bardicverse said:
Actually it was, that was the intended principle. You have to take into consideration that the views of society at the time didn't regard slaves or women on the same level in general. It would be like passing a law now that excludes rights for frogs, and 100 years from now, frog rights are established. Women and slaves were not viewed as "individuals" in general, and thus the laws were slighted against them, only on the grounds that they were so often overlooked. Had someone like Abe Lincoln said "Hey, those slaves - theyre people too", things might have been different. What you are saying is the end result of a social norm of a time period many moons ago. Yet, don't think that the intent was for equality.
|
Ok I'll accept that, but that exact argument can be used to point out why the right to bare arms is no longer needed. Clearly it made sense during a period where the country had recently had to fight for their independance against a foreign power and very much distrusted the role of government. Yet anytime someone suggests removing gun rights because it's really not necessary in todays society(the 'man' is not coming to get you), people get all up in arms(no pun intended) saying that the founding fathers protected your rights to bare arms etc.
The only teeth strong enough to eat other teeth.