Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

[PLC1]

Actually it meant the same thing back then too.



Well, if you really want to play it that way, fine, when the Constitution was written, for the sake of arguement we'll assume it meant only white property owning males, but the FF's were smart enough to include Article 5 through which we were able to Amend it to include the 13th, 15th, and 19th Amendments which freed the slaves and extended suffrage to blacks and women as well, so now everyone is included, which clearly demonstrates the wisdom and forethought of the FF's.

Exactly. The FF had the wisdom to allow the Constitution to change from an 18th. century document to a 21 st. century one. They had no way of knowing, of course, that the phrase "all men" would come to mean "all mankind", but they allowed room for change.

 

[palerider]

Exactly. The FF had the wisdom to allow the Constitution to change from an 18th. century document to a 21 st. century one. They had no way of knowing, of course, that the phrase "all men" would come to mean "all mankind", but they allowed room for change.

Grab yourself a dictionary from the time period. I provided you with a definiton already that came from a dictionary published within 50 years of the writing of the constitution. As I pointed out, the definition of men back then was as follows:

men - "Persons; people; mankind; in an indefinite sense".

 

[PLC1]

Grab yourself a dictionary from the time period. I provided you with a definiton already that came from a dictionary published within 50 years of the writing of the constitution. As I pointed out, the definition of men back then was as follows:

men - "Persons; people; mankind; in an indefinite sense".

But, did the FF allow all "Persons; people; mankind; in an indefinite sense" the rights of full citizenship in their new nation? If they truly believed that "all men", meaning all of mankind in the sense we use the term today, were created equal, why were only white male property owners allowed to participate in the new government?

 

[top gun]

But, did the FF allow all "Persons; people; mankind; in an indefinite sense" the rights of full citizenship in their new nation? If they truly believed that "all men", meaning all of mankind in the sense we use the term today, were created equal, why were only white male property owners allowed to participate in the new government?

I completely understand what you're saying. On the dictionary thing that was brought up for instance...

I'd make the observation that a dictionary only in the general range of 50 years around the time something was said is interesting and possibly accurate but not certain or absolute. And there is no doubt whatsoever that at this very same time in history people were also saying the words "all men" and did only mean "just men" as in... All men come to the tavern tonight so we may talk of the need for a new blacksmith.

But this all shows the twists & turns in looking at and interpreting 200 year old documents.

In this particular case however I think it's reasonable to assume they meant "all people" when they said "all men" but how absurdly hypocritical to declare all men are created equal when Blacks were slaves and held only 3/5 of a person worth legally and women couldn't by law do many things including make wills, own property or vote.

I actually see this as very good insight as to how historically old documents can be terribly out of step and sometimes cry out for modern day influence.

 

[Bob the Builder]

Exactly. The FF had the wisdom to allow the Constitution to change from an 18th. century document to a 21 st. century one. They had no way of knowing, of course, that the phrase "all men" would come to mean "all mankind", but they allowed room for change.

OK PLC, here's a straight up challenge for you. Present ANY documentary evidence, written in Jeffersons own hand, that gives credence to your position that when Thomas Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal", the he meant ANYTHING other than "mankind".

 

[Bob the Builder]

But, did the FF allow all "Persons; people; mankind; in an indefinite sense" the rights of full citizenship in their new nation? If they truly believed that "all men", meaning all of mankind in the sense we use the term today, were created equal, why were only white male property owners allowed to participate in the new government?

That's an easy one (for those of us who have actually studied our history). For starters, full citizenship has nothing to do with the ability to vote since there is no Constitutional "right" to vote in any federal election, or for that matter in some State elections. Nor is there any "right" to elected office. You may be allowed to run for office in your state, but it is not a Right unless your individual State's constitution specifically permits it.

Next, they wanted to ensure that anyone involved in the government, or the election of the government was educated, and therefore intelligent enough to ensure that we didn't end up where we are today by allowing every mouth breathing, inbred, "bread and circuses", welfare queen vote themselves money from the public treasury by electing every crackpot that promised them "cradle to grave", nanny state handouts! The business of the federal government is supposed to be about doing those things that the states cannot do for themselves, and to do so dispassionately, and with an abiding sense of the fiduciary responsibility to the country.

