Where did I "blow off" cross examination? Let's review. In response to appeal to the wisdom of the founding fathers, I made the point that the founding fathers also codified slavery in the constitution.
What part are you addressing as it relates to slavery in the Constitution? What part of the constitution codifies slavery? Your quote was below and you used slavery as an analogy to gun rights.
The founding fathers also thought codifying slavering into the constitution was a good idea at the time. That idea became outdated and was changed with amendments. There is no reason to believe it can't happen to the outdated idea of absolute gun rights.
You then said: "Like the Old Testament? What about the New where Jesus uses slaves as examples?" In an effort to figure out how this is any kind of response to me,
You brought up the subject of slavery in the first place in the constitution. Jesus also uses slaves as examples in the New where some get a few whips and others get many whips without judgment of right and wrong. It could be argued slavery is codified in the Old Testament. Regulated for the benefit of slaves
I asked "You are not seriously supporting institutional slavery, condoned by the US government, are you?"
That was the whole trigger. Is Jesus supporting slavery? How bout whipping slaves? Any questioning brings about the veiled accusation of supporting slavery. It is a schoolboy cheap shot. You did it again and even emboldened it. Ignored the previous answer. You brought up slavery. Was Jesus condoning slavery and whipping of slaves? Does the constitution use whippings as punishment for slaves?
That is not "blowing off" your remark. It is asking for clarification on what you intended to prove by that remark.
For one the analogy of slaves and gun rights is weak. It ignores guns were used to free slaves in the south in the civil war. They had gun rights, including free blacks who were former slaves. They remained free and did not forfeit their gun rights after it was over. They held on to their guns for protection against white mobs. Under your gun-grab model, blacks would not have been able to defend themselves against angry racist mobs.
Was it to show that the founding fathers had wisdom in codifying slavery?
It was an issue for them that had to be addressed
Or was there some other point. Was it that Jesus was just as bad in his support of slavery.
If we follow your logic then i don't see how you can assume otherwise. You seem to imply some sort of moral lapse on the founding fathers for codifying slavery and use that as an analogy to ban guns.
If you insist I will address that directly. Jesus mentioned slavery because it was a fact of life at that time.
And slavery was not a fact of life at the time of the Constitution?
He in no way supported it or urged his followers to codify it into law.
They already had law. Roman law allowed slavery as did Hebrew law. So?
So, no. Jesus was not as bad as that.
You mean not as bad as the founding fathers? You come across as two-faced on that one.
Even the Old Testament is focused most of all on leading the chosen peopled out of slavery. Nowhere in the Old or the New Testament is slavery every extolled as a good thing.
Where is slavery extolled as a good thing in the constitution?
It is more often described as an evil,
Where? Mistreatment is in Job.
But that is quite a bit off topic,
You are the one who brought it up.
We have come to realize that slavery is bad. And we will also come to realize that have a saturation level of guns is also bad.
How so? What is saturation level and who are you to say how many guns a citizen may legally own? Owning a gun is not analogous to owning a slave or many slaves. Anyways i have had enough of this for now.