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Do you believe the Bill of Rights is outdated and should be either dropped in its entirety or at least rewritten?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seems to be very representative of many people in her generation in believing that the Second Amendment is totally outdated and needs to be eliminated.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
Suspended Profile
Dear MCPO Treants,
I think of the Bill of Rights like the Christian Bible, Talmud, and Koran. There is no reason to change them as long as they can be reinterpreted to fit current circumstance as needed. When they cannot be bent to fit current needs then we can rewrite them.
Congratulations on your grandchildren!!!
Warmest Regards, Sandy
I think of the Bill of Rights like the Christian Bible, Talmud, and Koran. There is no reason to change them as long as they can be reinterpreted to fit current circumstance as needed. When they cannot be bent to fit current needs then we can rewrite them.
Congratulations on your grandchildren!!!
Warmest Regards, Sandy
3
2
1
The country needs a set protocol by which it should operate. Changing it will only create mass chaos and confusion. Leave the Constitution and all amendments as they are! Don't like the way this country operates, you're free to leave.
(3)
(1)
CPO (Join to see)
problem is the new generations want to change the constitution to fit their own wants! country was running smooth all these years.
(1)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
You said the magic keyword: WANTS. You must ask yourself, are all wants beneficial to today's and future direction of the United States? If we honor the founding fathers' vision for this country, will it bring us prosperity or start pulling us down?? The 2008 economic collapse, Benghazi, Obamacare, all are just beginning to the grand scale poverty if we stop adhering to the US Constitution
(2)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
Petty Officer D. I hate to disagree with you , but telling people to leave does not make for a better country. Founding Fathers Argued and Argued about our form of government before deciding on what we have today. Dissentient is a good way to change the way we function and that is one of the roles of the Amendments.
Yes Petty Officer Garcia "wants" are what it is all about with every generation that makes and proposes change. Some never make it to the Amendment point aqn some do and then get dumped. BUT, PO1 D. hit it on the head when he said we cannot stop adhering to the Constitution.
Yes Petty Officer Garcia "wants" are what it is all about with every generation that makes and proposes change. Some never make it to the Amendment point aqn some do and then get dumped. BUT, PO1 D. hit it on the head when he said we cannot stop adhering to the Constitution.
(2)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Good day Master Chief (ret). With respect to Amendments, one needs to look at the heart behind them. They were introduced because there was a dire need to rectify major issues that were not covered by the original articles. Looking at the amendments alone through some legal interpretation is frivolous. Knowing the reasons behind founding this country, one should get a better understanding behind the heart of articles and amendments.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
It's amazing to me how many of you are all gung-ho for the 2nd Amendment because you have to protect yourselves from the "government." This ain't 1776. And the government has a lot more guns than you do, so, even if you have 1500 AR15's and 200,000 rounds, you ain't gonna win. Besides, a lot of you are active duty. You are the government. You swore an oath to protect and defend it. If me and my cronies decide the government is corrupt and decide to revolt, per the 2nd amendment, you guys are the ones going to be called to stop us. So quit using that as a reason for keeping your guns. I'm not for revoking the 2nd amendment or taking away anyone's guns, but that's mainly because it would be a pain to do and would only solve part of the problem. Many countries get along just fine without a 2nd amendment.
As to the 1st Amendment. It's fine like it is. It means you Christians cannot shove your beliefs down my throat any more than I can shove my agnosticism down yours, at least through government agency. You Christians are not being put upon at all, so get over it. My beef is with the right of a free press. I love that part a whole lot, but I think it has gotten out of hand, to where the press has more rights that the average Joe or Sally does. They need to be free, but that doesn't mean they need to always be at the front of the line. Where's my free speech. I've gotta get a permit.
Another thing. Why don't you hold the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th Amendments just as sacred as the 1st and 2nd? They really are more likely to affect you personally.
Most of the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution should be re-written every 20 years. That is not happening. Could it use some tweaking? Sure it could, but be careful, it could get out of hand. Let the courts sort it out.