Women weren't involved because it was considered unseemly, mainly by the women! The business of politics was felt to be 'beneath' the dignity of a Lady, but today we've become infested with women who are more than willing to prove that they can get down in the mud and wrestle with a pig just like a man (and our country is so much to worse for it).

Slaves weren't allowed to participate, regardless of the efforts to free them during the Constitutional convention, because they were property.

Oh, and BTW, "created equal" does not automatically mean that the end result will be equal. All it means is that we all have the same opportunity, but what we do with that opportunity is up to us.

 

[Bob the Builder]

I completely understand what you're saying. On the dictionary thing that was brought up for instance...

I'd make the observation that a dictionary only in the general range of 50 years around the time something was said is interesting and possibly accurate but not certain or absolute. And there is no doubt whatsoever that at this very same time in history people were also saying the words "all men" and did only mean "just men" as in... All men come to the tavern tonight so we may talk of the need for a new blacksmith.

But this all shows the twists & turns in looking at and interpreting 200 year old documents.

No, it only shows that you have no concept of CONTEXT!

In this particular case however I think it's reasonable to assume they meant "all people" when they said "all men" but how absurdly hypocritical to declare all men are created equal when Blacks were slaves and held only 3/5 of a person worth legally and women couldn't by law do many things including make wills, own property or vote.

And again you go out of your way to prove that you don't know ANYTHING about your history, or what you're blatering on about. First of all, Jefferson, you know, the man who actually wrote the Declaration of Independence, worked his entire life to have slavery abolished! The vast majority of the FF's worked very hard to have slavery abolished during the Constitutional convention, but were unable to get it done, primarily because Georgia and S. Carolina's economies were so dependent upon slave labor that it would have literally bankrupted them to do so. The fear was that if abolition was forced on them that they would simply withdraw from the convention and become part of Spanish Florida, thereby giving a hostile nation a larger foothold on our southern border. You also fail to comprehend what the 3/5ths compromise was all about. It had nothing to do with the FF's believing that slaves were only 3/5ths of a person, it was PUNISHMENT directed towards the southern states, and particularly Georgia and S. Carolina, to prevent them from fully counting their slaves on the census for representation in Congress! You also neglect to note that your alleged limitations on the Rights of women differed from State to State, and in some States women had all of the Rights and privileges that men did, including owning property, making wills, owning a business, AND to vote!

I actually see this as very good insight as to how historically old documents can be terribly out of step and sometimes cry out for modern day influence. [/COLOR]

I see this as a very good insight into what is terribly wrong with our Public School system, and our government in general if it allowed someone as historically ignorant as you are to receive a diploma, and to vote!

 

[PLC1]

That's an easy one (for those of us who have actually studied our history). For starters, full citizenship has nothing to do with the ability to vote since there is no Constitutional "right" to vote in any federal election, or for that matter in some State elections. Nor is there any "right" to elected office. You may be allowed to run for office in your state, but it is not a Right unless your individual State's constitution specifically permits it.

Full citizenship doesn't include the right to vote? What have you been smoking? How about owning property? Women didn't have that right, either.

The words may have said "all men are created equal", but the laws of the time clearly proved that they didn't mean that all humankind had the same rights and opportunities.

On an aside, it was the liberal state of California that first gave women the right to own property.

Dang liberals, anyway!

Next, they wanted to ensure that anyone involved in the government, or the election of the government was educated, and therefore intelligent enough to ensure that we didn't end up where we are today by allowing every mouth breathing, inbred, "bread and circuses", welfare queen vote themselves money from the public treasury by electing every crackpot that promised them "cradle to grave", nanny state handouts! The business of the federal government is supposed to be about doing those things that the states cannot do for themselves, and to do so dispassionately, and with an abiding sense of the fiduciary responsibility to the country.

And, of course, being male, white, and owning property ensured that they were able to vote intelligently.

