a purpose when Lord Dunmore called on the slaves to rise up. Surely southerns had not forgotten that and were fearful a federal government could try to impose its will on the slave states. Time and again we saw the south freaking out of slavery. Getting an amendment into the constitution that would guarantee their militia rights to enforce white supremecy is in line with their other requests for the constituion to ensure slavery's place in the nation.

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

You keep stepping back like that Patriot, sooner or latter you are going to fall on your ass.

The argument is specious. It ignores the multitude of other arguments made at the time supporting both states rights and the 2nd amendment, and instead focuses on on minor argument in an attempt to taint the entire supporting argument. 3rd grade tactics. Was slavery a consideration in some states. Probably, but as others pointed out, militia concerns existed in states with no slavery, and even those to whom it was a concern had many other reasons for supporting it.

Originally Posted by patriot2342001

I'm glad you at least admit it was a consideration, so I win that point. Now as all as I have to do is kill your argument that it was a "minor" point. I am interested in this now and want to look deeper into it.

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

The Constitution of the United States was written entirely to support prostitution in the colonies. Although it is not mentioned in the constitution the support is clearly there. Prostitution existed in every state and was a big money maker for the Jewish slave traders (its not called white slavery for nothing boys). Therefore, under the guise of protecting individual rights the second amendment was passed in order to allow the prostitutes to shoot thier johns if they did not pay and pay promptly.

As proof this is true there are absolutely no reported arrest made of call girls shooting clients during the first 40 years of our existance

Originally Posted by Will E Orwontee

What about in the six states that had prohibited slavery well before the Constitution was ratified? How do they fit into your version of history?

Originally Posted by patriot2342001

IF you are trying to trivialize the impact of slavery in the way the Constitution turned out as all as you are doing is showing your ignorance. Were prostitutes hunted down if they escaped their pimps, as the Constituion demanded for slaves? Were prostitutes counted as 3/5 of a person for representation sake?

Originally Posted by patriot2342001

IF you are trying to trivialize the impact of slavery in the way the Constitution turned out as all as you are doing is showing your ignorance. Were prostitutes hunted down if they escaped their pimps, as the Constituion demanded for slaves? Were prostitutes counted as 3/5 of a person for representation sake?

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

What amendment or section of the Constitution demaned that slaves be hunted down?

Actually, the 3/5 count was as a result of the non slave states. The slave states wanted to count them as a whole person but the non slave states said that would give too much representation to the slaves states. The 3/5's was actually a compromise since they didn't want to count them at all.