Sup Forums BTFO

The Constitution isn’t relevant anymore

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=tIeEotdOVew
archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
twitter.com/AnonBabble

race war now

And these """people""" wonder why Dylann Roof shot them.

this is exactly why we always hated niggers and treated them like shit in the USA. they are cancer inside and out. as soon as we started giving them "equality" they used it to destroy us. think about that the next time you deride someone for "Being a slaveowner". the whole time, they were actually seeing something that you weren't. they saw the evil in the niggers heart.

which amendment explicitly enumerated a right to enslave people

I agree. We don't need the constitution. In fact, fuck the first amendment to. The law should be able to keep niggers from spouting their opinions about shit.

Tbf he’s just reading Jewish lines. Blacks are pretty based they’re just low IQ and violent

Faggot

>high school drop out nigger creating opinions for millions of viewers

Lel

the Constitution didn't say we could own people, it didn't say that we couldn't.

huge fucking difference.

((((black man))))) delivers (((opinion))) to guilty whites

Pretty simple. There are rules as to how to amend the constitution. The founders not only gave us a law, but gave tools as to how to amend it, knowing times would change. They gave tools as to how to amend the LAW in this country. You are free to go through those channels to change things. If you don't, and think you can simply ignore the law, then laws mean nothing, and the only thing that matters is what individual or group has the brute force necessary to impose their will.

RESTRICTING YOUR RIGHT TO OWN ASSAULT RIFLES IS THE EXACT SAME THING AS TAKING YOUR GUNS AWAY

...

Look, I know the forefathers said you had a right to free speech, due process, and freedom from cruel or unusual punishment, but they also said you can own people.

This is true. Air support needs boots on the grounds to be effective.

Okay, well I think this nigger doesn't deserve the right to free speech, then. I want him shut down and dead without trial.

Grandpa did nothing wrong

this, slavery isn't mentioned in the constitution until the 13th amendment which ended slavery

I agree. They should do everything in their power to convince people to repeal the Second Amendment.

It does. Hows net neutrality goin for ya?

If anybody needs anymore reason for why we should string up all of these kike-controlled minstrels

Does the constitution really talk about slavery?

>"the constitution says you can own people"
>it explicitly says you can't

I bet the retarded audience applauded this too.

niggers are first to go on day of the rope

Do these liberals know they are begging to be killed in a civil war?

I wonder if that nigger knows it doesn't say that you can own people, and if it did, that still doesn't mean that he can strip me of my god given rights! Fucking nigger!

Le honorary black Jew.

It does not, desu. it does not

They're SNL, of course they clapped. like retarded seals they are.

Quick, burn the constitution!

/thread

>The Constitution isn’t relevant anymore

No, just the communist kike controlled media getting their nigger "comedian" puppets to spout off anti-American shit.

Look at the look on the face of that dumb nigger....it's too stupid to realize it's advocating the destruction of our Constitution.

Ship that fucking nigger back to Africa - or if that nigger really and truly wants to start repealing amendments....let's repeal the 13th amendment as well.

It's hard to eliminate whites if they mostly own guns.
A race war would have the country 90% white again in a week or so.

>RESTRICTING YOUR RIGHT TO OWN ASSAULT RIFLES IS THE EXACT SAME THING AS TAKING YOUR GUNS AWAY

Considering that the entire point of the 2nd amendment is for the people to have weapons capable of arming a militia, yes it is the exact same thing. The 2nd amendment isn't about home defense. It isn't about hunting. It is about the ability of the citizens to form their own military force using their own personal weapons.

How the fuck are you going to have a military force without military tier weapons?

Prior to the 13th Amendment (which abolishes slavery) the only reference at all to slavery in the constitution is the Three-Fifths Compromise, which simply outlines how slaves were to be counted in measuring the population of slave states.

Beyond that there's nothing in the constitution that outlines owning slaves.

pretty great you fag LARP! No change at all to broadband. Every site loads in a prompt manner. And Jewgle hasn't raided my home yet to sell me to their adverts, so pretty good.

Now go throw some more thunderbolts, fag LARP!

SNL
Stupid
Nigger
Logic

Na at one point they say they arent gonna deal with slavery for 20 years

> mfw I could retake the capitol for Stephen F. Austin in my lifetime

"I sometimes shudder at the consequences and think that a large part of America will be Santo Domingonized in 100, or 200 years. The idea of seeing such a country as this overrun by a slave population almost makes me weep. It is in vain to tell a North American that the white population will be destroyed some fifty or eighty years hence by the negroes, and that his daughters will be violated and Butchered by them."

fuck off shill.

And idiots will think the 3/5 compromise was done out of racism, when in fact it was done to prevent slave drivers from forcing niggers to vote their way and swing policy dramatically in the south's favor.

Notice how these nogs never want to self-disarm themselves. Take all of the nigs out of the murder rate plus all the spicks that get classified as white by the government and the murder rate would be the lowest in the world.

