1. Literally will not happen. 2. Literally will be let go without any punishment whatsoever.

The founding fathers got things wrong, a lot. The first amendment, if followed to the letter and spirit, would allow the acquisition, possession, distribution, and modification of child pornography, so long as the people doing these things had not abused children, they'd not be able to be found guilty of a crime. Second amendment, would allow for the domestic ownership of items that are hazardous to the generally population, the "recreational nukes" meme being a good example. There should be limits to the constitution and the bill of rights, from the start they'd allow all manner of things that you'd not approve of. Sometimes you need some things to be prohibited without any debate being permitted on the matter.

>>12211 Both of the things you object to should be legal.

>>12211 >The first amendment, if followed to the letter and spirit, would allow the acquisition, possession, distribution, and modification of child pornography, so long as the people doing these things had not abused children Care to point to what 18th century laws, legal decisions, and customs would lead to that conclusion?

>>12211 You know they had canons and warships, back then, yet they didn't feel the need to mention those in the Constitution.

>>12291 Americans wanted freedom alongside democracy. They thought that these two things could coexist and didn't consider that one may devour the other, instead of protecting their freedom, they let a tyrannical government take power through democracy.

>>12292 No, Americans never wanted democracy. You have no fucking clue what American law says about democracy.

>>12211 No, they executed pedophiles in public. Commit suicide.

You do realize the age of consent in America was much lower when the Constitution was written, right? In Delaware, the age of consent was 7. Most states had it between 10 and 12. We didn't start raising the age of consent to 16-18 until the 1890's, when first wave feminism became a thing and annoying cunts started screeching about how women should be allowed to vote, alcohol should be banned, and oh yeah ban cunny so obnoxious old maids have a chance of finding a man to marry. For all of human history prior to the late 19th century, men in their 20's or older marrying girls in their teens or tweens (or actual children, in the case of marriages for political purposes) was completely normal and common. Nude paintings of CIA agents were also quite common in the 1700's and people displayed them in their homes for guests to see, they were displayed in museums and art exhibits for the public to see, etc. so had photography existed at the time, it's likely nobody would have batted an eye at nude photos of children. Which is exactly what happened in real life; the advent of photography in the 1800's almost immediately made the leap to nude photography, including children; Lewis Carroll, author of Alice in Wonderland, was famous for photographing little girls in the nude, and nobody gave a shit. In fact, Democrat activismography was legal in the US until the 1970's, believe it or not; porn in general was kept out of the public eye, you had to go to a dirty book store that specialized in porn rather than simply seeing Playboy on sale at every gas station, and they absolutely had magazines featuring dapper gentlemanren on sale there. So the idea that "the first amendment technically allows Democrat activismography, and therefore is flawed" is a stupid argument. It assumes the founding fathers would have given a shit about Democrat activismography in the first place, and it also assumes they knew photography and video would be invented in the future and used to make dirty pictures.

>12297 The problem with the far right is their personal headcanons about stuff they like trumps anything we know about the reality of those things. They claim to want to bring back stuff from the past, but not the past that actually existed in reaity, no, what they want is to bring back what they imagine the past was like, and when you show them the actuality of those historical periods, they just go into denial. So in reality, what they truly wish to do is just impose their personal tastes on the world without admitting it and maing false claims to historical precedent that isn't actually there. Be honest, you don't want Democrat activism to be legal because why? you don;t ike it? should we just ban anything you don't like? There's real reasons why we should make it legal. Chiefly because it doesn't force us to have to have a means with which to censor that could be corrupted by assholes with a political agenda, and because it doesnt set a precedent that there are forms of speech or expression that should be censored, which the aforementioned assholes would jump all over to justify censoring anything that doesnt suit their preferred narrative. It could also be used to help catch sexual abusers of children more readily, it could be used to dissuade potential offenders from sexually abusing children, both by putting them off of te act by showing the reaity of it to them, and by giving them an outlet in recordings of past crimes to keep them from creating future ones. Now, do your personal preferences outweigh these potential benefits of making such a policy?

>>10104 Oh look, I was fucking right. As goddamn usual.

>privately owned cannons >privately owned warships >hand grenades and grenade launchers were a thing >multi-shot firearms, such as the Nock gun, volitional repeater, Girandoni Windbusche, etc. existed along with primitive revolvers >the first machine guns, such as the Puckle gun, the Chambers gun, etc. were a thing and even used by the American navy >founding fathers were all highly educated men, many were military leaders like Washington, many were inventors like Jefferson or Franklin, and all were aware that technology, particularly in regards to weaponry, wasn't going to stay static and unchanging for all of time >OY VEY THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS ONLY FOR MUSKETS, THEY COULDN'T HAVE FORESEEN MODERN FIREARMS TECHNOLOGY! The entire idea of the Second Amendment is that the general populace has firepower on par with the police or military in the event that the government attempts to impose tyrannical shit on them, or in the event a foreign military attempts to invade America (the founders envisioned only a small standing army, enough for an immediate defense, with volunteer militias composed of civilians armed and trained like the army being used to rapidly expand the army to repel invasion), which means their weaponry needs to be identical to what the police and military are using. This means the founders would be perfectly ok with ordinary Americans owning assault rifles, belt-fed machine guns, hand grenades, rocket launchers, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, mortars, howitzers, etc. because all of those could be used to defend the nation against their own tyrannical government or a foreign invader. Privately-owned tanks, PT boats, fighter jets, helicopter gunships? Also perfectly fine. The "recreational nukes" argument is Jewish bullshit meant to distract you; only a millionaire could afford to purchase a nuclear warhead and maintain it (nukes require regular maintenance to remain operational, due to radioactive decay among other things; part of why the Russian and US stockpiles consist of thousands of nukes is because 2/3 of them are undergoing maintenance at any given time, so you have to have enough to nuke the shit out of the enemy while most of them are unusable at any given time), a citizen cannot practically use a nuke to defend his country from a foreign invader (nuke the invading troops? You just nuked your own soil. Nuke the enemy country? You just invited nuclear retaliation, with no input from your country's leadership.), nor can a nuke be reasonably used to protect yourself against your own government because you would be nuking your own civilians and covering the landscape in fallout, not just blowing up government troops and politicians. Thus, anything bigger than a fighter jet, tank, howitzer, etc. is impractical for the average civilian and likely not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

