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Do you believe the Bill of Rights is outdated and should be either dropped in its entirety or at least rewritten?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seems to be very representative of many people in her generation in believing that the Second Amendment is totally outdated and needs to be eliminated.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
2
2
0
2
2
0
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.
"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.
(2)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
PO1 Dustin Adams there is nothing you have said I disagree with or would argue with. Totally agree Shipmate.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
MSgt Rob Weston I totally agree with you, however many seem to think the 2nd is unclear. I understand it, but if you have two people in a room, usually, if they are well educated, you will eventually have 3 different opinions of what it says.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Rob Weston
The 2nd is critical, I see it as the people's right to physically counter any threat to their freedoms and a free state. An armed society is a polite society. Our forefathers had it right, the government should fear the people and not the people fearing the government.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
Oh Col Joseph Lenertz I am also very happy she has never found out why some of us believe the 2nd is so needed. I do believe in all of the BOR and believe she is finally coming to understand why I am so passionate about then 2nd, even if she will never own or carry.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
I will do you the courtesy of not downvoting your comment since you at least tried to explain why the downvote for my question. I guess you believe that even asking is akin to treason and I have been told and I should toe the line like a good little boy.
What you foal to realize is that the BOR begs me, as a good citizen, to question the Constitution for relevancy and ensure it remains a living breathing document for all of us today as much as it was for the founders. Amendments to the Constitution were and are a way to ensure that our country remains alive and relevant in today's ever changing political world in spite of the efforts of our politicians. The BOR ensures that the government remains subservient to the people and not the other way around.
So, down vote me all you want SMSgt Lance Goeman, but I wake up every day and wonder if the Constitution I swore to uphold is still valid or if it is time for a grassroots revolution to restore the government to the people and thus restore our living breathing Constitution to full power.
What you foal to realize is that the BOR begs me, as a good citizen, to question the Constitution for relevancy and ensure it remains a living breathing document for all of us today as much as it was for the founders. Amendments to the Constitution were and are a way to ensure that our country remains alive and relevant in today's ever changing political world in spite of the efforts of our politicians. The BOR ensures that the government remains subservient to the people and not the other way around.
So, down vote me all you want SMSgt Lance Goeman, but I wake up every day and wonder if the Constitution I swore to uphold is still valid or if it is time for a grassroots revolution to restore the government to the people and thus restore our living breathing Constitution to full power.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
SMSgt Lance Goeman is absolutely correct. The Bill of Rights was agreed to so that reluctant representatives to the Constitutional Convention would vote to ratify it. However, I agree with Monroe that enumerating our rights has come back to bite us. How much better it would have been if they had simply said that the government may not infringe on anything a citizen wishes to do so long as it does not infringe on the rights of another citizen (in other words, my rights end where your nose begins). Once the rights were enumerated, elitists could argue that those things not enumerated were up for grabs by the government. A fatal error, but that never stopped the elitists before, did it?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
CSM, I partially disagree with your second sentence above. I don't mind good honest civil and polite discussions about concerns or other things as long as people are really willing to listen and learn. Like CMDCM Gene Treants, I have found many responses on this thread, as well as other threads, to be interesting and engaging. While I do agree with you it is disgusting someone thinks the way MCPO's goddaughter thinks, it's still her right to do so. I'm not saying you said it is not her right but my point is we each must be willing to seek out and honestly learn the truth then turn around and teach others, like her. There are clearly many many misguided individuals out there who need mentorship, guidance, leadership, education, etc. I say we need to provide it. If in turn, she and others wish to remain obstinate, well, that is on them. We can lead a horse to water but we can't make it drink. :D
(2)
(0)
CSM David Heidke
SSG (Join to see), just clarification. I didn't mean this specific discussion. I'm totally fine with it. I just don't like discussions where people discuss which freedoms they are willin to give up or take away from others.
I love the discussions here and just want to clarify that the opening of the thread isn't disgusting to me, but that people discuss it in general.
I love the discussions here and just want to clarify that the opening of the thread isn't disgusting to me, but that people discuss it in general.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
We are discussing it because it isn't being discussed in schools or it isn't being discussed properly by those who should be teaching it. We are discussing it in this forum to help members, to prepare them for the questions they will hear from their children and gradnchildren who are not being taught these lessons in their schools, not since civics classes were abandoned or perverted.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Without the Second Amendment you won't have a First Amendment. Even though it appears the Christians rights are being trampled on.
(2)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
I often think that the Second Should have been the First. Just remember that the first not only guarantees freedom of religion, but also freedom From the same. Sometimes you have to be willing to give up something to preserve it.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
CMDCM Gene Treants
“Go tell the Spartans, travelers passing by, that here, obedient to their laws we lie.”
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
I agree that both the BOR and the Commandments were written long ago, but that does not invalidate the words or the intent, as you so correctly stated. The Commandments gave us rules for behavior and the Bill of Rights laid out our protection from interference by Government.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google