The constitution isn't infallible. That's why it started with 10 changes written into it from day 1. It's not intended to be a static document. In fact, it's explicitly set up to enable disagreements and changes to it.

The authors of the second amendment never mentioned guns--not once. You can pretend that "everyone can buy guns" is in there. But it's not.

now dont you go and start confusing niggers with all that semi-automatic nonsense. They think it's only a few weapons, when in fact it's virtually all of them.

I'm genuinely curious what will happen if the government tries to take away civilian guns, because I grew up in Oklahoma and I can tell you most of the people I grew up with would not hesitate to you turn you into human Swiss cheese if you told them you were going to take their guns or their land from them.

>slavery isn't mentioned in the constitution
thats not true, i believe the constitution specifically mentions the conditions in which you can own slaves

Are you CuckX?

>The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person

point it out then

What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you pinko commie faggots understand?

I've never seen a Californian /comfy/ picture. Does Sup Forums really hate my shitty state that much bros? The only parts you need to hate are the big cities, the rest is white agricultural communitites. Also one of the biggest providers of members to the FFA.

I think it's the "Shall not" part, desu.

There is nothing in the second amendment about guns. And it is predicated on the need for a well-regulated militia. You have to read all the words--not just the four you like best.

>nazi confirmed
your constitution sucks. it's just a false flag to make it out like you americans have any rights

Seriously CuckX, gtfo

California was pretty based back in the wild west days, sorry about hollywood; it was like a honeypot for Jews.

Yall never stood a chance desu..

Tell scared white people that they have BIG penises and watch the gun buying rate shrink.

>The authors of the second amendment never mentioned guns--not once
Exactly, they used the term "arms" because guns weren't the only things they had in mind. The Constitution is vague to allow adapting with minimal changes. The First Amendment also doesn't specify any specific form of media.

What's wrong Mohammed? Did the 3 year old girl you tried to ass fuck in Londinistan run away?

The constitution doesn't say anything about slavery. In fact, the constitution was used to rule that slavery was, y'know, unconstitutional.

What a dumb nigger.

D-does this mean its time?

slavery isnt even mentioned in the original constitution

Won't happen quickly. They have to do it in dribs and drabs, take advantage of emotional moments when people aren't thinking rationally, further propagandize against the Constitution, etc.

A straight up gun grab isn't going to happen. Remember when BLM tried to take the Bundy Ranch cattle, when they had all the world on their side? They fucked out of there as soon as it looked like they might have to take a bullet to do it. No civilian fed employees are going to trade gunfire with armed and organized civilians. And the military is still too conservative to do it.

You don't have the slightest idea why they used "arms" and not guns. They aren't here, you can't ask them, and no answer exists. The constitution is vague so courts get to decide, and our assumptions about what dead people probably thought aren't relevant.

>Won't happen quickly. They have to do it in dribs and drabs, take advantage of emotional moments when people aren't thinking rationally, further propagandize against the Constitution, etc.

"death by 1,000 cuts" is what the anti-American traitor commie democrat politicians in California are trying to do to the 2nd amendment there.

Fucking traitors.

>Michael Che Campbell was born in Manhattan, New York City, New York, the youngest of seven children of Rose and Nathaniel Campbell.[2] His father, a history buff, named Michael after Che Guevara.[3]

>He was raised on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. He graduated from the Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts.[4][5]

hurr durr
>slavery was an inalienable right protected by the immediate amendments to the constitution..

This stupid fucking nigger

wtf lib cucks want to get rid of constitution. they need to be gassed..

youtube.com/watch?v=tIeEotdOVew

Yes we do know why they used the word "arms." The Supreme Court explained all of this already in the Heller decision, which I'm guessing you haven't read since you seem to think what the framers thought is irrelevant even though the Supreme Court based their decision in that case on what the framers thought.

The state itself is beautiful, but demographically this place is La Creatura land, even out in the smaller towns. The 56% meme is real in CA's case.
t. midwestern transplant

>It's not intended to be a static document.
then have the balls to go through the right process to amend it, instead of whining like a bitch
archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
you don't even need the President, and the President can't veto it
I bet Libs will never attempt it, because they know they'd lose precious donors

I don't think you understand what the bill of rights is. It is the first ten amendments to the constitution. Slavery is in the body of the constitution before the first ten amendments. It had the exact same legal standing as the bill of rights, until the the thirteenth amendment was ratified.

...

the "constitutional convention" of 1789 was a literal coup and it has been indoctrinated into schoolchildren for decades that the period of time under the Articles of Confederation was some ungodly terrible thing because daddy gub'mint wasn't big enough

the fuckers met in total secret to "amend the articles", conveniently leaving out Patrick Henry, Jefferson, Tom Paine, any notable anti-federalist or individual rights advocate.

anyone who signed that scrap of parchment has been deceased for 170 years or more, and there weren't more than a sparse amount of them. ain't nobody signed shit, and hobbes+locke can shove their social contract up their asses

And the Supreme Court can overturn it just as easily, which is what will invariably happen once gun control laws are passed, and challenged in the Supreme Court.

i feel like people underestimated the damage these things could do, sure the reload time was awful but a lead ball like that isnt gonna feel too good.

