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Do you believe the Bill of Rights is outdated and should be either dropped in its entirety or at least rewritten?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seems to be very representative of many people in her generation in believing that the Second Amendment is totally outdated and needs to be eliminated.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
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
That was the point I was getting to without actually typing it out. I'm glad someone picked up on it. CMDCM Gene Treants
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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).
(1)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
Totally agree CPO (Join to see) people are the problem and we have the laws in place to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals or incompetent people. Point in fact is Adam Lanza who did not own the rifle used to kill the kids in school, his mother, his first victim owned it and did not keep it secure from the son who she knew needed mental health, massive mental health, counseling.
(0)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
As far as I remember him and his mother went shooting as a way to bond, which of course was not a good idea, because he knew there was a weapon in the house and knew how to use it despite the fact he should not have had an idea of either. My wife did not even know that her parents had a weapon in the house till a year ago (she's 28 now), because there was no point in her knowing and she did not need to be trained to use it as her mother was if needed.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Didn't have an option for "Clarify, Strengthen," so I had to take "Leave the Bill of Rights as it is."
(1)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
That seems to be a fair response. We can use the amendments to clarify and strengthen if and when needed.
(0)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
The problem with that is some of them are hard to interpret due to the needs and thoughts of the founding fathers. That time machine DARPA has got to be working on would be handy...
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
An amendment is just that - a change to the constitution. Any time something needs to be changed, that's our only way. To say that amendments should only deal with our rights is to say that nothing else in the constitution can be changed - to try to have laws that contradict what is actually in the constitution "put in place by other means" is to violate the constitution. In order to change how Senators were chosen, you MUST amend the constitution. To create an income tax, you had to change the constitution which, before that, forbade such a thing.
(0)
(0)
GySgt William Hardy
What my view is that amendments should be used to modify or change certain things in the Constitution, not add to it like the income tax amendment...what is it amending? If the argument was strong enough, I would even drop my plea to repeal the 17th Amendment. What it did was to change the way we elect senators what their basic job really is...that is something that was in the Constitution. What I am saying is that taxes can be added without making it a part of the Constitution. I just have a different view of what should be and should not be an amendment as opposed to what should be a law. If taxes had to be a part of the Constitution or the State's Constitution, then there would be a a lot of amendments to both; however, local tax laws are written at the city, county, and state level without the need for an amendment. The same should apply, IMO, to national taxes which by the way, are not actual law but contained within the IRS tax codes which have been given the authority of law by the government. There are more laws on taxation other than personal taxes than you can shake a stick at.
(0)
(0)
GySgt William Hardy
Gene Treants - If I were talking about fair taxes I would be there with you. We could discuss that on another thread. My point here is that I do not see the income tax amendment as the right place for it...that's all. I think that if the income tax is an amendment, why are the other taxes not an amendment also?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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?
(1)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
Exactly the question I posed. She had no reply at the time and has had the rethink her position since.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
unlike many, I thought about this seriously the First time I took the oath and everytime after that. I do not know if the oath is its current form existed in the 1860s, but that is the same struggle that Robert E. Lee faced. In the end, he resigned his commission and went with Virginia rather than the United States; most of us would not have that choice today.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
CMDCM Gene Treants
That is the only legal way. Hopefully it is the only way that will ever be taken, unlike so many other countries.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google