Do you believe the Bill of Rights is outdated and should be either dropped in its entirety or at least rewritten?

CMDCM Gene Treants — Sat, 24 May 2014 01:53:09 -0400

My Goddaughter seems to be very representative of many people in her generation in believing that the Second Amendment is totally outdated and needs to be eliminated. As with many on the left, she feels that no individual has any need for a handgun.

Additionally, do we really need the First Amendment since one of its previsions deals with religion and seems to discriminate against atheists and agnostics?

So, how many down votes will I get for even posting a controversial question like this?

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made May 24 at 2014 2:36 AM

CMDCM Gene Treants — Sat, 24 May 2014 02:36:00 -0400

Just as a refresher and to keep people from having to look them up:

Bill of Rights Transcript Text

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

Response by SN Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2014 3:50 AM

SN Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 May 2014 03:50:16 -0400

The first amendment was originally meant to protect people and allow them to share their opinions and practice their beliefs as long as they didn't harm others, but now days both the First and Second Amendments are being used as excuses to do wrong.

There are a lot of points that I believe are helpful guidelines in the Bill of Rights, but seeing as our world has adapted I do think that it is time the Bill adapted as well Master Chief.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2014 7:16 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 May 2014 07:16:06 -0400

The country needs a set protocol by which it should operate. Changing it will only create mass chaos and confusion. Leave the Constitution and all amendments as they are! Don't like the way this country operates, you're free to leave.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made May 24 at 2014 7:51 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Sat, 24 May 2014 07:51:24 -0400

Needs to remain as is, younger people just need to really "learn" what the Amendments are actually saying. Liberals and Conservatives both need to throttle back on the vitriolic hatred that seem to be generated by 1st and 2nd Amendment issues, just because you feel a certain way doesn't mean you can be a total ass about it and disregard the beliefs of others.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2014 8:09 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 May 2014 08:09:07 -0400

Dear MCPO Treants,

I think of the Bill of Rights like the Christian Bible, Talmud, and Koran. There is no reason to change them as long as they can be reinterpreted to fit current circumstance as needed. When they cannot be bent to fit current needs then we can rewrite them.

Congratulations on your grandchildren!!!

Warmest Regards, Sandy

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2014 9:02 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 May 2014 09:02:14 -0400

Nothing wrong with asking the question. Although I would submit that your Goddaughter is not as representative of that generation as you think...just better at verbalizing her disagreement to others.

The Constitution or portions of it are just as important today as it was during its inception while our country was in its infancy in 1787. What document could be more crucial to our way of life than one which enshrines our individual rights and liberties? Why would the importance of these freedoms lessen with time? I would counter that in today's age of terrorist threats being answered with far reaching legislation such as the Patriot Act, Constitutional protections have never been more important than they are now.

What many young people today don't seem to understand is that Constitutional protections are not open to selective interpretation, or political stamps of approval. They do not shift with the populist winds of change. I have just as much of a right to practice or publicly espouse my belief in Christianity as a Wiccan or Satanist. My personal feelings on someone else exercising their Constitutionally protected rights are entirely irrelevant.

If I were you, I would take the opportunity to encourage some critical thinking here. I would ask your Goddaughter some detailed questions about why she feels the way she does. Has she studied the Founding Father's intent? Did she arrive at this conclusion based on her own research, or has she been indoctrinated into this mindset by a biased educational institution or political entity? I would also ask her what the 2nd and 3rd order effects are from removing 1st and 2nd amendment constitutional protections? Too often these days, we don't encourage young people to do the research and come to their own conclusions. If she still believes this, and you determine this belief isn't based on something like emotion, or biased influences within education institutions, then I would respect it.

As far as the comment about 1st and 2nd amendments being used as an "excuse to do wrong", I would emphasize that the Bill of Rights does not protect lawbreakers. It does however protect the right of dissent, so long as that dissent does not result in the commission of a crime. Unfortunately, politicians are famous for using tragedy, emotion, and a criminal's disregard for the law as a means to achieve a political end.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2014 10:09 AM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 May 2014 10:09:43 -0400

Leave it as is. It's the fabric of our constitution. If we start altering it to meet our desires and whims, we create a snowball effect which will distort the focus of what our country was founded on.

Response by SFC Stephen P. made May 24 at 2014 10:23 AM

SFC Stephen P. — Sat, 24 May 2014 10:23:55 -0400

I have seen violations of all but the 7th amendment.

What use is the bill of rights if it is not observed?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2014 11:19 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 May 2014 11:19:41 -0400

I would suggest leaving as is, but I would qualify that we need to stop with the selective citations. 2nd amendment supporters (which I'm among) always quote the 1 sentence within the 2nd that seems to support complete freedom to own any type of weapon in any situation, while ignoring the fact that the term "militia" is elaborated upon in multiple places within the constitution and has case precedence as well. As technology changes, we have to allow for interpretation of the constitution. However, I think that things like the commerce clause have been completely misused to remove many 4th amendment protections. It's a fine line and I would prefer constitutional scholars on the supreme court vs appointed (for LIFE) members who cannot be removed, even when they're people like Scalia who clearly misuse the constitution to selectively support his personal agenda.

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made May 24 at 2014 12:40 PM

MSgt Keith Hebert — Sat, 24 May 2014 12:40:10 -0400

Leave as is.
Elimination of the bill of rights would destroy this country.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made May 24 at 2014 1:20 PM

SPC Charles Brown — Sat, 24 May 2014 13:20:52 -0400

Why mess with something that has worked so well for so long. If you want to change amendments start with those that come afterwards. Review and reject those that do not belong!

Response by TSgt Scott Hurley made May 24 at 2014 1:31 PM

TSgt Scott Hurley — Sat, 24 May 2014 13:31:16 -0400

The reason for the Bill of Rights was to unite the country. If someone wants to see one or all of them eliminated because they claim they are outdated, have rocks in their heads. Everything that we are encountering now, with our government, is exactly what our founders fought against before the Constitution ever was thought of. Today's youth need to learn this, and realize that the these 1st ten amendments to the constitution are necessary to keep us united.

Also, I think the Constitution and the 10 amendments should be read and studied along with taking a test to make sure they understand the meaning and what each one protects and stands for in this great country of ours.

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made May 24 at 2014 1:48 PM

SSG V. Michelle Woods — Sat, 24 May 2014 13:48:04 -0400

Should we slap our forefathers in the face? No sir.

We should however, slap "this entitled generation" on the butt. That ought to fix a few problems :)

Just curious, but who are the parents of "this entitled generation"?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2014 2:53 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 May 2014 14:53:24 -0400

No individual has a need for a handgun. You can inhale and exhale just as fine with or without it. So in this, your God daughter is technically correct.

Where she is mistaken is when she confuses rights with needs. Rights are not needs-based subject to outside approval. Once a right can be interpreted as something that is needed or not, based on the interpretation of an individual or body, it ceases to be a right and becomes something else entirely.

So when confronted with the argument that no one "needs" a handgun, ask what they mean by need. Then ask who "needs" the internet? Who "needs to be able to speak?

The right for an individual to keep and bear arms is not subject to a determination of a need to do same. If it were, we could simply apply the same criteria to the other various rights.

One final thought. The Constitution does not exit to limit the rights of the People or the States. It exists to limit what powers the Federal Government may exercise.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2014 3:22 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 May 2014 15:22:28 -0400

I am going to focus on the gun/2nd amendment issue, since without it, all the other rights will fall: I can't believe that anyone would actually consider this, or think that there is no need for citizens to ever be able to defend themselves.

Time and time again, it has been proven that when you restrict people from buying or using guns, crime (especially violent crime) goes up. Criminals do not care for, or respect anyone, and if they can make you a victim, they will.

Here are some statistics and facts about firearms laws, and their affect on murder and violent crime: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Most of these can be verified, and the site gives links for every statistic it posts.

Here are just a few facts:

42% of Americans WILL be the victim of a successful violent crime (rape, sexual assault, assault, robbery, etc.)

83% will be the victim of an ATTEMPTED violent crime!

52% will be the victim of an attempted or successful violent crime MORE THAN ONCE!

34% of criminals who have committed violent crimes have been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

40% of criminals decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

69% of criminals personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

Note: Of those figures, criminals do tend to brag and lie, so they are probably a little high, but the statistics are still shocking nonetheless.

So, do away with the 2nd Amendment? No way. That happens, I'm out of here because I'll be damned if anyone is going to tell me I can't use a gun to protect my wife, my children, myself, or my property!

Here's one other fact for you: 37% of all women in the US have been sexually assaulted!

I have two daughters and I remind them regularly!

Gun Control - Just Facts

Learn more about guns and gun control through studies, statistics, and published facts.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made May 24 at 2014 3:39 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sat, 24 May 2014 15:39:10 -0400

Master Chief, Does your goddaughter believe that people, American citizens should not hold the right to have privately owned fire arms and that only the government should have fire arms? Does she even know why the second amendment exist? Normally the typical response is that people die from gun fire all the time but they seldom have any statistical data to back up any claims that banning fire arms would be a good thing. A society that bares fire arms has the ability to keep a government in check. A society that does not bare arms put themselves at risk of severe control from the government. I am not going to vote you down because I do not agree with your goddaughter's crazy and ultra liberal views.

Response by SSG Jeffrey Spencer made May 24 at 2014 4:29 PM

SSG Jeffrey Spencer — Sat, 24 May 2014 16:29:54 -0400

He** no! The writers of the papers that borne this country knew enough about what devils plagued monarchies and dictators.

Response by PO2 Rocky Kleeger made May 24 at 2014 5:28 PM

PO2 Rocky Kleeger — Sat, 24 May 2014 17:28:33 -0400

This younger generation has to realize that to do without these amendments will do away with certain rights that our founding fathers wanted we, as citizens, to have.

To do away with First Amendment will mean that you can fear persecution from your government for practicing whatever religion you choose to practice.

The Second was put in so that we could protect ourselves from a tyrannical regime, but you have to understand why it was put in, the time period, what was going on, etc.

This generation has given more of people's rights away to the government than any other generation in history. Because they then expect the government everything that they think they are entitled to.

Keep the Bill of Rights as is for future generations so that they can do something about what the current generation sows.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2014 5:45 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 May 2014 17:45:13 -0400

No disrespect, but I can't help assessing that people who feel this way are either uneducated, unintelligent or just completely disregard common sense. As far as the second amendment, I'm shocked that anyone can comfortably say there is no need for anyone to possess small arms without feeling completely stupid. Regarding the 1st amendment, it actually protects and encourages atheists and agnostics, doesn't discriminate against anyone. The bill of rights was written with the intent of protecting against persecution of religion, opinion, free thought, etc. It is just silly that in America, atheists claim to be discriminated against by our constitution. These kids you refer to are often stupid because we as parents have set bad examples, allowed government to run wild and failed to educate them.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made May 24 at 2014 5:53 PM

SSG Trevor S. — Sat, 24 May 2014 17:53:03 -0400

I swore to defend it, period.

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made May 24 at 2014 6:08 PM

LCpl Steve Wininger — Sat, 24 May 2014 18:08:09 -0400

MCPO Treants. I think your Goddaughter represents a segment of her generation, but I think it is stretching things to say many. My daughter and many of her friends believe in the constitution and the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. I too am a college student and have had many conversations in my government, philosophy, English, etc. classes. While there are some that think the Bill of rights need to be "Updated" it by no means represents the majority, or many.

Before making this post I reread the first amendment. No where does it suggest discrimination against Atheists or Agnostics. In fact the first amendment guarantees there right to believe as they want just as it does one who professes a deity.

Response by SPC Christopher Smith made May 24 at 2014 6:30 PM

SPC Christopher Smith — Sat, 24 May 2014 18:30:19 -0400

The issue with touching the Bill of Rights, is who rewrites it, who influences the person with the pen, and at what point do we stop eliminating pieces from it?

We need a foundation politically. If we got rid of all the laws to date, we would still be able to fall back on the Bill of Rights as a foundation of law.

Anyone who thinks that guns are an issue has yet to figure out, that making guns illegal does not hurt the "bad" guys with the guns, but makes everyone without one an easier target. It is not too often that you hear of someone running into a Police Station and going on a shooting spree, just food for thought.

I say we leave the Bill of Rights alone, and move on to more pressing topics like our crumbling infrastructure, and tail spinning education system.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made May 24 at 2014 6:43 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sat, 24 May 2014 18:43:12 -0400

These are tough choices. Given the choices I have to say leave it as is. In reality I think it needs some amending, in general, and a relook at both 1 & 2. 1787 was a long time ago, the world and our country has changed probably beyond the imagination of our founding fathers. There are plenty of great arguments here, but I believe that the Constitution, through amendments, is a "living" document. if everything is as it was in 1787 then I'd feel differently, but its not.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2014 7:16 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 May 2014 19:16:12 -0400

The awesome thing about the Bill of Rights is that it is a living document. It can and does change with the times! Getting rid of the Bill of Rights would be a mistake beyond belief as would removing parts of it. The 1st amendment says I can say what I wish...not that you have to listen to it. The 2nd says I CAN have a firearm not that anyone else has to have a firearm. Giving up the rights that we fought so hard for would undermine everything this country was founded on.

Response by CPT Richard Riley made May 24 at 2014 8:47 PM

CPT Richard Riley — Sat, 24 May 2014 20:47:15 -0400

The bill of rights was put in place to protect the citizens from oppression. It's not easy growing up in today's world for sure, but if they spent the time to think through and research why what eventually became the Bill of Rights is in place, it is just as applicable today as it was when written.

Response by SFC Michael Hartwig made May 24 at 2014 10:20 PM

SFC Michael Hartwig — Sat, 24 May 2014 22:20:21 -0400

It's scary to think psychotic lberals actually think this is even doable. Just throw the whole damn constitution out lets have an anarchy party! Disgusting.

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made May 24 at 2014 10:20 PM

Cpl Ray Fernandez — Sat, 24 May 2014 22:20:53 -0400

It's great to talk about giving up specific rights, up until the point when you need that right. The protections of religion were written only to prevent the government from establishing a specific religion. Christianity in of itself is a philosophy not a religion until you adopt a specific religious sect and belief system like being Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist, etc.

MCPO I can't vote you down for this post simply because that's the great thing about the First Amendment you have a right to voice an opinion even an unpopular or incorrect one without reprisal from the federal government.

Without knowing more about your Goddaughter, I can't say much about her only wonder about her life experiences, and wonder about her age and just how much she has experienced. The second amendment is one of those things that it's better to have and not need than to need and not have.

Response by PO2 Pete Haga made May 25 at 2014 3:01 AM

PO2 Pete Haga — Sun, 25 May 2014 03:01:43 -0400

MCPO do we really want the flakes in DC changing anything to do with the bill of rights?

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made May 25 at 2014 7:50 AM

SSG Gerhard S. — Sun, 25 May 2014 07:50:54 -0400

The Bill of rights, AND the Constitution it Amended is as needed and prescient as ever. Both are documents of principle. The Constitution provides the definition and scope of our Federal government, enumerating it's powers, while the Bill of Rights specifically tells the Federal government what it is forbidden to do TO us.