>>12297 >No, Americans never wanted democracy. retard

>>12315 Commit suicide. You know nothing. You are nothing. You’ve proven you can’t hold this conversation. Literally kill yourself. The Founding Fathers universally railed against democracy. They hated it. They explicitly did not make a democratic nation. There is no democracy in any of the US’s laws. The word democracy does not appear in the Declaration, Constitution, or any state constitution. Commit. Suicide.

>>12316 major cope.

>>12316 Any system in which votes are vast to decide political matters is democracy. Representative democracy, where leaders are elected to represent the people, such as in the Democratic republic of the American electoral system, is still a form of democracy. Elections = democracy. Direct democracy is where votes are cast on policy and decision making rather than on rulers. Democracy takes many forms, but the US democracy is indeed a kind of it, with balances against mob rule like the electoral college, but that doesn't change that it's still a type of Democratic system.

>>12317 >no argument Reported. >>12318 >Any system in which votes are vast to decide political matters is democracy. Nope. >Representative democracy >the Democratic republic of the American electoral system Keep repeating buzzwords you don't understand.

>tyranny sucks >every dictatorship falls after the first guy dies >democracy is literally communism as its other people deciding what happens to you and your stuff, including taking it for the "common good". Knowing these things why aren't you guys ancaps? America was basically going for this anyway and every mistake it made was it becoming more of a state.

This is a stupid thread of stupid opinions

>>12307 im not gonna bother looking shit up since i know from cultural osmosis that sex outside of marriage was thoroughly shunned until the 1960s and sodomy was illegal besides; im pretty sure consent back then meant getting amrried, which was done with the blessing of the parents and didnt mean fucking their child brides on the wedding reception tables and on the whole people knew back then that children are not for sexual and even if they had child brides they would wait until they were old enough to bear children before pulling their cocks out as far as nudity goes id put it in the same context as naked roman-greco statues which most people wernt jerking off to in public and even then dapper gentlemanren where a sign of purity since most people wernt busy trying to fuck them since they were too young to enjoy it and at that point you may as well fuck a goat instead which would

>>12321 >why aren't you guys ancaps? America was basically going for this anyway The Founding Fathers were national socialists.

>>12307 What got the ball rolling on the feminist narrative was a picture of a heavily pregnant 10 year old prostitute clothed only in a rag of a shawl on the streets of London. I mean, of course they couldn't just HELP the impoverished children, they just made it illegal to fuck them under any circumstance. God damn talk about a slippery slope. Now we are calling middle aged men who fuck 22 year olds pedos.

>>13030 > im pretty sure consent back then meant getting amrried Or sleeping with a prostitute, which was perfectly common. lol, my great grandmother was a madam in the Deep South. Small town. But that is what sex outside of marriage meant. If a girl had sex outside of marriage she was a whore. Whores don't get married. Whores are looked down on. But they serve a VITAL function in relieving societal stress among men, and ensuring that boys grow up straight. Exposure to devient pornography or grooming by homosexuals will lead to situations like those we find today. Gays and trannies EVERYWHERE.

Would the founding father's endorse the idea of allowing a grown man to do sexual acts with a newly born girl? I seriously doubt that they would. Even without an age of consent, the act of rape would still be illegal and the idea of a baby girl consenting to these things would be ridiculous. So they must have some standard age where the child can not consent, and engaging in any sex act with them is prohibited, even if there was no age of consent.

>>12211 >leaffag >against the ownership of recreational nukes And you wonder why your government uses it's citizens as a door matt.

>>14400 Only fucking africans fuck newborns, quit moving the goalposts. In fact, stop trying to dictate ANYTHING to the US until you get your country back from the tyrants that currently have their boots and hands on your peoples' collective throat.

>>12307 >Nude paintings of CIA agents were also quite common in the 1700's I was told the CIA was created during WW2 and had a different name back then

>>14586 >and had a different name back then You're talking about the OSS. Actually, a lot of the modern government agencies started sometime during the World Wars.

>>14428 I'm not the one defending pedophiles here.

>>12307 >We didn't start raising the age of consent to 16-18 until the 1890's, when first wave feminism became a thing do me a favor and look into who came to America around that same time period

>>14400 >Would the founding father's endorse the idea of allowing a grown man to do sexual acts with a newly born girl? George Washington was a Mason, so, probably.

>>16619 Hellfire club attendees, they were part of orders dedicated to indulging in the most extreme sins and vices that one possibly could. Child rape was one of them, so was torturing the poor kid to death, drinking their horror enriched blood, then butchering, cooking, and eating them after violating the dead body. The goal was on the clubs very name, to rack up as much negative karma as possible before oness death, believing in hell, but intentionally seeking ones own damnation at the greatest extent., the more dammed you are in hell, the higher your rank among the condemned would be, these hellfire clubs sought sought make you into the kings of hell, rather than servants of heaven, to overthrow the devil himself after infiltrating the nobility of the infernal abyss.