Women weren't involved because it was considered unseemly, mainly by the women! The business of politics was felt to be 'beneath' the dignity of a Lady, but today we've become infested with women who are more than willing to prove that they can get down in the mud and wrestle with a pig just like a man (and our country is so much to worse for it).

Dang that equality of the sexes. It is leading us to, what was that phrase you used earlier? Feminine nations, or something like that.

Slaves weren't allowed to participate, regardless of the efforts to free them during the Constitutional convention, because they were property.

And, therefore not human. Slaves clearly were not included in the phrase "all men".

Oh, and BTW, "created equal" does not automatically mean that the end result will be equal. All it means is that we all have the same opportunity, but what we do with that opportunity is up to us.

Clearly, it does not mean that the end result will be that all humans are equal, no.

Surely, you're not going to try to argue that equality of opportunity was a reality in 1776?

It's a lot closer to reality now, but we still have a ways to go, don't you think?

 

[Bob the Builder]

Full citizenship doesn't include the right to vote? What have you been smoking?

Pall Mall non-filters, but that has nothing to do with the FACT that there is NO Constitutional Right to vote in a federal election. If you doubt me, I challenge you to present the appropriate Article, Section, and Clause that supports your assertion. Conversely I AM prepared to show you exactly where in the Constitution it says that you do NOT have the Right to vote in any federal election.

How about owning property? Women didn't have that right, either.

In some States they did, in some States they didn't, it's that whole 10th Amendment "States Rights" thing dontchaknow. Maybe you can show me where in the Constitution it guarantees some right to property?

The words may have said "all men are created equal", but the laws of the time clearly proved that they didn't mean that all humankind had the same rights and opportunities.

You Sir are equivocating. I asked you to provide evidence, in Jefferson's own hand, that he meant anything OTHER than 'all mankind' in the verbiage he used when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. As to your assertions that it had anything to do with the laws of the time, it is a totally specious assertion at best, because if you'll recall, when he wrote those words he was still a BRITISH SUBJECT!

On an aside, it was the liberal state of California that first gave women the right to own property.

Dang liberals, anyway!

Property ownership for women goes back as far as the Spartans. As for women owning property in Revolutionary America, saying that they couldn't own property is a gross over generalization at best, and patently absurd at worst.

And, of course, being male, white, and owning property ensured that they were able to vote intelligently.

Again, it depended on what State you lived in. Some states didn't require property ownership, some did.

Dang that equality of the sexes. It is leading us to, what was that phrase you used earlier? Feminine nations, or something like that.

Non-sequitur, would you care to try again?

And, therefore not human. Slaves clearly were not included in the phrase "all men".

What about the great apes? After all, aren't we all part of the same evolutionary family?

Surely, you're not going to try to argue that equality of opportunity was a reality in 1776?

Of course not, we were BRITISH SUBJECTS in 1776.

It's a lot closer to reality now, but we still have a ways to go, don't you think?

That would all depend on what you mean by that. If you mean that the socialists are working very hard to drive us to "equality of outcome", you'd be correct, and at that point we'll be COMMUNIST!

 

[PLC1]

Pall Mall non-filters, but that has nothing to do with the FACT that there is NO Constitutional Right to vote in a federal election. If you doubt me, I challenge you to present the appropriate Article, Section, and Clause that supports your assertion. Conversely I AM prepared to show you exactly where in the Constitution it says that you do NOT have the Right to vote in any federal election.

So, none of us has a right to vote. I believe that is the first time anyone on this or any other forum I've been on has made that assertion. OK, I'll call your bluff. Show us where the Constitution says that we don't have the right to vote.

In some States they did, in some States they didn't, it's that whole 10th Amendment "States Rights" thing dontchaknow. Maybe you can show me where in the Constitution it guarantees some right to property?

Not the right to property, the right to own property, i.e., to buy and sell real estate. Men had it, women didn't. That is how it was back in the 19th. century, except in California. California law was based on Mexican law, which did allow women to buy and sell property.