I say, leave the Bill of Rights exactly as it is, and furthermore both the Bill of Rights, AND the Constitution should be adhered to.

Lastly, those who violate their oath of office(Primarily Politicians) to uphold and defend the Constitution (and it's amendments) should be impeached and removed for office.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made May 25 at 2014 8:04 AM

SSG Gerhard S. — Sun, 25 May 2014 08:04:43 -0400

To those who wish to argue the 2nd Amendment is "outdated", I would ask if they also believe the Fourth Amendment is outdated because it doesn't mention Computers, or Smart Phones, or Tablets?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Does this mean that our Computers can be searched at any given moment without probable cause or a warrant by the Federal government? Of course not. This Amendment, like the Constitution is a statement of principle. Clearly any rational interpretation would include the electronic equivalents of "Papers" and "effects".

Also, if one uses the argument that the 2nd Amendment is outdated because there were no semiautomatic rifles when it was written, does that also mean that freedom of the press should only apply to newspapers printed on manually operated printing presses?

Again, clearly not. These "outdated" arguments are cherry picked, and fail to hold water on the "Principle" standard, and those who make such arguments are either arguing out of ignorance, or because of an agenda, the most popular and persistent agenda being the Anti-Gun rights agenda. It never fails to amaze how some will make the argument against the Second Amendment while never considering the congruent arguments that could be made against a whole host of other freedoms those same people wish to enjoy.

Response by Cpl Ken Dumesnil made May 25 at 2014 10:42 AM

Cpl Ken Dumesnil — Sun, 25 May 2014 10:42:29 -0400

What the hell is wrong with these people?

Response by Cpl Glynis Sakowicz made May 25 at 2014 11:53 AM

Cpl Glynis Sakowicz — Sun, 25 May 2014 11:53:13 -0400

What most people, or at least most who dislike guns are thinking, is that people don't require them to feed themselves anymore. That was not the point in the first place, we were not simply 'given arms' we were expected to form into Militias and defend the country against its government if necessary.
The right to bear arms was given to us, by the founding fathers, who knew very well, that giving power to some, can and often does create monsters of a sort. They sought for a way to assure themselves that Americans would not become helpless victims of tyrany... and I spelled that wrong, didn't I?
The Second Ammendment was written into the fabric of our country by men who knew what it felt like, to be helpless a time or two, and they wanted better for us.
Giving up one of our rights, would, in my view, lead to another and another. Harry Reid is already trying to float a bill that would take away our right to free speech, and several others have commented that there should be limits on our freedom of speech because most Americans are not intelligent enough to have that freedom.
If it comes to be, that we loose our Second Ammendment, it would be a very sad day for us all.

Response by CW2 Jonathan Kantor made May 25 at 2014 12:25 PM

CW2 Jonathan Kantor — Sun, 25 May 2014 12:25:52 -0400

The 2nd Amendment is fine. It doesn't need to be changed, it has been clarified via numerous court cases. What we need is regulation. EVERYTHING is regulated in our society, yet guns are less regulated than tobacco, alcohol, and automobiles. All four of those things kill people (Or can kill people anyway), so regulation is needed.

For me, I want background checks for all purchases. If someone has a history of violence, they may lose their right to own a firearm. Sometimes we need to protect our rights entirely and sometimes we need to protect ourselves from ourselves. There is nothing wrong with a normal person owning a gun.... or hundreds of them. It's the small minority that poses a concern.

The First Amendment doesn't hurt atheists and agnostics, it helps them. It's the one Amendment that truly protects them (me/us). Clarification through precedence has made it even more protective over the years.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made May 25 at 2014 1:08 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Sun, 25 May 2014 13:08:26 -0400

Drop an Amendment, and we, the People, will pay the price.

Response by GySgt William Hardy made May 25 at 2014 1:35 PM

GySgt William Hardy — Sun, 25 May 2014 13:35:14 -0400

I find it absolutley amazing that our Founding Fathers came back together after the Constitution was written and decided that not enough emphasis was placed on our basic rights and added the Bill of Rights. They are just as important now as they were then. Many people do not know what they mean. Try reading the Federalist Papers where those men defined such terms as militia and made it clear what they meant from the very beginning.

People like your granddaughter do not have an appreciation for what it takes to keep a country free...free for them to express themselves. Free to do almost anything they want. Today's liberal left are actually thinking more like socialists everyday. The way we live would soon fall to the wayside if we were not allowed the freedom to speak against what we see as bad and to speak up for what we see as good. What the left does not understand is that the very freedom they enjoy to attack the right is protected by the freedoms they which to destroy. They would soon change their tune if they would just realize that simple concept. I often considered the order of the Bill of Rights. Freedom of Speech..to say or publish what we feel. The Right to Bear Arms...our Founding Fathers gave us the right to rebel if the government got out of hand. The left would take that away and make it so easy for socialist and communists to take over. Neither of those systems have work successfully anywhere in the world. Remember your oath..To protect the Constitution...I take that very seriously. Even though I am retired, no one ever relieved me of that oath. The oath also said..foreign and domestic... and if we are not careful, domestic may be coming sooner than we think...then those that oppose the Second Amendment will be eating crow.

Response by SSG William Patton made May 25 at 2014 1:37 PM

SSG William Patton — Sun, 25 May 2014 13:37:11 -0400

This generation of leftists or communists as I prefer to call them, have no idea of the sacrifices that have been made to preserve this document, perhaps the most important document ever written for the rights of people. The 2nd Amendment is not there to allow us to hunt or sport shoot, or even protect our homes from the myriad of criminals that roam our streets today. It was put on the Constitution to protect us from our own government. Power cr corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and without the Bill of Rights, especially the 2nd Amendment, we might all be in FEMA camps now while the tyrant in the Oval Office makes his own laws. Every person on this site took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that oath does not have an expiration date with it. Until I die, I will fight those who would change the very soul of our republic.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made May 25 at 2014 2:37 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 25 May 2014 14:37:55 -0400

The real sad thing is, that we cant trust our politicians to add new ammendments because they're crooked as shit. However, more relevant to the conversation, no dropping any of the bill of rights. These are our inalienable rights, in addition to those in the constitution, but were not mentioned specifically in the constitution, which would make it easier for governement, groups or individuals to infringe on others rights. Do we not still speak, so should we not be still be allowed freedom of speech? Do crimes, and attrocities nkt still exist in the world, so should we not be allowed the freedom to own the most advanced personal defense weaponry to defend our own? Can't get rid of the bill of rights. It is the foundation that our country is built upon, and the nation has become shaky enough. Remove/rewrite that, and it will crumble.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 25 at 2014 3:43 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 25 May 2014 15:43:00 -0400

The Bill of Rights is sacred to our way of life and messing with it would be a political land grab.

Response by MSG Mitch Dowler made May 25 at 2014 8:02 PM

MSG Mitch Dowler — Sun, 25 May 2014 20:02:26 -0400

I certainly don't believe that civil rights are in any way outdated. Limiting of 2nd amendment rights all began with the fear of emancipation and former slaves owning firearms. Anti-civil rights firearm legislation was re-invigorated after the 1964 Civil Rights Act for some of the same reasons.

Response by SSG Laureano Pabon made May 25 at 2014 9:24 PM

SSG Laureano Pabon — Sun, 25 May 2014 21:24:09 -0400

Leave the Bill of Rights as is.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 25 at 2014 9:49 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 25 May 2014 21:49:51 -0400

The Second Amendment guarantees the provisions of the First Amendment(and others) so if you really want to eliminate the First then eliminating the Second would be the way to go. But, I would caution that the elimination of the Second Amendment would likely never happen. I don't believe it will ever receive enough votes to be eliminated legally. It is too much of a fabric of our country that a large number of people would not abide by it even if it is changed and would lead to a crisis in our country and it's government. On the First Amendment tending to discriminate against atheists and agnostics...i don't see it. I am agnostic theist and do not feel that the First Amendment discriminates against me or my ideals.

Response by LCpl Charles Ross made May 26 at 2014 1:54 AM

LCpl Charles Ross — Mon, 26 May 2014 01:54:15 -0400

The Bill Of Rights, Is why I served in the Marine Corp. It was protecting our way of life.It stands for all the freedoms any person can have. It's what we want to do, when, and where we want to, without fear of reprisals from Our Elected Government Officials. We are not ruled by Dictators, Queens,Military Rennagades. We don't live in police control. The Right To Carry and Bear Arms in This Country is essential in the Strength of our Great Nation. Take that right away, and we open ourselves to Control by Others, who hate Our America.

Response by 1SG Robert Branch made May 26 at 2014 8:16 AM

1SG Robert Branch — Mon, 26 May 2014 08:16:45 -0400

We need to dance with the one that got us here.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made May 26 at 2014 9:34 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Mon, 26 May 2014 09:34:38 -0400

I see a lot of comments referencing the 2nd Amendment referring to "keeping the government in check" by allowing citizens to bear arms. My questions are:

What is the interpretation of "keeping the government in check", would that include the threat or execution of armed uprisings as we've seen recently in other countries?

If such an armed uprising occurred in the US and SMs get called in to quell the uprising, where would you stand given that you in uniform, may be forced take up arms against fellow citizens exercising their constitutional rights?

Response by CPT Richard Riley made May 26 at 2014 10:53 AM

CPT Richard Riley — Mon, 26 May 2014 10:53:16 -0400

The Bill of Rights was created out of a need to counter the increased power that would be held by the new National Government. These rights were designed & written because of a heightened mistrust of the National Government to protect the civil liberties of the people.

The idea of adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was not popular at the Constitutional Convention. When George Mason (Virginia) proposed that such a bill be added to the preface of the proposed Constitution, his resolution was unanimously defeated. Alexander Hamilton believed adding a Bill of Rights would be dangerous, stating 'Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?'

After the Convention James Madison became the prime author to draft the Bill of Rights.He was the author of the Virginia Plan that became the outline for the Constitution. The Bill of Rights grew out of a commitment to individual rights. There was a growing fear that a National Government could become oppressive, deprive people of their liberties, and tax them without recourse. Congress approved Madison's final draft of 12 Amendments and forwarded them to the States for ratification.

Madison had 200 amendments to work with originally. Once thought through, the Amendments focused on human liberty and rights. Of the 12 Amendments sent to the States two were rejected - one on congressional compensation and one covering representation. The remaining 10 Amendments were declared in force on 15Dec 1791.

It was not a smooth or easy journey, but realistic expectations then, and just as current now.

Response by SGT James P. Davidson, MSM made May 26 at 2014 12:02 PM

SGT James P. Davidson, MSM — Mon, 26 May 2014 12:02:33 -0400

"Additionally, do we really need the First Amendment since one of its previsions deals with religion and seems to discriminate against atheists and agnostics?"

This is a patently false statement. The First Amendment protects the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion.

Perhaps your goddaughter needs to understand that without the Second, even SHE could have no First. Sit her down for a history and civics lesson, as her schools and parents have failed her. Don't be in that line.

Response by SSgt James Stanley made May 26 at 2014 5:21 PM

SSgt James Stanley — Mon, 26 May 2014 17:21:43 -0400

No, I don't believe the Bill of Rights is outdated and should be dropped nor rewritten. The Second Amendment is not just about individual gun ownership, but talks about a militia being important for the security of a free state. This Amendment was written for protection against a tyrannical government.
The First Amendment says Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion. That means they can't form a national religion. It also says they can't prohibit the free expression of religion. I fail to see where this discriminates against atheists and agnostics since they, too, are free to practice whatever they believe. there is more, what about freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances
The other eight Amendments cover important rights we are granted by the Constitution. Maybe your Goddaughter and her young friends should read the first ten Amendments and see which freedoms they would like to give up.
Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution have served us well until this current administration came in and began to try to destroy them.

Response by MSG(P) Michael Warrick made May 26 at 2014 5:49 PM

MSG(P) Michael Warrick — Mon, 26 May 2014 17:49:02 -0400

The Bill of Rights is a absolute document that will continue to stand the test of time.

Response by CMC Robert Young made May 26 at 2014 7:57 PM

CMC Robert Young — Mon, 26 May 2014 19:57:07 -0400

Master Chief, the Bill of Rights is fine just as it is.

The problem with those who believe that the people should be deprived of their inalienable right to possess firearms have a tentative grasp of our national history and the current facts regarding their use in modern America.

We didn't shout the British off the continent. We took up arms (the arms we had on hand possessed legally)and fought for the better part of a decade to establish the greatest nation on the planet. The militias were formed by people who brought their own weapons to the fight. The Founding Fathers understood that, and included a prohibition against the government taking our weapons from us. It was intended to protect us from our own government's potential for excesses (given some of our government's recent choices, any cable news channel might enlighten the uninformed with regard to the type of behavior our Founding Fathers feared).

Dictators first seek to eliminate any method by which their detractors would oppose them, and then to regulate the media. Prevent people from protecting themselves and then provide them only the information that you want them to hear. History clearly shows that repeatedly. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

With regard to current use of weapons by armed citizens; lawfully armed citizens intervene to protect themselves and their neighbors far more often than professional law enforcement officers do. Cities with the most strict gun laws also have the highest violent crime. (see Chicago, Washington DC, etc.). A quick review of Department of Justice statistics for decades shows that. I have worked my entire adult life in law enforcement, and can attest to that fact from multiple personal experiences. The police can't be everywhere (and we as a society wouldn't want them to be) so the result is that legally armed citizens take action when needed preventing or stopping crimes more frequently.

As to the question of the First Amendment; the provisions included protect those who don't have a particular theology as well as those who practice their faith with great passion. A careful reading of the amendment's verbiage shows that it protects everybody's right to practice their religion or none at all without interference from the government. There is nothing that discriminates against any particular section of the public by enforcing a specific ideology upon them.

I would offer (and I'm reasonably certain you already have) to your Goddaughter that she might study history and current facts more closely before making a decision or formulating an opinion.

Open respectful discussions should be the norm; not feared for the number of down votes one receives for raising controversial issues. The mature, open, and nimble mind welcomes the opportunity to explore other points of view. BZ for bringing a worthy topic to the group for consideration.

Response by SSG Charles Lovelace made May 26 at 2014 8:32 PM

SSG Charles Lovelace — Mon, 26 May 2014 20:32:18 -0400

This is the core of our nation and the foundation of our beliefs as a whole. If we modify and change at will the basis of our country then we as a whole are unable to maintain the identity that this country is based on.

Response by SFC Ian Lumgair made May 27 at 2014 10:19 AM

SFC Ian Lumgair — Tue, 27 May 2014 10:19:11 -0400

First and foremost there is no way of eliminating the Bill of Rights, and here is why. We are a republic we are established by law not by popularity. The bill of rights is the enumeration of rights that is "endowed by our creator". In another words we already have them weather given to us by law or not. No vote, no executive order, not even Supreme Court, can take those away. All three branches of our government has tried in the past and failed.additionally how is it that you can have one or more of the following and not have to have all.
People that make statements like we need to change 1 through ten amendments have not read them they are simply ignorant of the document.

