User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/16/2002 8:59:50 AM EDT
[#1]
It's "bear" arms.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2002 9:01:28 AM EDT
[#2]
this admendment is better, "all citizens can have guns and all anti-gunners are now considered terrorists. subsection c of the admentment abolishes them to afganistan!"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2002 9:03:48 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: know how the anti-gunners keep talking about an amendment to get rid of the 2nd Amendment? Here's my version "A well armed militia consisting of all able bodied citizens, being necessary for the security of a free and peaceful state, the right of all citizens to keep and bare arms shall not in any way be infringed" |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2002 9:12:48 AM EDT
[#4]
thanks
I knew I should have checked my pocket Constitution guide before posting Quoted: It's "bear" arms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2002 9:25:32 AM EDT
[#5]
It is the duty of all persons of this nation to contribute to national and state level security at all times and in all places. The duty to contribute to national and state level security may be waived by applying for a permit to not carry firearms. The price of this permit shall not excide the average weekly pay of the city or town in which the person resides. Permits are valid for a period of two years.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2002 9:55:35 AM EDT
[#6]
A variation of SDAVID's idea:
It is the duty of all citizens to protect their country and their families. Each citizen is require to have in their possession, a minimum of one pistol, one shotgun and one military assault weapon capable of full automatic fire. Failure to have the above will result in the forfeiter of all rights and privileges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2002 10:22:54 AM EDT
[#7]
2nd Amendment: Benjamin0001 Style
27 Amendment: 2nd Amendment: Stays the same but I kind like OWN A GUN, USE A GUN 27 Amendment: Would Read: Only Democrats are subject to laws passed by Democrats and Only Republicans are subject to laws passed by Republicans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2002 12:03:03 PM EDT
[#8]
27 Amendment: Would Read: Only Democrats are subject to laws passed by Democrats and Only Republicans are subject to laws passed by Republicans. Can't say that I think that's a good idea. How about we only use and follow the best laws that each side comes up with, get the best of both worlds? Mix and match the best features of the Republicans(guns) and the Democrats(the environment). Throw it all into a blender, and enjoy a nice, tasty milkshake of a perfected America. Guns 'n' trees. Mmmm, mmmmm good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2002 12:24:37 PM EDT
[#9]
The courts will not enforce the meaning of the second amendment most of the time as it stands now...and it is perfectly clear if they bother to understand 18th century English. Changing the second amendment would do no good, and calling for a consitutional convention could cause a lot of problems, because once one is called everything is fair game for change.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2002 5:38:15 PM EDT
[#10]
Since every so often governments become overbearing and need to be overthrown, the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed by any person or governmental entity.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2002 8:09:27 PM EDT
[#11]
HaHa... the concept of an "antiquated" 2nd Amendment, or to amend the Amendment, is one of the funnier concepts I have seen from the anti's. Go ahead, ask them what they would amend it TO. They DO NOT have any idea what they want to change!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2002 8:41:54 PM EDT
[#12]
If you're honest and literate, then the existing 2nd amendment is very adequate. If you're not BOTH honest and literate, it doesn't really matter anyway, and that's how the antigunners and many judges are now.
But if it were to be re-written with extreme clarity, I'd do it like this: "The rights of the individual people to keep any type of arms and to bear any type of arms shall never be infringed by any person, government, or agency, whether local, state, or federal. Any such infringement shall be a capital offense, punishable by mandatory death sentence." Could I be any clearer? [;D] This could be interpreted to mean that anti-gunners could be put to death if they tried to interfere with your having a gun. I like it! CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2002 10:21:03 PM EDT
[#13]
God forbid it was ever changed for the worst, then it would be time to take out every left wing liberal bastard that supported the change. Thats it,,
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