You Sir are equivocating. I asked you to provide evidence, in Jefferson's own hand, that he meant anything OTHER than 'all mankind' in the verbiage he used when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. As to your assertions that it had anything to do with the laws of the time, it is a totally specious assertion at best, because if you'll recall, when he wrote those words he was still a BRITISH SUBJECT!

The evidence is not in Jefferson's or anyone else's hand, but in the way they conducted business. Actions speak louder than words.

Property ownership for women goes back as far as the Spartans. As for women owning property in Revolutionary America, saying that they couldn't own property is a gross over generalization at best, and patently absurd at worst.

Spartans in the US? Now, you're bringing up irrelevant information. The context was the US. Sure, there have been other societies in other places at other times that allowed women to own property, probably even to vote. There have been and still are some matriarchal cultures.

Non-sequitur, would you care to try again?

A direct answer to a direct statement is a non sequitur only if you don't like the response.

What about the great apes? After all, aren't we all part of the same evolutionary family?

So, now you're comparing blacks to great apes!

That was the rationale for allowing slavery. Are you, then, in favor of bringing back slavery?

Of course not, we were BRITISH SUBJECTS in 1776.

OK, in 1777 then.

That would all depend on what you mean by that. If you mean that the socialists are working very hard to drive us to "equality of outcome", you'd be correct, and at that point we'll be COMMUNIST!

No, I don't mean equality of outcome. That's why I specifically said, "equality of opportunity."

Are you ready to argue that we have achieved equality of opportunity even today? How about in the 18th. century, when the words "all men are created equal" were penned, was that even a goal back then?

 

[top gun]

No, it only shows that you have no concept of CONTEXT!

I know the context of a weak poser... what are we today Bob the "Builder" a Cop today... astronut... what?

And again you go out of your way to prove that you don't know ANYTHING about your history, or what you're blatering on about. First of all, Jefferson, you know, the man who actually wrote the Declaration of Independence, worked his entire life to have slavery abolished! The vast majority of the FF's worked very hard to have slavery abolished during the Constitutional convention, but were unable to get it done, primarily because Georgia and S. Carolina's economies were so dependent upon slave labor that it would have literally bankrupted them to do so...

The fact is Jefferson was sleeping with his slaves and many of our Founding Fathers owned slaves themselves.

The sorry legacy of the founders
By Ulrich Boser

In 1784, five years before he became president of the United States, George Washington, 52, was nearly toothless. So he hired a dentist to transplant nine teeth into his jaw--having extracted them from the mouths of his slaves.

That's a far different image from the cherry-tree-chopping George most people remember from their history books. But recently, many historians have begun to focus on the role slavery played in the lives of the founding generation. They have been spurred in part by DNA evidence made available in 1998, which almost certainly proved Thomas Jefferson had fathered at least one child with his slave Sally Hemings. And only over the past 30 years have scholars examined history from the bottom up. Works by Gore Vidal, Henry Wiencek, and Garry Wills reveal the moral compromises made by the nation's early leaders and the fragile nature of the country's infancy. More significant, they argue that many of the Founding Fathers knew slavery was wrong--and yet most did little to fight it.

Still, Jefferson freed Hemings's children--though not Hemings herself or his approximately 150 other slaves. Washington, who had begun to believe that all men were created equal after observing the valor of black soldiers during the Revolutionary War, overcame the strong opposition of his relatives to grant his slaves their freedom in his will. Only a decade earlier, such an act would have required legislative approval in Virginia. He suspected the country would eventually come to its moral senses and find the notion of owning other human beings repugnant, says Joseph Ellis, author of the bestselling Founding Brothers. "He knew his legacy depended on it. He knew that we were watching."

Yet how should we view other framers of independence such as signer of the Declaration of Independence Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry, who traded and whipped their slaves? Or James Monroe, who, as governor of Virginia in 1800, after rushed trials, executed nearly 30 slaves after an attempted revolt? For some historians, such actions cloud their legacy. "The other founders resisted emancipation, not because it was a mad scheme but because they did not want to relinquish the wealth which slave sales poured into their coffers," says Wiencek.

