Current Events > A really poignant tweet on why we should re-examine the 2nd Amendment.

(+) Yeah! (+)

lmfao
---

so fucking do it. we have the technology. just do it the way you're supposed to, and not the legislative overreach you keep trying.
---

Wait...so, should we examine the entire Bill of Rights? After all, it was written back when slaves were a thing.
---

The government of today has no right telling us how to live our lives, because the government of 200 years ago already did.
---

Not exactly sound logic, but what-else can come from 140 characters

edit: holy moly, its 280 characters now
---

50Blessings posted...

lmfao

that's not true.

The constitution was written first, where it says slaves are 3/5th a person.

They released it and couldn't get enough states to ratify it without a bill of rights which was written after the fact.
---

Imagine a world, WHERE EVERYONE OWNS A GUN.

Boom. Problem solved.

All or nothing yo.
---

This issue I have with this whole thing is people argue and argue and argue the same arguments over and over and over and literally nothing happens or changes. I really don't give a fucking fuck which way we go, but LET'S TRY SOMETHING. Let's actually CHANGE something. That's all I want.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

50Blessings posted...

lmfao

that's not true.

The constitution was written first, where it says slaves are 3/5th a person.

They released it and couldn't get enough states to ratify it without a bill of rights which was written after the fact.

I pointed this out to the chick who posted this on facebook and she blocked me lol
---

Clearly that dude has no idea what the 3/5ths compromise actually was and just wants to make edgy statements so he can feel like he's participating in politics.

The 3/5ths compromise wasn't an objective assessment of how much of a human they thought slaves were, it was a compromise with Southern states because they wanted to receive more representation in Congress. They initially wanted to count slaves as part of their population to inflate their count and receive more representation, but the North said "no, that's stupid, you don't treat them like citizens so you can't pretend they are just whenever it benefits you". They eventually conceded and allowed 3/5ths of the slave population to count towards the voting population as part of a deal.
---

the 3/5ths compromise has since been addressed and amended.

We can do the same for the second amendment.
---

"You can't change the 2nd amendment!"
"Yes you can. It's called an amendment."

- Jim Jefferies
---

lilORANG posted...

the 3/5ths compromise has since been addressed and amended.

We can do the same for the second amendment.

But why? It's a good amendment.
---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

lilORANG posted...

the 3/5ths compromise has since been addressed and amended.

We can do the same for the second amendment.

But why? It's a good amendment.

I'm addressing the OP's position that we should look at the 2nd amendment because it was written by the same people who made the 3/5ths compromise. We came together to reject the 3/5ths compromise, but not the 2nd amendment.
---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

lilORANG posted...

the 3/5ths compromise has since been addressed and amended.

We can do the same for the second amendment.

But why? It's a good amendment.

How so?
---

A more compelling argument is that it was written at a time where a person could fire ~5 shots a minute if they were really experienced.

Compared to being able to fire 90-120 with an unmodified AR 15.
---

lilORANG posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

lilORANG posted...

the 3/5ths compromise has since been addressed and amended.

We can do the same for the second amendment.

But why? It's a good amendment.

I'm addressing the OP's position that we should look at the 2nd amendment because it was written by the same people who made the 3/5ths compromise. We came together to reject the 3/5ths compromise, but not the 2nd amendment.

You have to look at the history behind the 3/5ths compromise to see why it's different.

It was a deal. Deals end, especially when their subject matter is no longer even valid. The second amendment was more ideological and rights-based. They're both amendments, but of a fundamentally different nature.
---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

lilORANG posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

lilORANG posted...

the 3/5ths compromise has since been addressed and amended.

We can do the same for the second amendment.

But why? It's a good amendment.

I'm addressing the OP's position that we should look at the 2nd amendment because it was written by the same people who made the 3/5ths compromise. We came together to reject the 3/5ths compromise, but not the 2nd amendment.

You have to look at the history behind the 3/5ths compromise to see why it's different.

It was a deal. Deals end, especially when their subject matter is no longer even valid. The second amendment was more ideological and rights-based. They're both amendments, but of a fundamentally different nature.

yeah...so the comparison in the OP isn't very good. That's all I'm saying.
---

I took the tweet to mean more like "Hey, this thing was written at a time when slaves existed so that should mean something."

And not that it should be changed because the 3/5th's deal was changed.

It just comes off as some stupid edgy shit to say when in reality the two things have nothing in common with each other in the modern day.
---