Do you believe the Bill of Rights is outdated and should be either dropped in its entirety or at least rewritten?

The 27th Amendment was originally the 2nd and said, "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." It is to bad it did not address the pay rate as well as the timing. I agree that all members should have to live by the same laws they expect citizens to live with!

I have always felt that Congressmen and Senators should receive STIPENDS for their service, not more pay than generals/admirals. Retirement for serving - NEVER! Term Limits - YES! (ONE TERM, no professional Politicians ever!)

Well said! And your last comment fits in perfectly with the "one term in a row" policy I've earlier suggested.

One term would be a great thing but I can support two at the most. Absolutely no more than that.

Psychological studies have shown that anyone who serves more than 10 years in a position begins to develop a superiority/dictatorial attitude for that office or position. We should change and limit the number of terms to make sure no one serves more than 10 years. For example, no more than 2 four year terms. States that have state elections for offices of 2 years should change that to 4 years to save on the campaign spending and increase the time in office doing their job. In the case of Senators that get elected for 6 year terms, it should be changed to one term or change the term to 5 years and no more than 2 terms.

Unfortunately, those that need to limit the terms are the very people who want more...we are butting our heads against the wall.

With due respect, as a student of history I must disagree. I could opine at great length, but I'll do this fast as my phone is dying.
Reference Amendments 9 and 10. These two amendments are commonly thought to be Madison's catch all. They clearly show what the founding fathers were afraid of. Madison pushed for these because he feared that at some future date people might believe that the bill of rights implied that the government has the ability to give and take rights. This is untrue. What makes our country unique is not our freedom, but our government's responsibility to protect it. Unlike any other western democracy, our government was literally created with the primary purpose of protecting our liberty, even if that responsibility hinders its own ability to function. The ultimate check valve on this system was the 2nd amendment. And in regards to the oft stated "they didn't mean automatic weapons" the 1934 USA v. Miller clearly indicated otherwise. Indeed, the supreme court found in that case that the 2nd amendment ONLY protected the right of people to own weapons that were or had been in military service at some point. Ironic, eh? And all this after the roaring twenties and the biggest rash of crime in our history. So however uncomfortable weapons might make people, it's for that very reason that we have them. To make people in power uncomfortable.

As 1LT Steve Philpot is, I am confused as how the 1st and 2nd Ammendments are being used as excuses to do wrong.
Now, I do admit, I am not a fan of some free speech. In fact I admit to despising what I hear from certain parties, but I know, free speech has to work for everyone, or it works for no one, so I'll defend that right even for those I think are idiots, because they have as much right to speak as I do.
As to the 2nd Ammendment, I have this idea that you've been listening to personal views, instead of seriously considering the problem. We have been given the right to keep and bear arms, because those who founded this country knew what it mean to be helpless under a government that could, and did roll over them when it chose to do. The founders of this country, saw this FORM of government as untried, untested, and they weren't sure that it would be able to stand on its own merit, but they knew, it was the first modern government that gave each person a voice in their own governing.
They also understood, that people, being who and what they are, might choose to try to sway the government in various ways... and people can and do make wrong choices. The one hope they left us with, was the ability to stand and defend this form of govenment from those who would seek to change or destroy it from the inside... and thus we have the armed citizen.
Those who are legally armed, are not the problem. There are laws about laws, and more laws that are just layered over gun ownership. Where you can take them, what you can do with them, how you can store them... we do not need MORE laws, we need to get the ILLEGAL weapons out of the hands of those that are not legal.

The intent of 1st Amendment: Free Political speech, only. 2nd Amendment: to prevent tyrannical government from enslaving the population. Hitler's first act upon assuming office was to CONFISCATE ALL GUNS! See what that got us!

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

MSgt John McGowan, I was voted down for my comment above about revision. Whomever did it removed the down vote which is why it's no longer there.

SSG (Join to see) - Thanks, you don't see many down votes. I did one but it was a accident.

CMDCM Gene Treants - agreed!

SSG (Join to see) - I would submit to you sir that we are not the same people BECAUSE our leaders have slowly eroded our rights and freedoms and for no other reason. We seem to forget that it is those "rights" that made america great, not the evolving interpretations of the rights of the people. But the actually rights that were set forth. How dare people run for political office and pretend to make our country better by changing what has made our country better...!!!! Its so insulting to the citizens of the United States of America.

Lets make our country great again!!! Who said that??????