I see this as a very good insight into what is terribly wrong with our Public School system, and our government in general if it allowed someone as historically ignorant as you are to receive a diploma, and to vote!

Barney, Barney, Barney our little Cop poser, with all that book learnin' you missed you can only wish to aspire to a Barney, and he wasn't a Cop either...

Folks this ones pretty funny, after you click on it you can watch it by clicking again where it will say Watch on YouTube...

Originally Posted by Bob the Builder
In 20 years as a Deputy every courtroom I've ever been in has AT LEAST 3 armed Baliffs, why can't I carry a gun into the courthouse, I mean you can ALWAYS use a gun to defend another person, I mean why can't you own a nuke, I mean when I was an astronaut we drank Tang, I mean I'm so ashamed of my little enadequate Bob the builder self that I'm a poser.

 

[Bob the Builder]

So, none of us has a right to vote. I believe that is the first time anyone on this or any other forum I've been on has made that assertion. OK, I'll call your bluff. Show us where the Constitution says that we don't have the right to vote.

Didn't they teach you Civics when you were in school?!?!?!?!?!?

It's called the 14th Amendment. It clearly states that the States decide who can and cannot vote PROVIDED that the "right to vote" is not denied to any male over the age of 21. That provision of course was altered by the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments, but other than that, if a State does deny the vote to anyone, the ONLY recourse is that those persons who are disenfranchised may not be counted in the census for representation in Congress. Simply put, there is NO "right" to vote "for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof...".

Since they obviously didn't cover it when you were being taught Civics in High School, that's why we have an Electoral College, and it is they who cast the actual votes for President and Vice President in accordance with the 12th Amendment, so the fact is not only is there no "right" to vote for President of Vice President, you DO NOT "vote" for them, and you never have. All your "vote" does is indicate to the members of the Electoral College from your State how you would "like" them to vote. Then you must also remember that in most States there is no mandate that the members of the Electoral College abide by the popular vote, which means that even if the majority of the voters in a State "elected" Mickey Mouse to President, they can ignore that vote and ACTUALLY elect Donald Duck if they want to, and there's nothing you can do about it! Even in those States that DO require that their members of the Electoral College abide by the "popular vote", if they ignore it and vote for someone else, at most they would be charged with a violation of State law and removed from the Electoral College, but their vote would still stand.

Not the right to property, the right to own property, i.e., to buy and sell real estate. Men had it, women didn't. That is how it was back in the 19th. century, except in California. California law was based on Mexican law, which did allow women to buy and sell property.

And you are still operating under a flawed interpretation. California may have been the first State to officially include womens right to own property in their laws, but women have always had the right to own property, to one degree or another, in almost every State since we were still British colonies.

The evidence is not in Jefferson's or anyone else's hand, but in the way they conducted business. Actions speak louder than words.

Ah, so you're making an inference! Well sir, it's a very bad inference. Taking one man's words (Jefferson's) and attempting to apply them to one or another segment of society, or even to the country as a whole is intellectually disingenuous and smacks of 'agenda'. I would suggest that you take some time and carefully study Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence (before the members of the Continental Congress altered it) and then there will be no doubt in your mind EXACTLY what Jefferson meant when he wrote those words.

Spartans in the US? Now, you're bringing up irrelevant information. The context was the US. Sure, there have been other societies in other places at other times that allowed women to own property, probably even to vote. There have been and still are some matriarchal cultures.

It is not "irrelevant" based on the way you phrased your statement. Now, if you would care to rephrase your statement to be more exact, we can deal with it from there, but as I already addressed the question previously, your statement is still incorrect. Women have owned property, in America, since we were still British Colonies. In Mass. and Maryland, women routinely owned land as early as the 1680's! What you continually fail to comprehend is the fact that the FF's left most of the decisions as to who would be able to do what to the States, understanding that by doing so, each State would be able to "experiment" to find what worked best for them, and thereby providing many examples from which other States could learn, whether it be as an example of what TO do, or what NOT to do.