As to the 1st Amendment. It's fine like it is. It means you Christians cannot shove your beliefs down my throat any more than I can shove my agnosticism down yours, at least through government agency. You Christians are not being put upon at all, so get over it. My beef is with the right of a free press. I love that part a whole lot, but I think it has gotten out of hand, to where the press has more rights that the average Joe or Sally does. They need to be free, but that doesn't mean they need to always be at the front of the line. Where's my free speech. I've gotta get a permit.
Another thing. Why don't you hold the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th Amendments just as sacred as the 1st and 2nd? They really are more likely to affect you personally.
Most of the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution should be re-written every 20 years. That is not happening. Could it use some tweaking? Sure it could, but be careful, it could get out of hand. Let the courts sort it out.
(1)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
SSG Don Waggoner the BOR was written as a muzzle on the Federal Government. It neither limits the State on grants anything to individuals that did not already exist. I really look at the 2nd as a enforcement vehicle in case all else fails; I do mean in case ALL ELSE. right now we are looking at a possible failure of the electoral process if both the Democrats and Republicans cannot come up with a viable candidate acceptable to the majority of the voters in this country. What happens if we wind up with a presidential candidate no one believes can really run this country? No one wants as a representative of our beliefs?
(0)
(0)
SSG Don Waggoner
CMDCM Gene Treants, the country will survive. It survived for four years under Andrew Johnson after the Civil War, who was a very unpopular president.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Probably could use a new amendment for term limits for all elected officials.
(1)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
I believe you are correct. This is badly needed and might have been a good idea, but our Founders never envisioned "professional" Politicians! They saw politicians who served and went home.
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
CSM Thomas McGarry , don't forget that sometimes the possibility of re-election is the only thing that keeps them accountable. If you hold them to two terms that means half the officials are lame-duck at any given time. That means they need to shop for their next job - with special favors that we pay for.
The potential for unintended consequences is high for this.
The potential for unintended consequences is high for this.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The problem is not the Bill of Rights but a lack of understanding of the philosophy on which it and the Founding of this nation was based. That philosophy is summed up in the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence which basically plagiarizes John Locke. Simply put, we all retain equally by nature certain rights. The fundamental rights are Life, Liberty & Property; they're fundamental because they apply even when we're alone. Since most of us don't live out our entire lives on a deserted island but come into contact with other people routinely, the fundamental rights give rise to others such as Association, Privacy, Movement, Trade and Self-Defense.
The Founder further stated that it was to secure these rights that people formed governments. In order to bring what we might view as the 'Mission' of the nation, as defined in the Declaration of Independence into practical existence, they created the Constitution as the 'Execution'. The Bill of Rights establishes LEGAL rights, at the highest level of the law, to prevent the government from violating the pre-existing NATURAL rights it was founded to secure.
The Founder further stated that it was to secure these rights that people formed governments. In order to bring what we might view as the 'Mission' of the nation, as defined in the Declaration of Independence into practical existence, they created the Constitution as the 'Execution'. The Bill of Rights establishes LEGAL rights, at the highest level of the law, to prevent the government from violating the pre-existing NATURAL rights it was founded to secure.
(1)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
I totally agree 1LT Aaron Barr. Glad you are near the cradle of American Government and Studying it!
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I have decided to make another post on this topic. All of this is IMO.
We have the greatest governmental contract in the history of mankind. It is a living document that can be amended as things change or as needs arise that we have not yet thought about. Those that think that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights needs to be done away with or amended are just plain nuts. Without the safeguards placed in the operating of our government, we would loose the ability to have a government that cannot take over with force. Any country which does not have safeguards is subject to being over thrown by people from within and outside of the borders. The Freedoms in the Bill of Rights gives us the ability not only to rise up and restore our government (2nd Amendment), but it allows us to openly speak out or to write articles about what is wrong.