1st Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[
2nd A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
3rd No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
4th No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
5th No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6th In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.[69]
The Sixth Amendment establishes a number of rights of the defendant in a criminal trial:
• The right to a speedy and public trial
• The right to trial by an impartial jury
• The right to be informed of criminal charges
• The right to confront witnesses
• The right to compel witnesses to appear in court
• The right to assistance of counsel
7th In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
8th Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
9th The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2014 10:36 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 May 2014 10:36:35 -0400

How is it even possible to elimiate a right that has been "endowed by our Creator?" The Constitution simply informs us of our God-given rights, not our Constitution-given rights, or government-given rights. Even without the Constitution, it is still our right to have freedom of speech, religion, the right to bear arms, etc. No government can change that. These rights are given by a higher power.

Response by PO1 Greg Mitchell made May 27 at 2014 11:22 AM

PO1 Greg Mitchell — Tue, 27 May 2014 11:22:03 -0400

The First Amendment deals with the freedom OF religion not the freedom FROM religion. It is impossible to discriminate against athiests who hold no religious beliefs and being an agnostic simply means you know something is out there but you just don't know what it is. So keep the First Amendment.

The Second Amendment was intended for the individual to have the same power as the government. I hear silly things about assualt rifles, pistols...etc. But back at our countries founding, a person, if they could afford it, could own their own cannons. So I think the Second Amendment should be amended to state that what ever the government has, an individual can own it, because the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting rights, it is about being able to defend yourself against a corrupt local, state or federal government.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2014 11:45 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 May 2014 11:45:33 -0400

There is a reason the bill of rights and the constitution was written the way it was. These rights enable the citizenry to defend itself against an oppressive government that our founding fathers knew would come to pass at some point. It is also why officers swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies...foriegn and domestic. Egypt or Turkey may be a bad example at this time in history, but those militaries don't put up with despotic leadership and have overthrown governments who did not adhere to its constitution. We aren't here for the government, the president, or the people. We are here for the constitution. In a defining moment of existentialism...it is why we exist.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2014 12:27 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 May 2014 12:27:18 -0400

This is a great question, and when you think about it the Bill of Rights was way ahead of its time when it came to establishing basic rights of citizens. Granted it took years for them to be interpreted to be inclusive of all people, but it also shows that our laws do change with the times just not as fast as we would like them to. The vagueness of our constitution and bill of rights is what allows us to grow as a country but at the same time they keep us in check by reminding us what our rights are at the most basic level. Instead of scrapping what made this country great, we need to streamline the political and judicial processes. Right now the Supreme Court is hearing fewer and fewer cases every year, we need to make our public servants work as hard as we do, and work all year round like us. But I guess that's a discussion for another day.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made May 27 at 2014 1:56 PM

Maj Chris Nelson — Tue, 27 May 2014 13:56:33 -0400

I feel it should be left alone. HOWEVER, if those on the Left really want to modify it (and they really want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment), let's help them by first taking away the 1st Amendment. once they no longer have that one, they can't talk about taking away the second.....

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made May 27 at 2014 2:40 PM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Tue, 27 May 2014 14:40:47 -0400

Like any 'system' if one part is removed remainder will be less effective. On the first ten Amendments (the initial Bill of Rights) alone here is how I, a common citizen, see their interaction.

If the 1st Amendment were removed then all those that currently against the 2nd Amendment as it stands would be unable to protest ANY issue without censorship.

The linchpin of the Bill of Rights is the 2nd Amendment - remove it and the US Constitution with the remaining Amendments is at risk. To remove the 2nd Amendment or to change the intent is to remove the ability of citizens to enforce the law against tyranny.

Without the 3rd Amendment the government could barrack soldiers at any time in your home and use you food, cars and indeed - your family without your consent, in de'facto holding your family as ransom.

The 4th, if it were removed would mean that if anyone disliked you (or your politics) you could be rousted at any time w/o recourse to warrant or intervention of court or legal defense. The accusation would be the charge and sentence in one statement.

Under the 5th I cannot incriminate myself under any circumstances up to and including torture.

With the 6th I have a right to a speedy PUBLIC trial, that includes no secret charges with my accuser (be they public official or private individual) in the public eye where I along with witnesses of both sides will face the consequences of any failure to be less than truthful in their testimony.

In cases where the 7th, where civil law applies, I have a right to trial by my peers – by such we DO NOT mean rich people by rich people, merchants by merchants, poor people by poor people – but by equal citizens under the law. All citizens must be tried alike, not because you can afford better counsel.

My 8th (and yours) keeps me from having to ‘make a loan’ for a simple traffic ticket or to allow others or the government to sell me into bondage to pay off any fine levied.

The 9th Amendment prevents me form disenfranchising citizens. Even when in the 1920s, when the Oklahoma ‘reclassified’ those with only 1/32nd Indian blood as being ‘Indians’, they could not remove their right to vote in any election. It prevents the denial of equal rights to all citizens.

Lastly the 10th Amendment limits the power of government to those delegated by the Constitution. This prevents a dictatorship by the President, Congress, by a ‘tribunal’, any unelected/elected or non-republic/republic form of government.

Response by LTC Curtis Anderson made May 27 at 2014 7:26 PM

LTC Curtis Anderson — Tue, 27 May 2014 19:26:23 -0400

Master Chief...I would not expect a lot of down votes. Understand that some feel the Constitution is outdated...but there should be some pride in looking around the world and realizing ours is one of the oldest founding documents out there and has been a model for many countries. The Bill of Rights is an intregal part of our nation's history. These are basically just the first 10 ammendments to the Constitution, an actually looked at as a way to "limit" the central (federal) government. As such, I say leave it as is, however fully understand, that if the will of the people of thi country is to change it, they have the ability to ammend the document...because our founders gave us that flexibilty.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2014 10:13 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 May 2014 22:13:04 -0400

Master Chief, one of the things that bother me about the current thought of the first and second amendments is that they are thought to be outdated and irrelevant. That couldn't be farther from the truth. The first amendment provides for freedom of speech and practice of religion. It does NOT say that you have the right not to be offended. I feel that when we give up the right to speak our minds because it offends someone, we give up free speech.
The second amendment has been covered well here, and I have only to say that as a gun owner I do not look forward to what would happen if the government ever decided that it was, from that point on, illegal to possess or sell any form of firearm. That would be the end of what we all enjoy as freedom.

Response by Cpl Christopher Allen-Shinn made May 28 at 2014 9:22 AM

Cpl Christopher Allen-Shinn — Wed, 28 May 2014 09:22:11 -0400

No. It was controversial when originally written because opponents feared that it would be too limiting (or leave out anything unwritten). However, despite our ongoing controversies over the exact meaning of Amendments including the First (the broadest) and the Second (probably the narrowest), I believe that the Bill of Rights has stood the test of time. It is imperfect, but I cannot imagine a better alternative ever being enacted, especially in our present toxic political environment.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2014 1:24 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 May 2014 13:24:46 -0400

If we can do away with the first ten Amendments, what's to stop us from doing away with the Thirteenth? Plenty of people would love to see me and those who look like me back in chains.

Not going to happen. Want to come to my home and try to take away my thirteenth amendment rights? Better be prepared for me to use my second amendment rights.

Response by SGT Mark Sullivan made May 28 at 2014 1:37 PM

SGT Mark Sullivan — Wed, 28 May 2014 13:37:23 -0400

The younger entitled generation needs a swift kick in the ass, a wake up call if you will, about what's at stake. They live their lives in social media, where they are lied to about gun control and the second amendment, but will run away with the first thing they hear as gospel.

Response by SPC Chicquila Cox made May 28 at 2014 4:07 PM

SPC Chicquila Cox — Wed, 28 May 2014 16:07:13 -0400

In my opinion, it should be left as is. The criminals will not just "turn in" their weapons if this is changed, so the average citizen will be left unarmed. Not to mention all the folks that hunt, that is their right as well as the way that some of them acquire their food. I do not personally own a firearm, as i have young children in my home, but at the same time i would like my right to acquire one in the future left in tact.

Response by SGT Curtis Earl made May 28 at 2014 6:53 PM

SGT Curtis Earl — Wed, 28 May 2014 18:53:19 -0400

No, it doesn't need to be dropped. The BoR gives me the right to have a handgun even if your daughter (respectfully) doesn't think I need it. It's a free country and I can live freely. People that've never been attacked or lived in fear are always against gun ownership. What we need is responsible gun ownership, not restrictions on gun ownership.

The fact is that the 4 minutes it takes police to respond to my house is enough time for my entire family to be slaughtered. It may sound like hyperbole, but only to someone that's never been victimized.

tl;dr: I can own a gun simply because i want one without regard for how anyone else feels about it.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2014 2:35 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 May 2014 14:35:14 -0400

MCPO Treants,
I heard some Soldiers talk about the "old piece of paper that is outdated and useless." This our school system at work not realizing that the thing that makes this nation great is how it was founded. the founding fathers realized that the document would need to be altered and that is why additional admentments can be made with a vast majority vote from both the house and senate.
For the second part I hope your Goddaughter never needs a gun or at least someone is there to protect her the day she does. We have the highest per captia gun ownership of any nation in the world. We also have one of the lowest homicides by handgun in the world. The second admentment was meant to give people the right to own a hunting rifle or a properly registered pistol. It was made so that the people would have the ability to stand up against a corrupt or unjust government. Look at every mass genocide in history and it starts with one act....taking away peoples weapons "for their safety."

Response by SSgt Paul L. made May 29 at 2014 3:15 PM

SSgt Paul L. — Thu, 29 May 2014 15:15:37 -0400

I don't see how the first amendment disrespects atheists. It provides equal treatment for all regardless of your religious preference. I say that as an atheist.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2014 4:31 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 May 2014 16:31:38 -0400

I'm with SSG Woods. How did we screw up so badly with this latest generation?!?! And make no mistake about it, they are what we made them!

The attitudes of this group often seem odd to us because the military tends to be a conservative and tight knit group. It also doesn't help that conversations like this make me see red right from the start; how dare these uninformed, self entitled, zero life experience little s*** heads trash something that I have pledged my life to defend!!

But then I think about the pandering political speaches I've listened to over the past three plus decades. You have a RIGHT to a free education, you have a RIGHT to a nice hourse, you have a RIGHT to a nice car, you have a RIGHT to a $300 dollar cell phone, and if, heaven forbid, something in life doesn't go your way, you have the RIGHT to sue everyone located within 100 miles of the incident for millions upon millions of dollars because nothing could ever possibly be YOUR fault!! Concepts like integrity, work ethic, and personal responsibility are sneered at by far too large a percentage of this generation.

We, and by we I mean all Americans, have made this mess and I am afraid it is going to take a profound shift in current events to change it. The unfortunate part is that these type of events tend towards the catastrophic.

But as the founding fathers, those venerable men of history that this current generation wishes to forget, so eloquently put it:

"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

As the old saying goes, "you get what you pay for" and, with only a small percentage of exceptions, this younger generation has PAID NOTHING for what they have. Some day in the future, they will wake up to find they have exactly what they paid for and exactly what they asked for.

Response by LCpl Jonathan Frierson made May 29 at 2014 7:06 PM

LCpl Jonathan Frierson — Thu, 29 May 2014 19:06:10 -0400

One of the things that bothers me is that liberal idiots think they can spew whatever garbage they can think of out of there mouths. They say oh it's protected under the first amendment. But they pretty much completely wrong, the founding fathers put it in there so you can publicly speak out against an oppressive government. It's annoying how now you speak out against what the idiots in Washington are doing and somehow now you have to worry about being labeled a domestic terrorist. These idiotic people saying the second amendment is out dated are foolish. If they take away that like they have pretty much taken away your first amendment rights, well then it's just game over and the current administration is just going to run over everyone. 1984, Animal Farm and Fahrenheit 451 should be required reading for kids. People say the zombie apocalypse is just made up but they would be wrong, it's happening right now. All these obama voters are just mindless zombies. Instead of running around screaming brains there running around screaming free. They want someone else to take care of them and have absolutely ZERO responsibility for there actions. It still kills me that anyone in the military can have actually voted for that loser or even worse still wear pro obama shirts around base. The man has ZERO respect for the military. Which brings up another thing, they say while in you serve in the military you can't speak badly of the president or the government. Well where in the hell in the first amendment does it say that when you join the military you give up your first amendment right. It does not say that anywhere, it's just a sad sign of how much we have let the government take away from us. Sadly it is only going to get worse before it gets better and that's if it actually ever gets better. I hope it does get better though, I fear for what kind of United States my son and the baby on the way might have to live in. I do what I can to make this world a better place but sometimes it doesn't even seem like I'm making a dent.

Response by PO3 Sarah White made May 29 at 2014 10:34 PM

PO3 Sarah White — Thu, 29 May 2014 22:34:12 -0400

Our Founding Fathers wanted to protect the rights of the individual. Change the Bill of Rights and there goes individual freedom.

Response by PO1 John Y. made May 30 at 2014 11:09 AM

PO1 John Y. — Fri, 30 May 2014 11:09:01 -0400

This country was founded on Christian principles. Quite frankly, I'm tired and disgusted of having curb my opinion, accept things against my faith, and not expressing myself through my faith all in the name of political correctness and accommodating others and their beliefs. The freedom of religion means you can practice any belief you want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody (virgin sacrifices and such). It doesn't mean if you don't like someone else's beliefs and the way they practice it (prayer in schools, meetings, and events and the like) you get to squelch it. I can't kick a Muslim if he puts a mat on the sidewalk and prays to the east in the middle of foot traffic. I don't get repulsed if I see a Minorrah (sp?) in a store window or a made up Kwanza candle holder on public display.
As for guns, it will always be, if you take away guns from the people, only criminals will have guns.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2014 12:34 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 May 2014 12:34:46 -0400

The Bill of Rights is one of the finest documents in the world. Keep it as it is, with the context of the time.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2014 9:27 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 May 2014 21:27:01 -0400

Well first off, The first amendment, especially any bit about religion, should remain. As far as I can tell, this would protect atheists and agnostics just as much as it would protect catholics, buddhists, muslims, etc.
The second amendment is a bit more difficult, but I see no reason not to keep it as is. I am generally an anti-gun individual, but I can see the need someone would have for a shotgun, even a handgun for self defence. I'm personally fine with limiting the types of weapons someone can have for civilian use (when was an semi-automatic rifle ever necessary?).

Response by 1SG Chris Brown made May 31 at 2014 10:24 PM

1SG Chris Brown — Sat, 31 May 2014 22:24:59 -0400

This is a document that has stood the test of time in my view and should stand. If anything, I'd like to see more respect given the Bill or Rights than less, particularly the 10th Amendment which states that any power that the Constitution does not specifically grant the United States government is left to the discretion of each State to handle themselves. The federal government is long overdue for some serious trimming!