A direct answer to a direct statement is a non sequitur only if you don't like the response.

It IS a non-sequitur when the answer doesn't follow.

So, now you're comparing blacks to great apes!
That was the rationale for allowing slavery. Are you, then, in favor of bringing back slavery?

Not at all, but that was the feeling at the time, and of course you know that, and simply felt it necessary to play games rather than address the issue directly since in reality you have no proper rebuttal to make.

OK, in 1777 then.

Were you stoned all during school?!?!?!?!? Who are you, Jeff Spicoli? The United States didn't officially exist until the Constitution was ratified in June of 1788!

No, I don't mean equality of outcome. That's why I specifically said, "equality of opportunity."

Are you ready to argue that we have achieved equality of opportunity even today? How about in the 18th. century, when the words "all men are created equal" were penned, was that even a goal back then?

We have achieved "equality of opportunity", at least so far as is possible. People make their own choices, and it those choices that determine the outcome, but we ALL have the same opportunity to make those choices.

Was it the goal that the FF's sought for us? Yes it was, which is clearly borne out in the text of the minutes of the Constitutional Convention, but you fail to realize that not everyone shares the same idea of "equality of opportunity" as anyone else. Asking for perfection from any one human being is ludicrous even today, but expecting anything close to it from 55 separate men, with 12 separate sets of instructions, from 12 separate colonies (Rhode Island didn't send any delegates), with 12 totally different economic and social goals, and being surprise that they weren't able to achieve Utopia after having been empaneled for 4 months in a closed up building, with not even a window or a door open to allow for air circulation, and guards posted all the way around the building to keep "snoops" away, in Philadelphia during the hot summer of 1787, and feigning indignation that they had to settle on the compromise we know as our Constitution is asinine in the extreme.

 

[Bob the Builder]

The fact is Jefferson was sleeping with his slaves and many of our Founding Fathers owned slaves themselves.

And your point is? The fact that Jefferson owned slaves holds no bearing on the fact that he worked his entire life to ABOLISH the practice. The only reason he himself did not free all of his slaves was because of the very real prospect of what would have happened to them if he had! As freedmen, they would have been kidnapped and sold into slavery elsewhere, so by maintaining them, he saved them from a far worse fate than they already had. If you had bothered to do any honest research (and we all know that doing ANYTHING honest is far beyond your ability), you would have read your Jefferson and discovered how well he insisted that his slaves be treated.

The sorry legacy of the founders
By Ulrich Boser

In 1784, five years before he became president of the United States, <snip>

Ah yes, please let's recycle a totally discredited piece of "Hate America First" claptrap from back in 2005. Boser is a totally disingenuous POS, who routinely goes out of his way to LIE, or intentionally misrepresent the facts in order to foment his "Hate America First" propaganda! Ulrich Boser is a "crime novel" author who knows less about America and it's history than you do, and the fact that you'd have the temerity to post this drek only serves to fully illustrate your total lack of intellectual ability.

 

[PLC1]

Didn't they teach you Civics when you were in school?!?!?!?!?!?

It's called the 14th Amendment. It clearly states that the States decide who can and cannot vote PROVIDED that the "right to vote" is not denied to any male over the age of 21. That provision of course was altered by the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments, but other than that, if a State does deny the vote to anyone, the ONLY recourse is that those persons who are disenfranchised may not be counted in the census for representation in Congress. Simply put, there is NO "right" to vote "for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof...".

PROVIDED that the "right to vote" is not denied to any male over the age of 21.

Of course. Silly me. Five year olds still don't have the right to vote. Unfortunately, adults who still have the thought processes of five year olds still do vote.

And no, the Constitution does not say that we don't have the right to vote, which is what you asserted in the beginning.

And you are still operating under a flawed interpretation. California may have been the first State to officially include womens right to own property in their laws, but women have always had the right to own property, to one degree or another, in almost every State since we were still British colonies.

As Mark Twain said, "It's not so much what we don't know, as what we do know that ain't so."

It looks as if we were both wrong.

California was not the first, as it wasn't admitted as a state until 1850. Missouri was the first.