SFC Hardy, I understand that. I have looked multiple times at their platform. While I do understand there are some good people in EVERY party (yes, even the Dems), there are still plenty of bad ones. Maybe it's just dumb luck but I seem to run into mostly bad ones from the Libertarian Party especially ones who absolutely worship Ron Paul, who I find to be very hypocritical.

SSG Redondo - Many years ago I stopped being a "party man." I am well aware of the benefits of voting party lines to gain power within the government. Keeping a person in the Senate or House for a long time has it benefits. After all, it is a seniority system and the more seniority a Senator or Representative gets, the more likely they will be able to get on the committees that will do their constituents the most good. One of the problems of this system is that it breeds corruption. Power corrupts and we are seeing a lot of it lately. I decided to go independent and vote my conscience, not for a party. It has been many years since I last voted for a Democrat however. As each year goes by, it becomes more and more socialist and I cannot hold to those thoughts. The old Democratic party I used to have respect for is dead and gone. As far as I am concerned, the last President who actually held the views of a Democrat was John Kennedy. Johnson was the first of a long line of socialists in Democratic clothing. The once proud Republican party lost their way also. Not as bad as the Democrats, but enough that many formed the Tea Party to voice the opinions of the far right (not the far far right) who still have many of the same principals as the Republicans. Ron Paul has changed up to often as he scrambles to hold on to some of the voters. His time has passed and he needs to retire. We need term limits to reduce the corruption. We need term limits to bring new and fresh ideas to the forefront. The Democratic party needs to change it's name to the Social-Democrats so they correctly identify with their platform and the old Democrats may open their eyes to what has happened to their party.

To many in the Social Democratic party want to scrap our Bill of Rights in order to push their socialistic agenda. That is dangerous. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are sacred and should never be touched....and I mean never!

That is the best way to describe it Gunny, well said.

GySgt William Hardy - SO true Gunny! Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Semper Fi!

MCPO Treants...if you get the opportunity and have not yet broached this part of the debate, let her know that according to the CDC for 2010 the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides(61.2%) and not criminal behavior against another(homicide=35.0%)....if you take suicides out of the equation there were 11,085 gun deaths due to homicide. Total gun deaths in 2010 were 31,672 for all causes(suicide and homicide being the 2 major components) Gun deaths represented 17.5% of all injury deaths(total injury deaths were just over 180,000). Deaths by firearm homicide decreased 5.3% from 2009 to 2010. Here's the perspective: Poisonings=43,000 deaths and deaths by motor vehicle were 33,000. So we can see that the progressive/socialist mantra of gun control is not based in fact or will it significantly reduce injure deaths in the US even if we banned all guns and confiscated every gun in the US. But the progressive/socialist aren't interested at all in saving lives, they are interested in controlling lives and this is where the danger is. The have a totalitarian view and will eliminate rights and freedoms in the name of safety. And we all know what Brother Ben Franklin says about that...he said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

MAJ Lupold, you hit the nail on the head. The whole thing is about control. While there are a few truly interested in curbing violence, sadly, many of them still buy into the emotional garbage. To add to the stats, part of the total gun deaths includes violent homicides perpetrated by gang members. Even worse are the dishonest and deliberately twisted numbers concerning children. The progressive/socialists include gang deaths and include people up to 20 years of age in the death of children category. Truly disgusting propaganda.

Also, something else to ask her, look at the stats between the states and various localities. Look at the differences between areas with high firearms restrictions (i.e. Chicago, D.C., California, NY, etc) and those with the least restrictions. Numbers are hard to dispute but there are more violent crimes and deaths in the higher restricted areas than the lower ones, especially areas that do not infringe on a person's right to carry.

I will gladly throw some statistics out there Master Chief you can give to your granddaughter and they come for the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice. The majority, 65%-75% of the gun crime comes from five cities, Detroit, Washington, New York, New Orleans, and Los Angeles. Detroit, Washington, and Chicago take turns for the murder capital of the nation and I will include New Orleans in that, but since Katrina and the forced evacuation of the criminal element to Houston and Atlanta, has taken it off the list as frequrently. In the Obama reign violent crime is down by 75% in the states with the least gun restrictions, led by Oklahoma which is an open carry state. States that have given their citizens more freedom to carry arms have put the criminal element on notice that they just might get shot trying to victimize someone, who just might be packing heat. I teach criminal justice students in college and always have this debate and I have to provide these numbers to get some students to open their eyes and see reality. Maybe it will open your granddaughter eyes.