Response by PO3 Shaun Hilts made Jun 1 at 2014 8:48 PM

PO3 Shaun Hilts — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 20:48:57 -0400

The reason why people want to see the second amendment eliminated, is because they think that will end gun violence. I understand there are a lot of people who feel that firearms are the reason why these crimes are being committed, yet they don't see insanity as the issue. People seem to think that by getting rid of the 2nd amendment and taking away guns from the law abiding citizens, that gun crimes will magically disappear. It won't, if anything, it will get worse because the criminals will know that the police are the only ones who can stop them...

Response by SPC Richard Gallardo made Jun 2 at 2014 1:36 AM

SPC Richard Gallardo — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 01:36:25 -0400

Look, our founding fathers were so intelligent that they made our system tyranny proof. Don't like being free? Find another country. However, our freedoms were tainted when the federal reserve act was instituted in 1913. That's when our freedoms said bye bye because America became one big giant corporation. There's a monopoly on our money and we're now slaves to it. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, put on the big boy pants and do some research and your own thinking. Research topics such as federal reserve, bilderberg group, trilateral commission, council of foreign relations. Go ahead and think for yourself instead of letting the military industrial complex do it for you. I dare you.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2014 10:32 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:32:40 -0400

It always pains me to see the efforts of people in this great nation who think that because they disagree with something, they wish to get rid of it. (I.E, 2nd Amendment, Prohibition, etc.) I believe that the 2nd Amendment should stay in place, as all but a small percentage of gun owners carry and utilize their weapons in a safe, correct manner.

Response by CPO Tom Wick made Jun 2 at 2014 11:00 AM

CPO Tom Wick — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:00:30 -0400

no way we fought and some of us died to preserve our rights which are being taken away every day !!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2014 6:19 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 06:19:34 -0400

The Bill of Rights are simply enumerations of the some of the inalienable rights of which Jefferson spoke. They aren't for the government to adjust or remove. I believe the Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves at the limitations and infringements already in place.

The fact that so many young people don't understand this points to a serious failure in our society. We are no longer providing them with a real education, including history and personal and civic responsibility.

Response by SGT Efrain Frank Lopez made Jun 3 at 2014 9:23 AM

SGT Efrain Frank Lopez — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 09:23:07 -0400

Rewrite the pay and benefits of politicos that don't work, keep promises, and serve the special interest goons. Do away with the many federal agencies that serve themselves, not the American people. Leave OUR GUNS ALONE! They will be the only resource we have to prevent Monarchy from total take over of all our rights.

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made Jun 3 at 2014 9:37 AM

SSG Kevin McCulley — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 09:37:28 -0400

There are mechanisms in place to change the constitution. We are dangerously close to loosing our republic entirely.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2014 2:43 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 14:43:34 -0400

A document that has lasted for 223 years doesn't need to be changed or done away today. I was going to stand on my soap box, but after reading some of the comments on here I feel most of my points have been made.

Response by SPC Buddy Martin made Jun 4 at 2014 12:40 PM

SPC Buddy Martin — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 12:40:11 -0400

Well I feel this country is starting to turn back to pre Revolutionary times when people were being controlled to much by the government and we might need to remind why our forefathers wrote the bill to begin with and the constitution in the near future but who knows right now but I can tell you right now I am not giving up my rights or my guns period.

Response by SGT James Korman made Jun 5 at 2014 12:21 PM

SGT James Korman — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 12:21:23 -0400

Bill of Rights was created to prevent the Federal government from illegal intrusion into the lives of its citizens. Without serious study of History, so common in our society, it is not surprising that the unschooled are following the line of thinking of the despicable levelers that seek to destroy this country.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2014 1:12 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Jun 2014 01:12:36 -0400

The Bill Of Rights is fine the way it is and should be left alone.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2014 5:03 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Jun 2014 17:03:14 -0400

I like my guns. I like my freedom of speech/religion. If they want to do away with either they will have to modify the constitution and I will vote against it.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2014 12:31 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:31:23 -0400

I think another option in the voting should be periodic review for relevance. I think this is a pretty black and white question to a very grey issue.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2014 12:43 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:43:54 -0400

What I have come to understand is that the Bill of Rights was written as a form of protection, from the federal, state, and local governments, for our inalienable rights as human beings. These are our natural rights as people, not something we are granted by any government. To do away with any or all of it would be putting citizens in a powerless position in regards to our government.

Doing away with the 1st amendment is out of the question. It is also not discriminatory towards agnostics nor atheists:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I read this as meaning people have the right to practice their religion if they chose to follow one, speak and write freely, and assemble peacefully to make changes to our government.

As for the 2nd amendment, I do not feel that I am qualified to answer accurately. However, I believe it means that citizens have the inherent right to defend themselves by maintaining weapons (within reason of course):

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Some have interpreted this to mean that only those who form a militia should be allowed to keep and bear arms. Others maintain that it means all citizens have the same right. I personally feel more secure in an environment where open and/or conceal carry of personal weapons are authorized as it appears to be a deterrent to those intending to cause harm to others.

Response by SrA Eric Olsen made Jun 11 at 2014 2:41 PM

SrA Eric Olsen — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 14:41:45 -0400

As a descendent of an individual who fought in the American Revolution and a student of history I say leave it alone. If anything we need those rights even more today than when they were first written. Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they wrote them and from what I'm seeing it appears as if we drop the Bill of Rights the Constitution won't be far behind then we will have truly lost the American Revolution once and for all.

Response by Sgt John H. made Jun 12 at 2014 12:35 PM

Sgt John H. — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:35:35 -0400

It seems that political correctness is taking over. The Bill of Rights are a written guarantee of our freedoms as a United States citizen. Doing away with them gives the government full power to act in any manner, enact any law, regardless. I feel that we are seeing a constant grab by the Federal government to control our thoughts and actions. The basic reason behind the right to bear arms is so that individual citizens may protect themselves from over reaching government... Unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of speech. How do you retract or rewrite something that makes us the greatest nation on the planet. Stand up for your rights, preserve the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Response by SPC Ben Cedeno made Jun 12 at 2014 3:00 PM

SPC Ben Cedeno — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:00:02 -0400

Anyone that has any kind of issue with the Constitution needs to move out of the country PERIOD!!!

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2014 8:58 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 20:58:25 -0400

Master chief, I don't believe it need to be changed at all. Criminals will get their hands on guns regardless of any law prohibiting them; also people in my generation don't seem to understand that removal of the right to arms help to prevent people like hitler from taking over the free people.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2014 11:42 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:42:51 -0400

it should be rewrote to make it clear what they mean. The idea is great but we have to stop this tired back and forth "interpretation" of what they really meant when they wrote it.
This is our Bill of Rights there should be no room for a debate in what they are meant for

Response by SGT James Korman made Jun 13 at 2014 1:20 PM

SGT James Korman — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:20:51 -0400

The Bill of Rights is a document designed to protect the people from the overarching desire of all Governments (democracy in particular) to enslave its citizens. It is a bulwark against the rapacious political class. I find the endless diatribe against the 2nd amendment as prima fascia evidence for this control. Hitler's first upon assuming power, confiscate all the guns. In my view those oppose the 2nd amendment are incipient Hitler's.

If the Bill of Rights were dispensed with what is it to be replaced with and more importantly who will drive the discussion. Making a decision to end/alter the BoR in this fractious society is attempted it could easily descend into Secession and/or another war of Liberal aggression!

Sgt. James Korman, 1st/15th Arty, 2ID

Response by Cpl Brett Wagner made Jun 13 at 2014 2:06 PM

Cpl Brett Wagner — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 14:06:20 -0400

Without the Bill of Rights, ALL of them, we are no longer the United States of America. We would become the Divided States of America. If we were to cross out the 2nd Amendment what stops the next party in power who doe snot like some of the others from removing those rights?

This is the saddest time in my life for this great nation. I would have never believed we would be where we are today.

Response by Cpl Westin Sandberg made Jun 13 at 2014 3:14 PM

Cpl Westin Sandberg — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:14:42 -0400

The Bill of Rights need to remain as they are, our founding fathers were far smarter than any of us these days, at least when it comes to government and freedom from tyranny. As for the second amendment the anti gun argument I often hear is this "Our founding fathers didn't mean military style rifles" to which I respond, in 1775, what OTHER kinds of rifles were there? That's all there was, not to mention that whole bit about abolishing a government which is destructive to the rights of the people... And when it comes to the first amendment, and is respect to religion, atheism and agnosticism they are religions, or lack there of, which is protected under said amendment.

Response by SSG(P) Drew Hunnicutt made Jun 14 at 2014 10:17 AM

SSG(P) Drew Hunnicutt — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:17:45 -0400

When people tell me they don't think anyone should own a handgun or need a gun for protection I let them know that I will not use my handguns to defend them out of respect for their views. It just kind of puts things in perspective.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jun 14 at 2014 12:30 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:30:47 -0400

The problem with people today is that they don't think strategically. They think in the short term. So while getting rid of the 2A sounds great for dealing with gun violence, not one of them has taken the time to map out the 2nd, 3rd let alone 4th order effects. And they don't understand that once something is taken away, it's neigh impossible to get it back.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2014 3:14 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:14:17 -0400

Our men and women have fought and died to protect the freedoms that we have! The Bill of Rights were written the way they are for good reason. This is the way I see it, if you don't like the principals that our great country was founded on then you can leave! I enjoy the rights and freedoms we have and I would gladly fight for them. The Bill of Rights will NEVER, EVER, be outdated!!!!

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2014 9:11 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:11:05 -0400

Our Founding Fathers were pretty forward thinking when they drafted the Bill of Rights. It allowed room for expansion and modification; however, amendments 1 & 2 were (and remain) pretty succinct. Freedom of speech is a must for a free nation and the right to keep and bear arms is not for "hunting" it is for the defense of the nation and, heaven forbid, should the nation need to remove the government should they stop representing the will of the people. These rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are not negotiable.

Response by CPL J Sannizzaro made Jun 15 at 2014 9:48 AM

CPL J Sannizzaro — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:48:37 -0400

The bill of rights was written as protections for the people agains government. The very fact that this is a heated debate shows they are necessary. I agree with them all, I don't like the inturpetations of some. But they should never be altered, only subject to "current interpretation."

Response by CPL Joseph Otto made Jun 15 at 2014 2:12 PM

CPL Joseph Otto — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:12:44 -0400

I had just finished a similar conversation yesterday with a friend of mine. One my points was that many of us that have served, we served to ensure that the American people retain the rights that they have. 1-26, it is not up to us to decide which ones we support and which ones we are against. We took an oath to defend the constitution as a whole, not just one singular part of it, and not just the first 10 known as the Bill of Rights. In my honest opinion, the constitution has been walked enough by the greed of our politicians. Just some food for thought

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2014 4:04 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 16:04:46 -0400

Without the second there can be no other. Anyone who believes that they need to be dropped or rewritten has been indoctrinated by an over-zealous liberal educational system.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2014 10:11 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:11:20 -0400

I am one of the people raising the newest crop of voters (1 at 19 years and 1 at 17 years old) all of their life we have sat down at the dinner table together, turned off the TV and discussed topics from politics and religion to jokes and the "what did you do today". I have always told them to listen to our (conservitive) oppinions and then do your own research and make your own conclusion on what is right. On most topics my children belive the conservative values are correct with a few exceptions that I hope is just misspent youthful ideology. I can see in their friends that this has not been the way of growing up; a lot of their friends do not sit at the dinner table, much less discus important topics with family except when at our house. I can see that they have been raised by the school, social media and the entertainment industry. I fear that the current administration, the social push for political correctness, the pressure from popular youth TV shows and the disconnect in the modern family will lead us to a point where the Bill of Rights along with the entire Constitution will eventually be removed or weakened to the point it is useless and will no longer provide the guidence, hope and protection to the people.

I cannot give you a thumbs down for posting different or unpopular thoughts, in fact i'll give you a thumbs up for doing so.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2014 2:47 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:47:31 -0400

It's easy to read but hard to understand without knowing true freedom.

Response by MAJ Mark Swanson made Jun 20 at 2014 6:58 AM

MAJ Mark Swanson — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 06:58:37 -0400

I think we should re-write the entire document. We live in a completely different wolld today than 250 years ago. We now have the the technology to create a much more transparent, safe and equal society. The US should take the world lead in banning guns and eliminating intolerance,

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2014 11:34 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 11:34:28 -0400

Our Bill of Rights continues to provide citizens fair treatment, equal opportunities, and the freedoms protected by our Constitution. All amendments need to stand.

Response by SFC Jerry Humphries made Jun 20 at 2014 7:19 PM

SFC Jerry Humphries — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 19:19:03 -0400

There is nothing wrong with out bill of rights, the problem is politicians do not want to follow it.

Response by MAJ Derrick J. made Jun 21 at 2014 12:17 AM

MAJ Derrick J. — Sat, 21 Jun 2014 00:17:17 -0400

For Those who voted to do away with the Bill of Rights, those individuals are qualified to be tried as traitors (no, not legally but ethically)... I despise morons.

Response by MAJ Ron Peery made Jun 21 at 2014 10:17 AM

MAJ Ron Peery — Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:17:32 -0400

If you ask your goddaughter, or any of the "progressives" what they will replace the Bill of Rights with, what do you think their answer will be? In general, I believe they have no idea. They are just following the crowd in a lemming-like attempt to fit in. These people are the first to cry out that their rights are being violated if they don't get their way, but what rights are they talking about? Do they even know what the Rights enshrined in the Bill or Rights are? Your question about the First Amendment is a great example. Do you really think "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" discriminates against anyone? I have fought tyrants in other countries whose people have not Bill of Rights to protect them from government my executive fiat. I have seen the result of that kind of government. I, like you, have sworn an oath, before God, to defend our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. If there are those in America who want to submit their lives to the whims of a tyrant, or worse yet to the whims of "the majority", then I suggest they leave and find a country more to their liking.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2014 11:42 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:42:28 -0400

We might as well do away with it. We've completely ignored it for personal gain enough already. Not having a complete freedom of speech would probably save some people for spewing ignorant crap anyway.

Response by SGT Mark Sullivan made Jun 23 at 2014 9:16 PM

SGT Mark Sullivan — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 21:16:23 -0400

There should be no change to the Bill of Rights, it is not out dated as some idiots will proclaim. And is a living document that is adaptable to the times. Changing any part would be disastrous to every one in the nation. Many do not see this, they are lied to every day, the education system is dumbed down to accommodate an agenda to destroy this nation. Public schools were designed to create an informed electorate, but when teachers are not allowed to teach and are forced to dumb down the curriculum this is what we get, idiots wanting to get rid of the Bill of Rights. The second amendment serves the purpose of protecting the common gentry from a government that may go tyrannical or leave itself open to such. Case in point, The Kaiser, pre 1932 Germany disarmed his people, the right to bear arms was removed from the German People, in 1932 a Lunatic came into office, albeit he got Germany on its feet, and productive. But, he used force, threats and cruelty to rid himself of his political enemies. He used the fact that the German people could not defend themselves from his tyranny, much less those of Jewish decent. Every amendment serves a purpose, and none should ever be changed

Response by Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2014 10:17 PM

Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:17:35 -0400

Leave it as it is.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Jun 25 at 2014 10:32 PM

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 22:32:53 -0400

The 2nd Amendment is there in case the government ever forgets about the others!