1839 The first state (Mississippi) grants women the right to hold property in their own name, with their husbands’ permission

What I should have said was that California was the first to allow women to hold property in their own name without their husband's permission, or without even having a husband at all.[/QUOTE]

Before that, no, women did not have the right to own property. You can keep repeating that they did, but that won't make it so.

PROVIDED that the "right to vote" is not denied to any male over the age of 21. Ah, so you're making an inference! Well sir, it's a very bad inference. Taking one man's words (Jefferson's) and attempting to apply them to one or another segment of society, or even to the country as a whole is intellectually disingenuous and smacks of 'agenda'. I would suggest that you take some time and carefully study Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence (before the members of the Continental Congress altered it) and then there will be no doubt in your mind EXACTLY what Jefferson meant when he wrote those words.

That makes no sense at all. Those words are from the Constitution of the US, not from Jefferson's writings.

It is not "irrelevant" based on the way you phrased your statement. Now, if you would care to rephrase your statement to be more exact, we can deal with it from there, but as I already addressed the question previously, your statement is still incorrect. Women have owned property, in America, since we were still British Colonies. In Mass. and Maryland, women routinely owned land as early as the 1680's! What you continually fail to comprehend is the fact that the FF's left most of the decisions as to who would be able to do what to the States, understanding that by doing so, each State would be able to "experiment" to find what worked best for them, and thereby providing many examples from which other States could learn, whether it be as an example of what TO do, or what NOT to do.

Yes, and Missouri was the first to grant women the right to do so, so long as they had their husband's permission. Your citing of the "Spartans" was totally irrelevant.

Not at all, but that was the feeling at the time, and of course you know that, and simply felt it necessary to play games rather than address the issue directly since in reality you have no proper rebuttal to make.

Well, that's a relief. For a moment, I thought I was discussing the issue with a genuine, bona fide, supporter of black slavery.

But, then, I can only get that from your words. For all I know, you're black yourself.

We have achieved "equality of opportunity", at least so far as is possible. People make their own choices, and it those choices that determine the outcome, but we ALL have the same opportunity to make those choices.

No one chooses to be born into poverty. Some escape, most don't. Some are born to privilege, some are not. There has never been a society that has actually achieved equality of opportunity, but we're a lot closer than we were in the beginning.

Was it the goal that the FF's sought for us? Yes it was, which is clearly borne out in the text of the minutes of the Constitutional Convention, but you fail to realize that not everyone shares the same idea of "equality of opportunity" as anyone else.

True, some thought that equality of opportunity didn't apply to blacks or to women. All men, meaning all white men, were created equal. That was what was meant at that time.

Asking for perfection from any one human being is ludicrous even today, but expecting anything close to it from 55 separate men, with 12 separate sets of instructions, from 12 separate colonies (Rhode Island didn't send any delegates), with 12 totally different economic and social goals, and being surprise that they weren't able to achieve Utopia after having been empaneled for 4 months in a closed up building, with not even a window or a door open to allow for air circulation, and guards posted all the way around the building to keep "snoops" away, in Philadelphia during the hot summer of 1787, and feigning indignation that they had to settle on the compromise we know as our Constitution is asinine in the extreme.

Exactly, and perfection was not achieved, nor could it have been. The FF did come up with a plan to launch a new nation.

Of course, neither that statement, nor the one saying that someone is "feigning indignation" have a thing to do with the issue we've been debating, which started out to be:

Did the declaration "All men are created equal" really mean all humankind has the same rights?

Even that, of course, has nothing to do with gun rights.

 

[Bob the Builder]

PROVIDED that the "right to vote" is not denied to any male over the age of 21.

Of course. Silly me. Five year olds still don't have the right to vote. Unfortunately, adults who still have the thought processes of five year olds still do vote.

And no, the Constitution does not say that we don't have the right to vote, which is what you asserted in the beginning.

