To Preserve Gun Rights, We Must Replace the Second Amendment (What a Dumb Idea)

Townhall.com ^ | February 26, 2018 | Justin Haskins

[exit82]

You smellz like lightning.........IBTZ.

[publius911]

Take the first clause out because liberals can’t read and understand basic English.

Considering the fact that most contemporary citizens can't comprehend contemporary English (even the average superior Freepers,) it not surprising that they can't grasp the common understanding of 18th century English, that different language in which the Constitution was written.

One nation, two distinct citizenries, separated by a common language, but alas, also by 225 years of time, and respect for knowledge, character and ethics.

[publius911]

Nice graphics. A huge mouth, a missing brain, cool sunglasses and a sign that substitutes as a weapon...

[Tenacious 1]

So, in your opinion, children born to two slaves in one of the States after 1789 were citizens of the United States even though they were not citizens of, say, Alabama, and they had inalienable rights the Constitution as amended was intended to protect?

Yes, That's almost correct. It's why we ended fighting the Civil War? It's also why the Constitution didn't directly address slavery. They couldn't agree on the status of "slaves" or "Negros". I'm not sure where you are confused.

Want to try again?

Do I need to?

[unixfox]

Think they would ever consider repealing the 16th? Not a chance.

What I call the SLAVE AMENDMENT. See tagline.

[RipSawyer]

That would not help. The average liberal thinks that “shall not be infringed” means that there must be some theoretical way that a person can obtain a permit to own a firearm even if it takes ten years to get a permit and those who own a gun are required to keep it in a safe at the police station and is only allowed to have one round in his shirt pocket. If I exaggerate it is only very slightly.

[RipSawyer]

“In a generation or less we could be living in a police state.”

I think we already do.