Response by SGT Wayne Woodward made Jun 26 at 2014 6:14 PM

SGT Wayne Woodward — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 18:14:41 -0400

This pisses me off. Robertson it's a good thing that you don't work for me! I think that you need to demote yourself to PVT. If you are so damn liberal then you need to leave this country of mine! Stop Talking the BS in this, forum. You kids are so green I can't stand it! BACK OFF!

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Jul 7 at 2014 10:49 PM

SA Harold Hansmann — Mon, 07 Jul 2014 22:49:47 -0400

Start making changes and there goes my rights as a defender of my home and as a hunter. I purposely hang the deer from the tree in my front yard so everyone can see. Haven't had a break-in yet. I is a crazy redneck. Lol

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Jul 7 at 2014 11:30 PM

SA Harold Hansmann — Mon, 07 Jul 2014 23:30:59 -0400

Correct me if I am wrong. But, isn't someone who tries to eliminate our bill of rights and / or constitution an enemy of this country? Are we not supposed to defend this country from all enemies foreign and "domestic"?

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Jul 10 at 2014 11:56 AM

CMDCM Gene Treants — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:56:15 -0400

I just found a perfect way to explain this subject so that even my Goddaughter and her ultra liberal friends might understand it.

Response by SGT James Korman made Jul 28 at 2014 12:52 PM

SGT James Korman — Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:52:27 -0400

Well, let's see, do we want to level the Washington Cathedral, I think not.

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made Jul 29 at 2014 3:11 PM

SSG Kevin McCulley — Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:11:37 -0400

I can't believe two percent say it is outdated... that is so damned shocking.

Response by SGT Bruce Bradshaw made Aug 7 at 2014 1:01 PM

SGT Bruce Bradshaw — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 13:01:03 -0400

The BOR, encompassing the first ten amendments to the Constitution, was added after ratification because there were skeptics who understood that any Government, given some power, would, in time, enlarge that power. The BOR was to bind the hands of the Government to keep them from mischief as Thomas Jefferson put it. Unfortunately, while the uninformed American public was sleeping, we have experienced death by a thousand cuts.
The BOR has been attacked thousands of times until little remains of the original intent. We're told that "political correctness" overrides the first amendment. No one should own a gun--the Government has a monopoly on the use of force so goodbye 2nd amendment. Militarized police forces no longer "serve and protect", they violate the fourth and fifth amendment, etc. etc.
Including the BOR in the Constitution did not grant the individual anything, the founders simply recognized that we are endowed with certain rights by virtue of our existence as humans. Neither the Government nor anyone else can take those rights from us. Each violation is reason to strengthen our resolve to bring the violator back onto the reservation.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2014 8:44 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 20:44:53 -0400

The 1st Amendment! The Amendment the left preaches about all the time. Freedom of speach unless your Fox News they must be silenced. Freedom to peacefully assemble unless you what to block an enterance an impede other folks. Freedom of religion unless it's yours and they don't like it then it must be stopped. Yes the first amendment works great for the left! We on the right yes we are the bullies, the misguided and confused. Shame on us! Okay back to reality! The answer is HELL NO LEAVE IT ALONE!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2014 10:48 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 22:48:35 -0400

2% of respondees are trolls trying to incite anger in red-blooded Americans.

Seriously though, I believe that when our Forefathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it was written in a manner that didn't leave anything open for debate or interpretation as well as in a manner that was intended to be timeless.

We've all taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That's pretty straightforward in my opinion. It doesn't say anything about changes, alterations, addendums, caveats, deletions or anything else.

It clearly says "support and defend the Constitution of the United States". That means if anyone tries to change it, they fall under the "all enemies foreign and domestic" part of our oath that immediately follows.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 23 at 2014 11:50 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:50:47 -0400

You can rewrite it if you want - you can even do so with my blood, because you're going to have to spill a lot of it before you do so.

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Aug 24 at 2014 2:08 PM

Cpl Dennis F. — Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:08:27 -0400

Don't get me going on this. Just the asking of the question alone is criminal. This is not something given. They are natural, or if you will, God given rights, not subject to debate.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 24 at 2014 4:56 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Aug 2014 16:56:32 -0400

I don't like that you left out the option of "It could use some TLC, but it's a ton better than anything else people have come up with, so tread VERY lightly."

Remember: amendments are already changes to our core document, and even amendments have been subsequently changed by other amendments (prohibition). Because it's our core document, you have to be very careful making changes, but by the nature of how our society is oriented, it's never technically off the table.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2014 1:41 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 13:41:05 -0400

leave it the way it is dont fix what isnt broken no man can tell me my rights they come from god the constitution and the bill of rights MURICA!!!!

Response by SGT James Korman made Aug 26 at 2014 11:42 AM

SGT James Korman — Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:42:35 -0400

What might it be replaced with? Just asking?

Response by PO1 Michael G. made Sep 1 at 2014 8:56 PM

PO1 Michael G. — Mon, 01 Sep 2014 20:56:05 -0400

CMDCM Gene Treants Master Chief, I don't think that your poll encompassed the complexity of the question. The good thing about the Constitution and it's amendment process is that each of the so-called bills of the Bill of Rights stand alone in and of themselves. The first 10 amendments--colloquially referred to as the Bill of Rights--retain that titles mostly honorarily; in fact, the actual piece of paper that the National Archives possesses has 12 articles on them--10 of which were adopted in the 1780s, one of which wasn't adopted until the 1990s, and another that was not adopted at all--and the one's that are now a part of the Constitution appear in a different order than we know them today.

Now, with all of that said, I don't see how you can suggest that the First Amendment discriminates against atheists and agnostics. The article reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment on religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Meaning, that the gov't cannot make an official religion, nor tell you which one you can or cannot practice--if you choose to do so at all. There is something to be said that historically, atheists and agnostics were socially marginalized, and in some places in the country and in a number of ways, some might say that they are. But really, from a governing and political perspective, it's religious people who are actually pushed out more frequently, and in the social spectrum, too, religious people are being pushed out.

As for the Second Amendment, it's incredibly difficult to discern what the Founders meant regarding gun ownership. Fortunately, that's not actually the question at hand in front of the Supreme Court, ever. They evaluate the law and make their rulings based on that. Does the Second Amendment need to be changed to allow for more effective gun control? I would say "yes." My reason is more long winded than I have even been so far, but suffice it to say, I am of the mind that law enforcement is capable of stopping a certain amount of gun crime if there were better legal avenues for them to do so--avenues which are currently blocked by the current wording of the Constitution.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2014 9:13 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Sep 2014 21:13:42 -0400

I do believe that the bill of rights is dated considering it was wrote 200 years ago, but also the basic commandments god gave in exodus were wrote thousands of years ago. The rules still are fundamental enough that they work, and I strongly believe that military and police aren't the only ones that should be allowed to have a firearm. I know plenty of people that use firearms recreationally, for hunting, and for education than just for self defense. I can see good points from both sides here, but that's USA. We have the freedom to be what we want be it gun loving nascar fanatics, or flower loving tree huggers, or crooked politicians, or doctors or lawyers or police or military, and we can openly speak about these things without much consequence, again depending if the information put out matches common sense. The diversity we have is both our strongest ally, and at times out weakest link.

Response by SSG Selwyn Bodley made Oct 16 at 2014 11:28 AM

SSG Selwyn Bodley — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:28:38 -0400

Molon Labe!

Response by SGT James Elphick made Oct 16 at 2014 12:39 PM

SGT James Elphick — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 12:39:43 -0400

I choose leave it as is but I do feel we need to take an honest look at the Constitution as a whole. In my opinion we did a great job as the world's first modern democracy and our Constitution and Republic have many great aspects. However, to say that our Constitution is still the best today is like saying that the Model T is still the best car. Times have changed both domestically and internationally and our government/constitution has not kept up. As far as I know we are the only modern nation-state to not completely overhaul our government and constitution in the last 100 years or so (Great Britain might be in there too but I don't think they even have a written constitution). As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, keep it. If we overhaul the whole thing, make it much more clear about its purpose - to resist tyrannical government.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 16 at 2014 1:34 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:34:30 -0400

I don't believe we should have to change our foundation to fit the "new age" and what people think is "right" or "wrong", whatever the case may be.

Response by SPC James Mcneil made Oct 16 at 2014 9:39 PM

SPC James Mcneil — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 21:39:18 -0400

The bill of rights is not outdated at all. It is a document that has stood the test of time up to this generation. What is needed is not a rewriting of the bill of rights, but a swift kick in the backside of people that want to abuse the system to get everything they can. What is needed is an understanding of what responsibility means. What respect means.

So many people are out for what they can get at all cost as long as someone else pays the cost.

Response by LTC Joseph Gross made Oct 18 at 2014 11:09 AM

LTC Joseph Gross — Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:09:55 -0400

Either you or your god-daughter doesn't understand the foundation of the United States. I'm thinking it is your god-daughter. The Bill of Rights in our system of government should be absolutely unnecessary because Rights are not given to people. It should be noted that the bill of rights does not give anyone a right. It simply codifies the rights of all free people. The manner of operation of our government is not supposed to be to grant permission or to make something legal but rather to make something illegal. This is in stark contrast to many other systems of government where the people must ask what makes something legal as they require a law to allow them to do something. In America we ask show me the law that makes this act illegal!

The 1st amendment very clearly does not discriminate against atheists. It very clearly protects atheists from having a religion forced upon them. Any other reading of the 1st amendment is in error.

I see no reason for down posting an interesting question!

Response by MSgt Brian Donnelly made Oct 18 at 2014 11:23 AM

MSgt Brian Donnelly — Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:23:50 -0400

You have to be kidding right? The constitution and the Bill of Rights are there to protect the minority against the Mob. It is obvious that your history teachers were out of Columbia or Berkley! This is at the very least treasonable to be evening thinking of litigating the tenets of the foundations of the Rules of Laws that separate us from every other banana republic. Dropping the first and second amendments are akin to the grabbing of every other right. It keeps the legislators in check and opens the door for actual debate and reason, but when you take away freedom of speech like they did in old century Europe one was subject to the King. John Locke and others thought to challenge the legitimacy of the Kings Rule by finding legitimacy in the voice of the people being so represented. Have you actually read the constitution to think you want to go back to such a archaic debate?

Response by PO2 Steven Erickson made Oct 18 at 2014 1:21 PM

PO2 Steven Erickson — Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:21:01 -0400

DISCLAIMER: I'm posting this without reading ANY other comments and posts, so it's five-months late, unfiltered by others' comments, untempered and straight-up. Sorry for the duplication and redundancies.

First... anyone who downvotes SOLELY because a question is asked needs an "old-school" Chicago Tune Up. Asking a question is NEVER to be discouraged. EVER!!!

Second... Bill of Rights Primer: The Bill of Rights GRANTS NOTHING!!!! It codifies the the rights INHERENT TO ALL MANKIND (slavery interpretation notwithstanding...) as specified in the Declaration of Independence. These 10 amendments were forced upon the original designers of the Constitution by anti-federalists (anti-government types, one could say) who won the argument that since these RESTRICTIONS ON GOVERNMENT were not specifically placed on the federal government, it was possible that a future government COULD restrict these activities/rights. Time has shown those "anti-government nut jobs" to be exactly correct.

Third... The First Amendment (like all the others in the Bill of Rights) DENIES THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO RESTRICT THE SPECIFIED PERSONAL ACTIVITIES. Since the protected activities in the first amendment are inherent to all persons, endowed by their Creator (God or Nature... doesn't matter), they can't be infringed upon by any government at any time, regardless of how gentle we think the government is/has become.

Fourth... The Second Amendment was placed into the mix by people who were ENGAGED IN A WAR AGAINST TYRANNY as a REMINDER and a WARNING that only the PEOPLE can decide whether or not their rights - as specified in the First Amendment - are being threatened.

Fifth... Naw. That's enough. If you can't get past the "but why?" purposes of the first two amendments in the context of limitations on government power, you have NO CHANCE of grasping the rest.

Read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. You'll understand the concepts and those concepts HAVEN'T CHANGED ONE BIT, regardless of how "advanced" we think we've become as a society.

Thus endeth the lesson...

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 18 at 2014 3:29 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:29:56 -0400

The Bill of Rights was actually very well written. The Founders took great care to write everything so as to remain relevant and applicable for as long as they could manage. And a lot of people don't realize that the Bill of Rights does not GRANT rights, but rather RECOGNIZES them. If something is granted to you by the government, its not a right, its a privilege. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to recognize and protect the people's natural rights, basically to tell government that these are untouchable so shut up and go away.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Oct 18 at 2014 10:57 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Sat, 18 Oct 2014 22:57:39 -0400

It looks like four down votes the question...not sure why, maybe they could explain?

Response by PO3 John Jeter made Oct 19 at 2014 12:04 AM

PO3 John Jeter — Sun, 19 Oct 2014 00:04:17 -0400

It's a good thing I'm not in or near a medical facility right now. They would have me restrained and sedated for extreme high blood pressure and emotional disturbance. My southern Christian upbringing and my respect for you and your service restrains my remarking upon your Goddaughters beliefs. I will leave it at that. God Bless the USA!

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2014 12:08 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:08:05 -0400

Not only do I think we need to leave the Bill of Rights as is, I believe any elected or appointed public official who seeks to violated it should automatically be disqualified to serve and be removed from the position they are serving in.

Response by Sgt Edward Strobel made Oct 20 at 2014 3:32 PM

Sgt Edward Strobel — Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:32:00 -0400

IF a Military person breaks the code of conduct in the military, he can be tried and convicted, IF he breaks his oath to the Constitution, he can be tried for treason and shot... Same should go for those that serve in PUBLIC Offices, if they break the code or their Oath to the constitution, They should be tried by a MILITARY Court system ( as it is the Military's responsibility to keep, and protect the rights given to us in the Constitution ), Now having said that how many young people in the military have ever read the Constitution, and how many fewer are the number that understand, that it is their duty to KNOW that document, and if needed to protect it and the people to whom it grants its rights to, with their lives!!!

Response by WO1(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2014 12:05 PM

WO1(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:05:40 -0400

The idea that the bill of rights is "outdated" is as sheepish as it is moronic. The point of this country, in my own humble opinion, is that no one else can "decide" what I have a need for. It is a ridiculous idea that simply because one group of people thinks another group doesn't need the guns, that the other group should be disarmed. Next comes communism. Slipery slope logic, I know. However, that is what it will devolve into if you allow the american people to be disarmed. It starts with guns, then moves to taking away knives, clubs, and anything that could be used as a weapon. Then we are nothing but mindless lambs for the slaughter of what was once the greatest nation on the planet.

Someone needs a throatpunch, and its the sheeple of the millennial generation.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2014 3:43 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:43:11 -0400

There's always room for interpretation.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2014 3:50 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:50:19 -0400

If we change it, it has to be by Constitutional amendment.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2014 3:55 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:55:20 -0400

This is the Constitution (including Bill of Rights) that we all have taken an oath to defend against all enemies; foreign and domestic. Domestic enemy may mean you have to defend it against your neighbor.