Master Chief, from where I sit I find it hard to tell the difference. All I hear is redistribution of wealth, let the government take care of you, you can't say this or don't hurt someone's feelings just because they are a criminal or a bottom feeder in society. Unfortunately, when Jefferson said we are all created equal, he was referring to the right to follow your dream and be a productive citizen, not drag down those who work hard to follow their dream. I do not begrudge anyone making money as long as it is done with hard work and is earned legally. As for my rights to say what I want, I will do that, even if it is not politically correct. I do not buy into cultural Marxism, never have, never will.

Master Chief and SSG Patton you have said what I have so often wanted to say, but could never find the correct words. In my opinion this politically correct bull shit has gotten way out of hand. The First Amendment guarantees our right to speak our minds using whatever words we choose to use. However, I cannot bring myself to sing the four letter serenade that I used to be so good at. So, as they say now, it is what it is. I believe it is time for all of us veterans and retirees to stand up and scream ENOUGH. You are right the oath has no expiration date, despite what some people would have us believe. It is sad that there are 86% of us who when told to sit down and shut up by 14% we do so willingly like Pavlov's dogs responding to the sound of the bell. This is something else that needs to stop. The majority should be in the lead dog position, yet here we sit looking up the ass end of the minority Chihuahuas. I will stand alone if need be, but I don't think that will be necessary. I will now step down and let someone else speak up. So much for my .02.

As long as we have veterans of the United States Armed forces, none of us will ever stand alone Corporal Brown. When one of us is pushed, all of us are pushed and DC is almost there.

Obama came so close in 2009 when he wanted to have veterans pay for their own health care, even for Combat Related wounds, but most of us have not forgotten!

Charles and Master Chief, we come from different places, have different ideas on some issues, but we all have one thing in common, we know we must have our buddy's back. It seems cliche, but it is true, in combat when it really hits the fan, you do not fight for God, Country, Apple Pie, but you fight for that guy to your right and that guy to your left. At that moment in time, nothing else matters. You do not want to let them down, nor do they want to let you down or the guy on their other side. In the fight for what our country stands for, we will have each other's back and fight for the guy on the right of us and the guy on the left of us. We know what is right as military men and women and we will fight to uphold what we believe in.

LCpl, you are correct, on a politicial level it is a great distractor. On a civilian level it is a topic in which people are greatly mis-informed. Many of the younger, well to do have never been in a situation in which they needed to defend themselves, so they do not see any reason why they should have to.

SPC Smith you are correct in both of your posts. Politicians do want us distracted AND misinformed so that we do notice how badly they are abusing us. The 2nd is a great way to do both.

SPC Good question, who would write it? I can't hink of a soul I would trust. They damn sure wouldn't be from the SCOTUS.

The ONLY way to "rewrite" the bill of rights is to ADD to the Constitution through the Amendment process, which involves neither the Executive, nor the Judicial branches of government.

Sir, I understand what you're saying but whether or not something has the support for it doesn't negate the fact it's unconstitutional. The 18th Amendment clearly violated the 4th and 5th Amendments rights of the people. Since it did so, it was clearly unconstitutional. The 17th also falls in that category. Both are clear revisionist attempts. Thankfully, the 21st repealed the 18th from the "books". Still need work on the 17th.

Sir, if that is true then why did they repeal the 18th Amendment? If the 18th was in fact constitutional then violations of the 4th and 5th were just made up then?

Sir, that's not correct. The 21st Amendment specifically states "Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." Just because something is emplaced in the Constitution or made into law does not make it right or Constitutional. Take for example the 13th Amendment which improved and clarified the Constitution by freeing ALL slaves. For the sake of discussion, IF by some idiotic chance, a new Amendment is passed repealing the 13th Amendment then the new Amendment is in fact unconstitutional since it violates the rights of the free people.

Major: Umm... Three-fourths of the state legislatures. An even higher bar than the houses of Congress. And I agree... by definition an amendment cannot be unconstitutional.

I am not sure Major, but I do believe that the 1st gives them and all of us the right to be morons or at least express moronic opinions.

To me, the uniform and the oath we all take changes that - we have an obligation to defend it.

Warrant Officer Dokter, I fully agree that the framers never intended us to use our weapons for hunting but for forming a militia. In fact they were so afraid of a standing army that was one of the reasons for a strong support of the militia.

Chief, if you are curious, dig around. There is a requirement for a standing Navy and Marine Corps. The Army was only supposed to be raised during a time of National Defense. Successive legislation has created an Army; however, even that is legislated to a certain size.