OK Spicoli, I'll start using small words so that you can follow along. If a "right" can be taken away from you without specific adjudication from a court of law, it's NOT A RIGHT, it's a PRIVILEGE. The 14th Amendment specifically says that the State CAN deny your "right" to vote for President, VP, etc., with the only penalty being that they cannot count you toward representation in Congress.

As Mark Twain said, "It's not so much what we don't know, as what we do know that ain't so."

It looks as if we were both wrong.

California was not the first, as it wasn't admitted as a state until 1850. Missouri was the first.

As I said, California may have been the first. I said that for a couple of very specific reasons; 1) I don't know, and 2) I don't really care because it simply doesn't matter, and is not germane to the discussion as I have already shown that your entire premise was flawed.

What I should have said was that California was the first to allow women to hold property in their own name without their husband's permission, or without even having a husband at all.

Before that, no, women did not have the right to own property. You can keep repeating that they did, but that won't make it so.

OK, I'm sorry for having to do this, let's try it this way; ASSH*LE, PAY ATTENTION!! Women have been able to own their own property here since at least 1680, and I already gave you two States in which this was the case. I was also VERY careful to specify that each State had their own laws on who could and could not, so your assertions are still BULLSH*T!! What you are talking about is having a CODIFIED LAW as part of a States Code whereby women could not be denied the ability to own property, but that is NOT the same as saying that women could or could not own property by CUSTOM, which was the case in much of Colonial America.

That makes no sense at all. Those words are from the Constitution of the US, not from Jefferson's writings.

You and top gun went to the same school didn't you? The words "all men are created equal" comes from the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, which was written by THOMAS JEFFERSON! They are NOT contained anywhere in the Constitution. Oh, and one other thing you might want to bear in mind is the fact that the Declaration of Independence, in the scheme of things, really doesn't mean anything as far as the laws and customs of America, that's what the CONSTITUTION is for.

Yes, and Missouri was the first to grant women the right to do so, so long as they had their husband's permission. Your citing of the "Spartans" was totally irrelevant.

Again incorrect. You stated that women had NEVER been allowed to own property, and you did not qualify that statement by saying "in America". You made an incorrect statement.

Well, that's a relief. For a moment, I thought I was discussing the issue with a genuine, bona fide, supporter of black slavery.

But, then, I can only get that from your words. For all I know, you're black yourself.

I'm sorry you missed the post, but the issue came up earlier and I pointed out that I'm Native American.

No one chooses to be born into poverty. Some escape, most don't. Some are born to privilege, some are not. There has never been a society that has actually achieved equality of opportunity, but we're a lot closer than we were in the beginning.

Ah yes, the old "poverty" canard. Poverty has nothing to do with ones ability to apply themselves and achieve their goals. Some of the richest men in the history of our country were born into poverty that makes todays "poverty" look like Beacon Hill by comparison.

True, some thought that equality of opportunity didn't apply to blacks or to women. All men, meaning all white men, were created equal. That was what was meant at that time.

Again, you're painting with a VERY broad brush, which is NOT accurate. SOME of the FF's felt that way, SOME partially felt that way, and SOME didn't feel that way at all, so your statement is still false. Jefferson himself, you know, the guy who wrote those words, was all about "all men are created equal" including Blacks, Native Americans, AND women, but there were too many others who didn't share his views that prevented it from being achieved in 1788 when the Constitution was finally ratified.

Exactly, and perfection was not achieved, nor could it have been. The FF did come up with a plan to launch a new nation.

Of course, neither that statement, nor the one saying that someone is "feigning indignation" have a thing to do with the issue we've been debating, which started out to be:

Did the declaration "All men are created equal" really mean all humankind has the same rights?

And the point that I've been trying VERY hard to get you to comprehend is that the declaration "all men are created equal" was written by a man who did in fact mean it to include all mankind. The fact that it didn't work out that way by the time of the ratification does not alter the fact that that is EXACTLY what he meant when he wrote them.

Even that, of course, has nothing to do with gun rights.

Very true, so get down to your local gun store and buy yourself an M-16, some magazines, a few thousand rounds of ammo, and start practicing!!! I'll be expecting a range report by Monday.