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Nov 1 at 2014 12:29 PM

CMDCM Gene Treants — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 12:29:26 -0400

Just a reminder to everyone following this discussion - TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2014, is ELECTION DAY! Get out and VOTE. If you do not like the way the country is run, this is the only legal way you have to influence your representatives! VOTE!

Response by MSgt Brian Donnelly made Nov 1 at 2014 2:41 PM

MSgt Brian Donnelly — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 14:41:04 -0400

I would hope the majority of the People of the US acknowledges the importance of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights and how they were brought together. It was no less than the inspiration of God almighty to bring to pass a constitution that allowed for the Freedom of its people by separating the forces or corruption and one man/woman rule. It was John Locke who thought that the legitimacy of the king resided in the people who would elect him by the consent of the people. It was with their Blood, treasure and their lives that we are endowed by powers of liberty and freedom in a pursuit of individual freedom. How is it this long conversation goes back to trading comfort for safety? It amaze me in this enlightened times we forsake the tenants of history for an ideology that has failed time after time. Dropping the first and or second amendment is akin to giving up your voice and protections for honest debate. When there is a Classical and or Rogerian debate we are persuaded by logic and evidence, where political dissent has its redress in peaceful protest and its people decide. When lawmakers determine which laws to live by when not accountable to them, it is a matter of time when critical mass occurs. Lawmakers should be the first to stand up and live by the laws they institute otherwise credibility and legitimacy is questioned. The IRS stands out to be one of the most critical scandals in the history of the United States because it quelled political speech during an election year. The Press mostly remained silent and those on committee were involved in the accusations. President Richard Nixon was forced to resign for missing 17 minutes of tape ... the IRS is missing thousands of emails and correspondence by having destroyed several hard drives and to this day remains an ongoing investigation. Tells me the press in in bed with the government when they should be accountable to the people. When this foundation, " A Free Press," sides with an ideology it is also no longer credible. I find it hard to believe we are even debating the Bill of Rights??? They are our rights, the people's rights and yet here we are trading the promises that have many times turned to out to be lies for political gain and control. Social Justice is a failed ideology! A man cannot be held accountable for the sins of his father and the redistribution of wealth only kills the ambition of those by taking and giving to those who labor less.

Response by PO2 Corey Ferretti made Nov 24 at 2014 6:19 PM

PO2 Corey Ferretti — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:19:51 -0500

I don't understand why there are people that think we need to do away with with part of the bill of rights. Here is the question i would pose to your granddaughter. If we take away one right saying it is "out dated" and not up with times. Then where do we draw the line?

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Dec 1 at 2014 11:42 AM

CMDCM Gene Treants — Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:42:03 -0500

Recently I was looking online and found this very appropriate Meme. If Jefferson did not say it, I bet he would have if alive today!

Response by GySgt William Hardy made Dec 2 at 2014 2:00 PM

GySgt William Hardy — Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:00:54 -0500

I was thinking about this post and decided to speak out again. . .

1. No the Constitution is an amazing document. Unlike those of other governments, our is actually a very flexible document that incorporates very conservative views with very liberal views. The Bill of Rights is a part of that original thought. It may have been added a bit later, but it is basically "from the beginning" and was endorsed by our Founding Fathers.

2. Not to call names, but the people who say we need to change it or drop any of the first ten Amendments have no clue what they are saying. If you take offense, too bad. Explain to me in an educated manner why not. This is especially true for the 1st and 2nd Amendment. We must have the freedom to speak our minds without fear of government reprisals. Something that this administration didn't keep under control as the IRS targeted conservatives.

3. Any amendment to the Constitution must protect the rights of people. One of the reasons the 18th Amendment did not remain a part of our Constitution is that it did not protect our freedoms. It tried to control the people and that is absolutely wrong. Instead of just giving your opinion, try to put some study and research behind it. Look at the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments for example. They are not really needed in this day and age, but they should not be removed because they do in fact protect the rights of minority groups.

I really find it amazing that any military member would say we need to do away with the entire Bill of Rights.

Response by GySgt William Hardy made Dec 14 at 2014 1:26 PM

GySgt William Hardy — Sun, 14 Dec 2014 13:26:03 -0500

I did some thinking on the subject of the Constitution and I believe that the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed. When the Founding Fathers set up the Constitution, it created the Senate to represent the States on an even basis, 2 Senators per state. By instituting the 17th Amendment, it took away the real purpose for the Senate and in effect created another House of Representatives.

In addition to leaving the Bill of Rights alone, I also support doing away with the 17th Amendment and restoring the function of the government back to its original intent.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2014 5:09 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:09:35 -0500

Didn't have an option for "Clarify, Strengthen," so I had to take "Leave the Bill of Rights as it is."

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2014 5:18 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:18:58 -0500

No this was one of the foundations that our forefathers fought and died for. I think we as a country need realize that these are there for a reason. Especially the Second Amendment and the First Amendment which always seem to be the ones people get up in arms about. I feel those that have lost loved ones to a PERSON wielding a gun, but it is the person not the weapon that is the killer. I believe we need to do background checks, the government is already in our lives, letting them do a check on what they already know and keep in a data base does no harm in my opinion. As to the First Amendment, those that choose to speak should be heard even if they do not have anything good to say. I have served and many have died to allowed to say whatever ignorant, stupid things they want (which means they also need to be ready to face the consequences of those types of statements).

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2014 5:49 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:49:29 -0500

Many have stated that our Forefathers could not have possibly dreamt that weapons could get as advanced as we have today.. I disagree, how could they have not imagined that technological advancements would take us way ahead of the game? All it takes is looking to the past, starting with the lightbulb and electricity. Then the automobile. We were intended to have nearly the same weaponry as the Military, think about it, back then the Musket was Military and the Civilians had the same armaments.

Response by SGT Edward Thomas made Dec 15 at 2014 6:44 PM

SGT Edward Thomas — Mon, 15 Dec 2014 18:44:28 -0500

Without the Second Amendment you won't have a First Amendment. Even though it appears the Christians rights are being trampled on.

Response by CPL Corey Aldridge made Dec 15 at 2014 6:58 PM

CPL Corey Aldridge — Mon, 15 Dec 2014 18:58:11 -0500

What do you think ensured that you enjoy the freedoms that you now enjoy? Nobody went out and plowed a field and grew then cultivated those rights and freedoms and passed them out. That is not only a slap in the face to our Forefathers but to OUR brothers and sisters who paid the ultimate price to ensure that we continue to enjoy the rights and freedoms guaranteed by those doccuments.

Response by TSgt Tim (lj) Littlejohn made Dec 15 at 2014 9:49 PM

TSgt Tim (lj) Littlejohn — Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:49:20 -0500

What's next after changing or getting rid of the Bill of Rights, rewriting the Constitution! The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are what made this the greatest Country in the world. We need to go back read and understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights than wholeheartedly support it. The whinny assed, politically correct,liberals have a right to voice their opinions, but we need to stop trying to change what made us great to just please a few. Be careful what you wish for or you just might get it!!!!!!!!!!!!

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2014 10:14 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 10:14:44 -0500

No it should be followed. However people fail to realize these are limits on what the Fed gov can do to you, like the 1st amendment congress shall make no law...right there CONGRESS, your state however, can do what ever it pleases. Most state's constitutions mirror the federal constitution so that is were the confusion starts. Like all these states have laws banning gay marriage that were voted on by the people of those states, only to get struck down by a fed judge, the fed courts should never see those cases. this is the way its suppose to work, if you don't like the way the laws are in your state , leave , go to one you do like , or be involved with changing your state's laws. Think about it , it would be far easier to get a law changed in your state vs the federal government.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2014 10:33 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 10:33:30 -0500

the reason for the bill of rights was to show that we had right. by dropping the 1st or 2nd amendment we are giving up our rights. I dont know about you but I fight for every right we have, many have died to defend those rights. Just dropping them would be like pissing on all that have died for them.

Response by CSM David Heidke made Dec 24 at 2014 10:39 AM

CSM David Heidke — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 10:39:31 -0500

If we get rid of the Bill of Rights, we may as well scrap the whole damn thing.

The fact that we have to discuss this, disgusts me.

Your Goddaughter has the right to express this opinion precisely because we have this founding document.

Response by SPC Christopher Morehouse made Dec 24 at 2014 3:33 PM

SPC Christopher Morehouse — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 15:33:04 -0500

Wow, no. Just no. Should we give the government authority to dictate your speech, beliefs, and very lives? No, I don't think so. I whole heartedly reject the very premise of this question. 1A does not discriminate, that's the entire point! 2A isn't 'outdated' threats of government over reach are just as valid today as 240 years ago (I'd say more so). And if she wants cops to be able to walk into her home for no reason and go through her stuff, or be
punished for not incriminating herself, then by all means she can move to Cuba, or Iran, or North Korea. See how she likes it there.

Response by LTC John Wilson made Dec 24 at 2014 5:28 PM

LTC John Wilson — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 17:28:02 -0500

Tell your goddaughter "126 MILLION" When she asks what "126 MILLION" means, explain to her that it represents 126 MILLION UNARMED citizens murdered by their own governments in the 20th century.

Response by MSG Daniel Talley made Jan 2 at 2015 3:46 PM

MSG Daniel Talley — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 15:46:08 -0500

Every country in history which turned from it's founding principles fell shortly after. Is that what we desire? Is our country the true problem in the world? Shall we turn from our once common values in the constitution and bill of rights to avoid political offense? Are not most who believe this unwilling to serve and protect our nation?

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Jan 2 at 2015 8:15 PM

SGT Michael Glenn — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 20:15:23 -0500

I believe that it was written in a time when it was very much needed and well written but times have changed drastically since then and most of it is meaningless to almost all of the government today because it interferes with them taking over this country. Do I feel we need to rewrite it ?yes and no. yes because times have changed, no because the current government would only abuse their authority in rewriting it and America would no longer be home of the free.

Response by SPC Roy Baez-Gordils made Jan 2 at 2015 10:14 PM

SPC Roy Baez-Gordils — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 22:14:25 -0500

I am pro second amendment. I think that right should not be touched or updated in any way. I think a history lesson should be taught about how we earned to have that right. As Americans we should have the right to be armed and have the right to carry for self defense purposes. Look at what's going on around the world... for example women are being raped by Islamic extremist in denmark. I rather have my sisters be armed and ready for the unexpected. Our predecessors fought for us to have these rights and these rights should be left alone.

Response by TSgt Jackie Jones made Jan 4 at 2015 12:43 AM

TSgt Jackie Jones — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 00:43:41 -0500

No down vote. It's intriguing. But we were founded on these rights. They can be and have been amended. So, that's where we the people should go next...

Response by MSgt Rob Weston made Jan 5 at 2015 3:05 AM

MSgt Rob Weston — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 03:05:07 -0500

I would rather have it and not need it over needing it and not have it. While honest people will follow the rule of law, the criminal element will try to find ways to circumvent laws for personal gain.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Jan 5 at 2015 12:45 PM

SGT Jim Z. — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:45:22 -0500

Too much blood was lost for the Bill of Rights plain and simple.

Response by SFC Dan Sorrow, M.S. made Jan 5 at 2015 3:01 PM

SFC Dan Sorrow, M.S. — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 15:01:46 -0500

Our youth are not just being sold a load of crap but are buying it with the currency of warrior blood. She needs to visit battlefields and veteran grave sites, study the history of countries without our freedoms to see what can happen without the Bill of Rights. Better yet, go to some of them to see, hear, and smell it for herself.

I have so much more to say, but feel it wouldn't matter to her generation. It's scary to see and hear what they believe and are willing to give away. Very sad too.

Response by MSG Daniel Talley made Jan 6 at 2015 8:55 PM

MSG Daniel Talley — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 20:55:29 -0500

My limited knowledge of world history, b and c in world civ on college, led me to believe countries which turn from their founding ideals fall. Is this incorrect? Must we repeat what so many before us have done?

Response by CW5 Jim Steddum made Jan 6 at 2015 9:07 PM

CW5 Jim Steddum — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 21:07:58 -0500

There are provisions for changing the amendments. If people want them changed... they can exercise their rights to try to do so.

Response by SMSgt Lance Goeman made Jan 6 at 2015 9:27 PM

SMSgt Lance Goeman — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 21:27:23 -0500

Without the Bill of Rights, there wouldn't have been a ratified Constitution. The Constitution is the law of the land and isn't up for re-election. This notion of a living breathing Constitution is what the founders feared because when you remove the safeguards, the floodgates of tyranny open.

These liberties are universal and protect the citizenry from authoritarianism. The Bill of Rights is meant to be permanent and we've strayed from our founding principles.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Jan 7 at 2015 2:50 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Wed, 07 Jan 2015 14:50:24 -0500

No down-vote for asking the question.

Just happy your god-daughter has the right to her free speech, and has never met a criminal with a gun. Please inform her there is nothing to fear from the good guys who have guns. We will also protect her from the bad guys, if given the chance. If the 2nd amendment is removed, only those willing to break the law (ie, criminals) will have guns.

Response by MSgt Rob Weston made Jan 7 at 2015 3:18 PM

MSgt Rob Weston — Wed, 07 Jan 2015 15:18:36 -0500

I think the BOR is written specifically to allow any person the ability to know and understand what their rights are without any of the legal jargon that can confuse the layman person. It is well written and a beautiful document that states in black and white our God given right to live. It should always be this way and never amended.

Response by CPL Travis Stender made Jan 8 at 2015 11:27 PM

CPL Travis Stender — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 23:27:55 -0500

No matter how old it gets its the same as a religious scripture the wording may seem funny but the core value is the key. The problem I believe is not so much generational entitlement as it is technological reclusivness and a lack interaction within a society to see the reasons these are written down for us. From the loud always last word person to the common thug waiting for a victim. The problem with the informational spread is that everything targets a select group

Response by SFC Jeff L. made Feb 9 at 2015 11:47 AM

SFC Jeff L. — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:47:43 -0500

Seems redundant to even say it. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, advanced weapons technology, or anything like that. It's there to make sure the citizens of this country always have the ability, should it be needed, to replicate what our forefathers did. To throw off the yoke of tyranny and oppression by our own government.

As to the 1st Amendment, I'd ask how does the guarantee of a religious person to worship as they see fit detract from or prevent an athiest's unbelief?

Response by PO1 Dustin Adams made Mar 2 at 2015 2:10 PM

PO1 Dustin Adams — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:10:46 -0500

I think it could be reasonably argued that in the end the 2nd Amendment is what secures all the others. The founding fathers specifically intended for the populace to have the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government should the political process fail.
"Gun Control" is a myth, all the laws do is siphon the power of the people to the government and rich elite (and of course criminals). In countries where the average citizen is forbidden to own firearms the government (to include law enforcement) and the rich elite still have them.
Even in America, most people are under the mistaken belief that machine guns (true machine guns not semi-automatic weapons deemed such by the media and ignorant politicians) are outlawed for private ownership, which is not true, you just have to have the money and time or influence to get a special federal firearms permit.
After it is all said and done in the end it is about power and control/freedom, an unarmed populace has neither.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2015 2:18 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:18:18 -0500

They got it right the first time around.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Mar 2 at 2015 6:00 PM

Cpl Jeff N. — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 18:00:35 -0500

Your grand daughter's view is exactly why the Bill of Rights is so hard to amend. We have plenty of people that would willingly give up freedoms hard fought for to a government out of control.

