Posted on May 24, 2014
Do you believe the Bill of Rights is outdated and should be either dropped in its entirety or at least rewritten?
113K
2.04K
949
44
37
7
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seems to be very representative of many people in her generation in believing that the Second Amendment is totally outdated and needs to be eliminated.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?
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?
Religion
Constitution
Bill of Rights
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 241
3
3
0
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!
(3)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
The Democrats trace their heritage to Jefferson, and I was a Jeffersonian Democrat until the Democratic party abandoned his common sense thinking.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
The bill of rights is not outdated at all.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.
So many people are out for what they can get at all cost as long as someone else pays the cost.
(3)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
Sometimes it is so hard to tell what people mean. Obviously not in your case SPC James Mcneil
(0)
(0)
4
3
1
The 2nd Amendment is there in case the government ever forgets about the others!
(4)
(1)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
Cpl Sandberg, I agree wholeheartedly! If our country had had fully automatic weapons back then, they would have still written the 2nd that same way. They would have expected militia to show up fully armed, including heavy artillery of they had it!
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
Lt Upchurch I agree that this si a failure of our education system. However I believe it is much more than what Jefferson and the rest of the committee envisioned as our unalienable rights when they drafted and then signed The Declaration of Independence.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
You seem to have a lot of them pegged SGT Sullivan. My Goddaughter in particular fits that to a tee. You can see the struggle I am working on with her.
(1)
(0)
SGT Mark Sullivan
My kids are military brats, my son is a newly commissioned Ensign in the Navy. They all grew up with an understanding of the constitution, and the second amendment. Their friends on the other hand, a different story. I have been asked why I support the second amendment, and I always answer their question with a question. What would they do, if, the government became Tyrannical? many hate groups still exist, and can place a politician in office at any time with the right amount of money. What would they do in that event? Would they become part of the cattle, or join the resistance? Another case in point, If someone were breaking into their home, threatening their family and loved ones, or attempting to do harm to another person? Would they stand there? Would they watch? Or would they try and protect their home or family or that person from harm?
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.....
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Getting rid of the 2A, Part 6. Look at the last sentence of the 8th paragraph.
http://americamagazine.org/issue/repeal-second-amendment
http://americamagazine.org/issue/repeal-second-amendment
Though we cannot create an absolutely safe world, we can create a safer world.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Getting rid of the 2A, Part 7. Not really a repeal but a dishonest and nasty jab against the 2A on a TV show.
http://twitchy.com/2014/01/14/left-wing-bs-sleepy-hollow-series-called-out-for-taking-a-shot-at-the-second-amendment/
http://twitchy.com/2014/01/14/left-wing-bs-sleepy-hollow-series-called-out-for-taking-a-shot-at-the-second-amendment/
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Getting rid of the 2A, Part 8. Repealing the 1A as well.
http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-10383-repeal-the-second-amendment-how-about-the-first.html
http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-10383-repeal-the-second-amendment-how-about-the-first.html
Repeal the Second Amendment? How about the First?
Repeal the Second Amendment, huh? Why stop there? While we’re at it, let’s get rid of the Amendment that is the real source of violence in the United States.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Getting rid of the 2A, Part 9. Shows the sheer stupidity (sorry for using that word) of people. "You gotta sign it before you can see what's in it."
http://conservativevideos.com/2013/04/people-sign-absurd-petition-to-repeal-the-2nd-amendment-confiscate-all-legal-guns/
http://conservativevideos.com/2013/04/people-sign-absurd-petition-to-repeal-the-2nd-amendment-confiscate-all-legal-guns/
People Sign Absurd Petition to Repeal 2nd Amendment & Confiscate All Legal Guns
In the above shocking video, author Mark Dice circulates a fake petition to “repeal the Second Amendment and get all of the legal registered guns off the street.” Many people begin signing the petition before they even know what it’s for.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
Fully agree Colonel. My belief is that the Founders WANT us to be able to defend ourselves from and oppressive government. My reading of both the Federalist and Antifederalist Papers has convinced me of this.
As an Enlisted person I also took an oath. I,(NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders.
However, most Enlisted members have been trained to recognize the difference between Lawful and Unlawful orders, especially senior NCOs.
As an Enlisted person I also took an oath. I,(NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders.
However, most Enlisted members have been trained to recognize the difference between Lawful and Unlawful orders, especially senior NCOs.
(2)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Wow...how did I miss that? I've taken that oath twice now, in addition to the one you took.....
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
I've said the same one 5 times. Must be the repetition. You're supposed to reaffirm your oath whenever you get promoted...hence the "...having been appointed as an officer in the Army of the United States at the grade of _______...do sollemnly swear...
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
Petty Officer Mitchell, you will get no argument from me on any or your points on the 2nd. The way I read it, any restrictions are NOT legal.
In the case of the !st, the Supremes have clearly voiced their legal opinion that it it is freedom from and of religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
In the case of the !st, the Supremes have clearly voiced their legal opinion that it it is freedom from and of religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google