Welp, if random words in quotations appear under the picture of a historical figure on the internet, the person in said picture MUST have said it.

if we abandon the constitution we will once again own slaves and women won't vote.

maybe they are right. Is it time to make a new constitution?

>says founding fathers are bad because they owned people
>wants to burn document they wrote, the 13th amendment of which is the only reason his species isnt still farm equipment

It's still a Republican court right now, dicknose.

I unironically love California. It's government is Satan incarnate and it's the biggest casualty of border hoppers and the cost of living is beyond insane, but pretty much everything else about it is great. It's gorgeous, and ecological marvel. I went surfing and snowboarding within a four hour window there once, and there's probably nowhere else you can do that. Also the southern part of the state has the best weather on earth.

It's interesting though because the only reason California isn't a red state is because of the giant cities (namely LA and SF) which hold damn near all the voting power. Most people you encounter, especially in the northern half of the state, are conservative, and most areas outside of those insane metro areas are overwhelmingly white.

My sister for example lives in CA a place called Pollock Pines. Her seven year old daughter has yet to meet a non-white person.

These shitheads really need to remember something: You swear an Oath to support and defend the Constitution when you enlist in the Armed Forces. That Oath has no expiration date.

It mentions the 3/5 Compromise in Article 1, which lays out how representation by population is to be counted with "other persons" being counted as three-fifths of a person. There is nothing in the constitution that specifically names slavery as a right. Slavery isn't even named until the 13th amendment.
There is also Section 9 of Article 1 that says Congress cannot prohibit the importation or migration of people until 1808, but again, that is not stating that citizens have the right to own slaves.

Except those are both real quotes faggot

It could plausibly be said that the 3/5 compromise was very progressive for its time, as well.
but no, MUH MODERN INTERPRETASHUN

There's no interpretation, retard. Northern states didn't want to lose their population advantage in the House by counting every slave in the south. It's that fucking simple.

Not entirely. They want a Fabian approach. Confiscation at this point might go very badly for them.

I've never shot a person before, but I guess the leftists want that to change.

>have a large population advantage
>but care about counting some tens of thousands of slaves
>like it matters
c'mon. By your logic, the Southern states would have wanted to count the slaves to boost their numbers, so...

They don’t like America.

>The United States Census of 1800 was the second Census conducted in the United States. It was conducted on August 4, 1800. It showed that 5,308,483 people were living in the United States, of whom 893,602 were slaves. The 1800 Census included the new District of Columbia.
>893602/5308483
>16.83% of the country's population
The south wanted to count them, the north didn't. That's why they compromised you retarded faggot.

The Constitution does imply it in a couple places, but it is true that the Constitution never uses the word slave.

One of them just points out that people who are not citizens or untaxed native Americans are should be counted as 3/5s when collecting population data for taxes and determining the number of representatives the state will have. (Article 1 section 2)

Article4 section 2;
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
This gave legitimacy to the fugitive slave act that was passed much later

you don't understand you pinko commie....
>THE BILL OF RIGHTS WERE THE FIRST 10 AMENDMENTS THAT WERE AGREED TO BE ADDED AS THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT CLEARLY STATE THAT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WERE UNTOUCHABLE BY THE GOVERNMENT.
>FREEDOM OF SPEECH, RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, WHERE'S THE WARRANT, ETC, ETC.
>THE RIGHT TO OWN SLAVES WAS NOT AN INALIENABLE PROTECTION BECAUSE THERE WAS A HOT DEBATE BETWEEN EVEN THE FOUNDING FATHERS IF SLAVERY SHOULD IMMEDIATELY BE OUTLAWED, HENCE THE 3/5TH CENSUS YOU CUNT BAG
>SLAVERY WAS NEVER PROTECTED THE WAY ALL OF THE OTHER GOD GIVEN RIGHTS WERE....

Oh a schwartze said so, okay take more of my rights overlords.

Lol you really think we black people give a fuck about some paper your white supremacist daddies wrote? Fuck outta here

They don't fire accurately at all though. Granted, they come from an age where warfare was *relatively* glorious and people actually bumrushed the enemy head on.

Be gone shill
The Bill of Rights was added to prevent government from infringing on people's natural rights.
You know nothing about the Constitution's text and even less about WHY the Constitution has in it the things it has in it.
The Constitution, in addressing slavery, was dealing with a reality of its time, and it wasn't the time or place to end slavery. There were 5 free states and 8 slave states at the time. The focus was on setting up a new government FAGGOT.

Which, btw, they should not have been doing, but that is a different discussion.

If you unironically agree with anything an anchor from SNL says about politics, much less the Constitution, kys.

>le smug negro face