The first amendment does not guarantee freedom from religion it ensures freedom of religion. As you can see today, religion, in this country, is under assault non stop. It needs to be protected.

We can only hope to survive a generation as out of touch as the current one. A lack of instruction in the Constitution and Bill of Rights as well as other organic documents and historical content has gotten us here.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Mar 3 at 2015 3:55 PM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 15:55:48 -0500

No; I won't vote you down, but I don't agree with your goddaughter because she is wrong. She believes what she believes because our country's education system, along with our media and entertainment industries have been inundated with leftists.

The people who wrote the Bill of Rights were very intelligent men who actually suffered under tyranny. Hardly anyone born in the U.S. has ever suffered under real tyranny, and that is why a lot of people, mostly ignorant people, don't understand the need for all of the amendments to our Constitution laid out in our Bill of Rights. These amendments were put in place not to give us any rights but to remind the government that we already have these rights that we were born with and that the government has no business messing with them.

So, you see, if the government were to remove the 2nd Amendment from the Bill of Rights, it would not diminish our right to own and carry weapons because the 2nd Amendment didn't give us the right in the first place; we were born with the right.

As far as the 1st Amendment and religion; most people are ignorant about what the amendment actually says. All it says is that you are born with the right to believe what you want and the government shall not interfere with that. To me, that means that if you want to pray in school or anywhere, the government cannot stop you from doing so. Likewise, if you don't want to pray or believe in any religion at all, the government cannot stop you from doing that. So how does the 1st Amendment seem to discriminate against atheists and agnostics?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2015 4:10 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:10:46 -0500

Maybe some of the leftist people thinking we should give up our right to bear arms should re-evaluate their plans after visiting other countries. They should see the difference in a country where the crimals have the guns and the average person can't defend themselves.

Response by SSgt Christopher Gill made Mar 3 at 2015 4:24 PM

SSgt Christopher Gill — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:24:08 -0500

Several others have posted solid responses regarding the Bill of Rights, so anything I would say would be redundant. I do have a question, however: I'm new here and so far this is the most thoughtful question that I have seen asked, and being military forum, the sum of the responses here is/was a forgone conclusion. Do we go deeper here? Just curious...

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2015 1:54 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:54:33 -0500

Any laws that old need to be updated, including the 2nd. Unstable people shouldn't be able to get their hands on weapons capable of the kind of massacres we've seen in recent years.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2015 2:08 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:08:47 -0500

Perhaps if today's younger generations actually learned about the struggles and what drove the founding fathers to produce these documents, granting our Rights and then compared them to other countries and what they have in place, along with the records of human right abuses, they might think differently.

Response by CW2 Eric Scott made Mar 5 at 2015 2:09 PM

CW2 Eric Scott — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:09:28 -0500

Why would we get rid of the Bill of Rights. That's like saying 'hey lets all enslave ourselves'.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2015 3:00 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:00:32 -0500

Leave it as is it has served us well for over 200 years and how many other countries have modeled their Bill of Rights on ours.

Response by PO3 Devin Gallagher made Mar 5 at 2015 3:09 PM

PO3 Devin Gallagher — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:09:44 -0500

Obama tried to get rid of guns so I am ok with keeping anything he doesn't want.

Response by 1SG Scott MacGregor made Mar 5 at 2015 3:17 PM

1SG Scott MacGregor — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:17:15 -0500

The Bill of Rights set clear definitions on government intrusion on our lives as citizens. For that matter, is the 4th Amendment also outdated? Lets take away our freedoms from unreasonable government search and seizure, Miranda. The Supreme Court is there to help define and guide the Constitution and Bill of Rights as it pertains in todays society. If we do away with the either then lets do away with he Supreme Court as well, they would be out of a job. The absense of either of these documents will allow the government to come in and have complete control of its citizenry much like communist China or mother Russia in the 80s.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Mar 5 at 2015 3:23 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:23:06 -0500

I am always troubled by the attacks on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. imho, both sides are wrong on this...

Response by SPC Donald Moore made Mar 5 at 2015 3:29 PM

SPC Donald Moore — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:29:20 -0500

Rights are there and should be protected even if some liberal doesn't want it. The whole reason that the amendment existed to begin with was to make it a requirement.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2015 3:34 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:34:15 -0500

No it's not. We over analyze the bills too much. They are simple and a living document. The Gov tries to convince us that it's outdated but I say no it's as young as the people who are needing it the most. They are trying to deprive my generation of reaping the good life under this bill. We can make it better not destroy it by taking things away.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2015 4:16 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 16:16:49 -0500

Too many responses...won't read them (no offense) as to not be influenced by other's opinions.

Leave it as is. Tell your goddaughter that the "Bill of Rights" are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, if she wants the "Bill of Rights" to be amended or dropped all together, we would have to look at all the other amendments as well, such as the revocation of slavery, or the right to vote for women and minorities.....not sure she would be as keen with that.

She needs to actual read the history/learn the history behind the "Bill of Rights" and why the were established, and maybe she would understand why they created in the first place. It was the simple fact (though there were many causes leading up to this point) that the British were going to confiscate firearms that the Revolution went into a Hot status....would she rather be British or American?...the British didn't think we "needed" to have them....and the colonists wanted them and believed they needed them.

You should pose the question to her why she thinks no one "needs" to have a handgun, or a firearm in general. The only way you might get her to be neutral on the subject is for her to actually give her logic, and if there are holes in that logic, to show her where those holes are.

I have a very liberal friend who's anti-gun period. Then I ask him if I should be able to have one and then he says yes, because I have been trained...(first hole in his logic) and he starts giving excuses....I ask him if someone should be able to have one for home protection, then he says maybe....very few are people are "absolute" anything......just have to expose it to them......another example (not trying to start another debate)...if someone is pro-choice.....ask them if a person should be allowed to have an abortion 1 minute before giving birth...if the answer is no, they're not an absolute pro-choicer. Then ask what about 5 minutes, 1 week, 1 month....ask what's the difference between the 3 month mark and 3 month 1 day mark.....etc.....catch my drift how to have a convo with something contentious/highly charged such as that? Make them defeat their own argument.

Response by SSG Leonard Johnson made Mar 5 at 2015 4:20 PM

SSG Leonard Johnson — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 16:20:07 -0500

Sure I don't mind it really written as long as u keep Liberals out of it and gives me more freedom of speech and and 2nd amendment rights

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Mar 5 at 2015 4:24 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 16:24:07 -0500

I am writing in my own weblog this week on the subject of the Constitution and this posting relates directly to the one I will post tomorrow asking the question "Is the Constitution obsolete?" It follows on two others already posted regarding slavery and women's suffrage as they relate to the Constitution. There will be others next week.

In summary, I argue that the Constitution is obsolete only if we wish to abandon self-government and our individual rights. If that is the case, let's scrap it and accept tyranny. Otherwise, no...

http://www.jackdurish.com/jacks-blog.html

Jack's Blog

Blog postings and discussions on a variety of topics including history, opinion, and humor as well as flash fiction and short stories

Response by SSG Paul Lanciault made Mar 5 at 2015 6:04 PM

SSG Paul Lanciault — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 18:04:29 -0500

Great comments. I just had to say: I would have expected no less from those who have promised to uphold and defend.. For us it has a deeper meaning.

Response by SGT Francis Wright made Mar 5 at 2015 7:26 PM

SGT Francis Wright — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 19:26:45 -0500

Explain to her that if we start repealing the bill of rights; we do not get to pick and choose. Because later someone may think we don't need free speech, or a free press. Then ask her where would we be?

Response by SGT Tyler G. made Mar 5 at 2015 7:47 PM

SGT Tyler G. — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 19:47:52 -0500

Should we drop or rewrite the Bill of Rights? Not exactly. However, our forefathers knew that things change with time, and installed a system within the constitution for amending it as needed. So, if any particular amendment needs to be dropped or revised, including the first ten (aka bill of rights), then that should be handled through the proper methods (amendments have both added to the constitution and overridden parts of it before). With that said, I feel the first amendment should be amended to make the separation of church and state clearer and undeniable and including the words freedom 'from' religion. As for the second amendment I think we should have a serious debate about if and how it should be changed, considering how our forefathers could not conceive of the eventual destructive power these weapons would attain, and how we live in a much more stable environment than they did when it was written.

Response by PO2 David Hagwood made Mar 5 at 2015 7:54 PM

PO2 David Hagwood — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 19:54:02 -0500

I'm so glad to see the the response to this poll! I have no idea why there are anyone who believe there is a problem with the original design of our government. Even as it is now, the government isn't running as it was initially intended. It would be glad to scrap all the legislation that has allowed the government grow as much as it has back down to a point where people realize that the government works for the people and the government is actually suppose to represent the people.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2015 9:18 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 21:18:52 -0500

Leave the Bill of Rights alone.

Response by SGM Lonnie Durand made Mar 6 at 2015 9:50 AM

SGM Lonnie Durand — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:50:34 -0500

It often troubles me when I hear young people talk about the bill of rights being outdated. I think that some of our history and social studies classed in HS are failing miserably. Eliminating any of the rights is dangerous to our Democracy and were written to prevent tyranny.

Response by PO2 Todd Voge made Mar 6 at 2015 10:35 AM

PO2 Todd Voge — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:35:13 -0500

CMDCM Gene Treants, I haven't had the chance to read all of the responses here yet, but I'm not sure how anyone can give you a down vote for bringing up a subject that should be near and dear to all of our hearts. How the Generation Y and the Millennials are looking at our founding documents as archaic and in need of replacement. They don't understand that the bedrock of our country lies in these documents. It is what we in the military swear an oath to defend. They have been so brainwashed by the so-called "progressives" that it is scary.

I seriously hope I don't see our once great country go the way of other nations and self-destruct. But, I fear it may be coming.

Response by 1SG Cameron M. Wesson made Mar 6 at 2015 2:43 PM

1SG Cameron M. Wesson — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:43:41 -0500

Absolutely not! I have had conversations concerning the Constituion and the Bill of Rights (amendments) with both my son and daughter while in HS... and thankfully shaped their thoughts on the constitution.

Throwing the Bill of Rights out is not even an option. They are the first 10 amendments of the constitution... and not seperate! Can they be amended? Yes! Let's see... who can tell me what's the only amendent to be enacted to overturn another amendment???? the 21st... that repealed Prohibition. I'll drink to that! Will another be amended? lets see... 1 in 150 years? maybe around 2089... but doubtful.

Note: James Madison's persistence saw the amendments through the Congress and while there would have been a federal Constitution without Madison... there would be no Bill of Rights... which was a messaging campaign to the people... that provided their rights.

BTW... the idea of "right to Bear Arms" is derieved from English common law... well before the Constitution.

"allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression"

my 2 cents

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 4:37 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:37:41 -0500

CPT Private RallyPoint Member I'm curious what you disagree with. Did I offend?

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Mar 6 at 2015 8:43 PM

CMDCM Gene Treants — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 20:43:00 -0500

A few people have asked for various Source Documents. One of the best places I have found for FREE digitized copies of many documents is ConSource - http://consource.org/
Take a look there for Federalist Papers, Anti Federalist papers, and many other documents that lead to the founding of the country and forming of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

ConSource: The Constitutional Sources Project

The free online library of constitutional history source materials.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 8:45 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 20:45:21 -0500

This is, hands down, the dumbest question ever asked on here. I have to wonder if you even used a little bit of thought before you asked it.
Although President Obama has all but signed away our Bill Of Rights, I will always fight to defend it. It's the last bit of freedom that we have. DON'T TREAD ON ME!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 10:03 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 22:03:28 -0500

Don't change it.

Response by SPC Jonathan Sellers made Mar 6 at 2015 11:13 PM

SPC Jonathan Sellers — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 23:13:09 -0500

This issue is only here because people died defending our GOD GIVEN INALIENABLE RIGHTS so that ungrateful whiners who want to live in a police state free from the religious beliefs of others... as if they need a police person with a gun to protect them from the opinions of others... tell your daughter to serve and protect so that she doesn't need a police person to do the same... then take her out on the range so she can see that shooting is quite enjoyable. Amen.

Response by CPL Jay Strickland made Mar 7 at 2015 12:08 AM

CPL Jay Strickland — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 00:08:28 -0500

All the second amendment thus far prevents is an outright ban on handguns in the home. That means states can require registration and waiting periods. We can infer that other weapons in common usage such as hunting rifles and sports rifle (also called assault rifles) are likely protected from a similar ban though the assault weapons ban will depend on the wording and targeted features.

We can also argue though it has not fully been addressed that while background checks are fine requiring a mental health evacuation before the purchase of the firearm. The reason for this is because a mental health eval is really just a ban in disguise. A mental health profession will be wary of being subject to malpractice if he checks the bow allowing someone to purchase a firearm and they later go and shoot someone.

That aside out right bans on fire arms in common use and regulations designed to be de facto bans leaves significant room to regulation firearm ownership, licensing, and background checks. Before we consider curtailing a right maybe we should actually reach the limit of our ability to regulate.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2015 7:56 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 19:56:59 -0500

This is a no brainer for me. Our country has gotten great, like it is, because of our bill of rights. If the new generation wants it changed, they are up a brick wall. The bill of rights is our nation. I don't even know if it is taught in school anymore. I know, nothing about Vietnam is. It would take an act of congress to change the bill of rights and I don't see that happening in my lifetime or in my adult children's lifetime.

Response by SPC Bernie Davies made Mar 7 at 2015 10:13 PM

SPC Bernie Davies — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 22:13:55 -0500

I have come to have a different view of the 2nd Amendment. I do not believe it gives anyone the right to own guns. Instead, what it does is charge me with the responsibility to be ready to defend my nation at any and all times. Our dependence on the military for our protection is not what this country was founded on. It is government by the people, for the people, etc. The First Amendment talks about our nation as being that of free people. The Second Amendment talks about the Militia (shall I call it the people's military), the Third Amendment and the Fourth Amendment talk about our property being just that, ours and that it shall not be infringed upon.

