Do you believe the Bill of Rights is outdated and should be either dropped in its entirety or at least rewritten?

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.