Ask your goddaughter what the Second Amendment means in context of all of the articles included. It is not about firearms, it is about the responsibility to protect all that our nation holds dear.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 8 at 2015 12:33 AM

COL Charles Williams — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 00:33:15 -0500

It is just fine as written. No perfect, but more than good enough.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2015 9:42 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 21:42:57 -0400

Response by SSG William Patton made Mar 11 at 2015 11:49 AM

SSG William Patton — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:49:09 -0400

The Bill of Rights are the fundamentals of our nation and make this a beacon for the oppressed around the world. We are a nation if immigrants, most here legally, but that is changing. The current group in power are attacking our Constitution and the values that have made this nation the greatest in the history of the world. While I think the republic will survive these hooligans, they have succeeded in making the road back to where we once were more difficult. The checks and balances have been weakened and it will take a strong Congress and like minded POTUS to right the wrongs that have been done to the American people and the nation. The next presidental election is crucial, along with a Congress of conservative thinkers, to get us back to normalcy. Finally, "we the people" must become more involved and learn the issues and hold those we elect accountable if they fail to meet our expectations.

Response by MSgt Denise Smith made Mar 11 at 2015 5:30 PM

MSgt Denise Smith — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 17:30:37 -0400

Every time I hear some person make the statement that we should do away with the 2nd Amendment I give heart felt thanks to the drafters of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights who made changing the Constitution so hard. They are normally the same people that cannot comprehend that "the people" identified in the 2nd Amendment are the same people identified/addressed in every other Amendment. There is no reason our children should be so ignorant regarding the Bill Of Rights and why they exist.
What I would really like to see is a mandated age appropriate class/lesson on US Government & Constitution in all public & private K-12 schools, this class/lesson should be identical across the US and developed by cross section of all political parties and economic levels not College Professor elites.
Additionally, there should be a mandatory class on the US Government & the Constitution in every College it would be of greater benefit to the students than Art/Theater/Literature or "Women's Studies".

Response by SFC Anthony Scionti made Mar 11 at 2015 6:24 PM

SFC Anthony Scionti — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:24:32 -0400

And if we were to have it rewritten who would we trust to do it justice; certainly not congress. No, let it stand as is. We protected this generations rights to says these things but must vote ourselves to ensure it does not happen.

Response by SrA Matthew Knight made Apr 14 at 2015 5:25 PM

SrA Matthew Knight — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:25:05 -0400

Leave the Bill of Rights alone. The thought of getting rid of such an important document protecting American liberties is absolutely absurd. It is in no way outdated. If a certain right or Amendment is seen to need changing in order to better protect Americans or better word a particular right then a new amendment is all that is needed as they did when they repealed the prohibition amendment. The Bill of Rights is as important as the Constitution. It represents the beliefs and freedoms upon which our founding fathers built this country into what it is today.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2015 5:40 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:40:36 -0400

I voted leave as it is. I don't agree with some ways it is interpreted, and I think parts are outdated, BUT there's a process for changing the Constitution already in place. It's called an amendment. If it really should be changed, meet the threshold for amending the Constitution. It's hard to do, because it's there to make sure an overwhelming majority want it and thus used sparingly.

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Apr 14 at 2015 5:54 PM

PO2 Mark Saffell — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:54:45 -0400

Well seeing how 97% have voted to leave the Bill of Rights as it is I'd say your lucky they including me didn't all post a down vote also. I didn't down vote because I believe the only stupid question is the one not asked. That being said. We all took a vow to defend it as is. We didn't bow to defend parts of the constitution. We vowed to defend it in entirety. Just wish our Preaident took his oath of office as serious as us Vets take ours.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2015 6:34 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 18:34:30 -0400

If you don't like the Bill of Rights the way it is, there are plenty of other countries that do not have them. Move there. That about sums up my feelings on the issue.

Response by SMSgt Thomas Chatburn made Apr 14 at 2015 7:53 PM

SMSgt Thomas Chatburn — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:53:55 -0400

The Constitution is timeless. The genius of our founding fathers is the vision they had of the future.

Response by SGT Michael Touchet made Apr 14 at 2015 8:16 PM

SGT Michael Touchet — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:16:28 -0400

There will undoubtedly be a time where our liberty will be challenged; then what? The liberals who hide in the shadows of the Patriots who defend our freedom are free to choose not to participate in their Rights; however they may not impose their will on the rest of us law abiding citizens!

Response by CPT Bruce Rodgers made Apr 14 at 2015 8:50 PM

CPT Bruce Rodgers — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:50:43 -0400

The founders did not give us those rights, God did, reference the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. The founders simply codified certian inalienable rights in the bill of rights

Response by PO1 Cleve Ikaika Waiwaiole made Apr 14 at 2015 10:00 PM

PO1 Cleve Ikaika Waiwaiole — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 22:00:08 -0400

All the spilled blood for this. This is what we fight for!!!

Response by PO3 Michael Pierotti made Apr 23 at 2015 3:47 PM

PO3 Michael Pierotti — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:47:30 -0400

Master Chief, I think it falls to ensuring we do our best to educate our younger generations with the truth of why the Bill of Rights was amended to our Constitution. Our current "public" educational system along with the majority of the mainstream media has become a tool of the progressives to rewrite our history in the image they see as "PC".

Response by PO1 John Miller made May 2 at 2015 1:25 AM

PO1 John Miller — Sat, 02 May 2015 01:25:32 -0400

My counter-argument to people against the Second Amendment is very simple. They say things like "it was never meant to cover weapons other than long rifles (though they often mistakenly say musket rifles, which weren't invented until the 19th century) ."

My counter-argument? "The First Amendment, specifically Freedom of Speech/Press only applies to the spoken and written (using quill and parchment) word. It shouldn't apply to television and the Internet."

They try to come back with "Well that's different. That's progress." To which I say "How is advancements in firearm technology not progress???"

Response by SPC Americo Garcia made Jun 11 at 2015 10:00 AM

SPC Americo Garcia — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:00:19 -0400

It is good and if it ain't broke don' fix it.

Response by SPC Donald Moore made Jun 11 at 2015 4:32 PM

SPC Donald Moore — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:32:39 -0400

The Bill of Rights is our only safeguard against our own government. They already trample the Second amendment all to hell with the regulations on firearms. The our privacy is regularly infringed by NSA spying. Our freedom of speech is gagged by "political correction". Illegal search and seizure? Just how many times has a case been thrown out of court because the evidence was illegally obtained.

I can only imagine how bad it would be without our "protected rights".

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 11 at 2015 4:41 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:41:04 -0400

Leave it exactly as it is...warts and all.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jun 11 at 2015 4:44 PM

SrA Edward Vong — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:44:20 -0400

We can say, leave it the way it is as far as not taking anything away from what is already written. But we may need to add, or remove extensions to it as time evolves.

Response by MAJ Ray McCulloch made Jun 11 at 2015 5:35 PM

MAJ Ray McCulloch — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:35:48 -0400

My opinion on this topic is in the specific wording of each of these amendments. First, in the 1st Amendment, it says freedom OF religion (emphasis mine), not freedom from religion. It has been interpreted that atheists and agnostics are a group of protected individuals who are exercising the freedom not to have religion, thereby freedom OF religion. When one reads the Bill of Rights, the Constitution of the United States, and the Declaration of Independence, one cannot ignore that this country was founded on Christian principles and as such necessitated the inclusion of the 1st Amendment in order to prevent the government from imposing a specific religion on the people of this country. Therefore, atheists and agnostics are protected from the government's imposition of Christian (or any other religious affiliation) belief systems.

Concerning the 2nd Amendment, I personally believe that everyone in this country has "the right to keep and bear arms." I do not see how our right to keep a handgun, rifle, or shotgun is any different than us allowing an AK47 in every household in Iraq (and I think we allowed that to happen for security reasons). Just because a few bad apples will always find a way to do bad things, does not mean that those of us who legally abide by the law should be punished. In the military - and I know we have all seen it or enforced it - the concept of "mass punishment" is routinely enforced, because we adhere to an age old belief that peer pressure is a viable way of fixing a problem. We have to dumb down safety briefings and explicitly state what our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines can do on a weekend because some dummy out there said to himself (or his/her buddies), "they didn't tell me I couldn't do [insert stupid idea here]." So instead of trying to take away the guns (whether they are rifles, shotguns, or handguns) from the millions of law-abiding citizens because a few people think handguns are more dangerous in their hands because of the bad apples intent upon causing harm to others, let's make sure that those who have the guns know how to use them to stop those who would do bad with them.

These are my opinions only, and do not reflect the opinions of anyone on the left (that I know of).

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2015 9:40 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:40:01 -0400

The 2nd amendment backs up the 1st which is what helped birth all the others. Not to mention it proves the saying "the pen is mightier than the sword" isn't always true, just ask the British!

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2015 9:53 AM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:53:56 -0400

"Needs" are subjective and irrelevant. Individual humans don't "need" to keep existing, no one "needs" to be happy, no one "needs" anything; we only have wants. Certain things are necessary to realize certain desires, but because they are ultimately based on desires, they are ultimately not necessary. It doesn't matter whether owning a handgun is necessary, one has a right to do it, because owning one does not impede anyone else's ability to keep living their own life (and it can save your own if someone else decides they don't like you being alive). Perhaps your goddaughter needs some firearm familiarization, such as being taken to a shooting range for a day punching holes in paper. People tend to fear the unfamiliar and that which they don't understand.

I am an atheist and strong advocate of the first amendment, every part of it. It prohibits gov't involvement in religion, either through favoritism or persecution, thus providing for a neutral role where both religious and irreligious individuals can believe freely.

If anything, we need to add to the bill of rights, such as the right to Freedom of Association, which is not explicitly protected unfortunately.

Response by SSG Hank Ortega made Jun 12 at 2015 2:47 PM

SSG Hank Ortega — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:47:08 -0400

The Constitution and Bill of Rights dos not grant any particular rights. It merely codifies, and outlines rights inherent due to being a living human.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2015 12:18 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Jun 2015 00:18:26 -0400

The bill of rights is the foundation for our country and is what our forefathers believed in so in return being an American you should have no problem with the bill of rights. If you have a problem go find a better country to live in and be free.

Response by GySgt William Hardy made Jun 18 at 2015 3:12 PM

GySgt William Hardy — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:12:19 -0400

I have decided to make another post on this topic. All of this is IMO.

We have the greatest governmental contract in the history of mankind. It is a living document that can be amended as things change or as needs arise that we have not yet thought about. Those that think that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights needs to be done away with or amended are just plain nuts. Without the safeguards placed in the operating of our government, we would loose the ability to have a government that cannot take over with force. Any country which does not have safeguards is subject to being over thrown by people from within and outside of the borders. The Freedoms in the Bill of Rights gives us the ability not only to rise up and restore our government (2nd Amendment), but it allows us to openly speak out or to write articles about what is wrong.

Furthermore, and again IMO, the new "Social-Democrats" are actively trying to dismantle the Constitution. The old Democrats are few and far between. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are Social-Democrats. They will try to undo everything if they could.

Those that think the old Democrats are still running things need to take a second look. I further encourage them to take back their party. We do not need the likes of LBJ, Carter, Obama, or Clinton in the government. They are all Socialistic in their approach.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Oct 6 at 2015 10:45 AM

1LT Aaron Barr — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 10:45:34 -0400

The problem is not the Bill of Rights but a lack of understanding of the philosophy on which it and the Founding of this nation was based. That philosophy is summed up in the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence which basically plagiarizes John Locke. Simply put, we all retain equally by nature certain rights. The fundamental rights are Life, Liberty & Property; they're fundamental because they apply even when we're alone. Since most of us don't live out our entire lives on a deserted island but come into contact with other people routinely, the fundamental rights give rise to others such as Association, Privacy, Movement, Trade and Self-Defense.

The Founder further stated that it was to secure these rights that people formed governments. In order to bring what we might view as the 'Mission' of the nation, as defined in the Declaration of Independence into practical existence, they created the Constitution as the 'Execution'. The Bill of Rights establishes LEGAL rights, at the highest level of the law, to prevent the government from violating the pre-existing NATURAL rights it was founded to secure.

Response by CSM Thomas McGarry made Jul 13 at 2016 4:33 PM

CSM Thomas McGarry — Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:33:21 -0400

Probably could use a new amendment for term limits for all elected officials.

Response by SSG Don Waggoner made Jul 13 at 2016 4:52 PM

SSG Don Waggoner — Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:52:33 -0400

It's amazing to me how many of you are all gung-ho for the 2nd Amendment because you have to protect yourselves from the "government." This ain't 1776. And the government has a lot more guns than you do, so, even if you have 1500 AR15's and 200,000 rounds, you ain't gonna win. Besides, a lot of you are active duty. You are the government. You swore an oath to protect and defend it. If me and my cronies decide the government is corrupt and decide to revolt, per the 2nd amendment, you guys are the ones going to be called to stop us. So quit using that as a reason for keeping your guns. I'm not for revoking the 2nd amendment or taking away anyone's guns, but that's mainly because it would be a pain to do and would only solve part of the problem. Many countries get along just fine without a 2nd amendment.

As to the 1st Amendment. It's fine like it is. It means you Christians cannot shove your beliefs down my throat any more than I can shove my agnosticism down yours, at least through government agency. You Christians are not being put upon at all, so get over it. My beef is with the right of a free press. I love that part a whole lot, but I think it has gotten out of hand, to where the press has more rights that the average Joe or Sally does. They need to be free, but that doesn't mean they need to always be at the front of the line. Where's my free speech. I've gotta get a permit.

Another thing. Why don't you hold the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th Amendments just as sacred as the 1st and 2nd? They really are more likely to affect you personally.

Most of the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution should be re-written every 20 years. That is not happening. Could it use some tweaking? Sure it could, but be careful, it could get out of hand. Let the courts sort it out.

Response by SPC Kirk Gilles made Jul 14 at 2016 11:30 PM

SPC Kirk Gilles — Thu, 14 Jul 2016 23:30:28 -0400

Let's actually follow it and see how it works.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2017 8:48 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Jul 2017 20:48:30 -0400

No.

Response by MSG Jay Jackson made Jul 12 at 2017 11:20 PM

MSG Jay Jackson — Wed, 12 Jul 2017 23:20:32 -0400

Well we do not pass freedom along in our DNA to our children. It needs to be taught to them just like any other thing that parents should teach them to be good citizens.
First I believe that the BOR does not give you a damn thing! It tells the established government what our rights already were. The freedoms of speech, the right to own a firearm, the right to own property already existed prior to the creation of the USC. I believe you receive your rights by virtue of your humanity! Governments derive ALL their authority and power from WE the people. WE the people have the right and damn responsibility to replace a government that no longer serves it's purpose. We replace the government by voting out the bad actors.
Now as for the granddaughter sir, I would tell her this " When you are born in the USA you have received the greatest gifts ever given to a human being. You were born free. Free to choose you course in life, your friends. You may speak your mind, defend yourself when you need to. Hell you can marry who you want. This gift of freedom you have cost you nothing in the beginning. You must maintain it though like a garden you love by being active in the preservation of it. Part of the freedom you enjoy is the right to bear arms. This right, like all rights was not given to you, it is yours by virtue of your humanity. It may be taken from you though should you use it to harm innocent people".
I would then show her a few movies like, Saving Private Ryan, Patton or Schindlers List. Explain to her that we exist today because of so many who perished long ago fighting for the freedom of those yet unborn. A lot of them as we know were barely over twenty years of age when they died. I shutter to think of where we would be if the BOR never was!