Furthermore, and again IMO, the new "Social-Democrats" are actively trying to dismantle the Constitution. The old Democrats are few and far between. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are Social-Democrats. They will try to undo everything if they could.
Those that think the old Democrats are still running things need to take a second look. I further encourage them to take back their party. We do not need the likes of LBJ, Carter, Obama, or Clinton in the government. They are all Socialistic in their approach.
We have the greatest governmental contract in the history of mankind. It is a living document that can be amended as things change or as needs arise that we have not yet thought about. Those that think that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights needs to be done away with or amended are just plain nuts. Without the safeguards placed in the operating of our government, we would loose the ability to have a government that cannot take over with force. Any country which does not have safeguards is subject to being over thrown by people from within and outside of the borders. The Freedoms in the Bill of Rights gives us the ability not only to rise up and restore our government (2nd Amendment), but it allows us to openly speak out or to write articles about what is wrong.
Furthermore, and again IMO, the new "Social-Democrats" are actively trying to dismantle the Constitution. The old Democrats are few and far between. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are Social-Democrats. They will try to undo everything if they could.
Those that think the old Democrats are still running things need to take a second look. I further encourage them to take back their party. We do not need the likes of LBJ, Carter, Obama, or Clinton in the government. They are all Socialistic in their approach.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The Constitution and Bill of Rights dos not grant any particular rights. It merely codifies, and outlines rights inherent due to being a living human.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
"Needs" are subjective and irrelevant. Individual humans don't "need" to keep existing, no one "needs" to be happy, no one "needs" anything; we only have wants. Certain things are necessary to realize certain desires, but because they are ultimately based on desires, they are ultimately not necessary. It doesn't matter whether owning a handgun is necessary, one has a right to do it, because owning one does not impede anyone else's ability to keep living their own life (and it can save your own if someone else decides they don't like you being alive). Perhaps your goddaughter needs some firearm familiarization, such as being taken to a shooting range for a day punching holes in paper. People tend to fear the unfamiliar and that which they don't understand.
I am an atheist and strong advocate of the first amendment, every part of it. It prohibits gov't involvement in religion, either through favoritism or persecution, thus providing for a neutral role where both religious and irreligious individuals can believe freely.
If anything, we need to add to the bill of rights, such as the right to Freedom of Association, which is not explicitly protected unfortunately.
I am an atheist and strong advocate of the first amendment, every part of it. It prohibits gov't involvement in religion, either through favoritism or persecution, thus providing for a neutral role where both religious and irreligious individuals can believe freely.
If anything, we need to add to the bill of rights, such as the right to Freedom of Association, which is not explicitly protected unfortunately.
1
1
0
The 2nd amendment backs up the 1st which is what helped birth all the others. Not to mention it proves the saying "the pen is mightier than the sword" isn't always true, just ask the British!
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google
o http://digitaldueprocess.org/index.cfm?objectid=FE5C92F0-2552-11DF-B455000C296BA163
p.s. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-surveillance-program-reaches-into-the-past-to-retrieve-replay-phone-calls/2014/03/18/226d2646-ade9-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html
CMDCM Gene Treants
NSA surveillance program reaches ‘into the past’ to retrieve, replay phone calls
Surveillance system is capable of recording ‘100 percent’ of calls in at least one foreign country.
I was closely monitored for almost three years while I was the operations officer in a strategic communications center. My home and office phones were recorded (a tape of a LTC trying to read classified info to me was a hit at that year's annual security briefing). The FBI showed up at my in-law's home shortly after I married to run a background check on my new bride (I wished they had told me what they found - it might have saved me a lot of trouble later on).
At first I was annoyed. Then I became blasé. My bride and I began talking "dirty" to each other later laughing as we imagined some E? listening in. That was when I began to think that it was going to take a lot of people a lot of time and effort to monitor everyone and, if their lives were anything like mine, they were going to be bored to death monitoring us.
Of course, that was before the microcomputer revolution...
Another interesting tidbit...
In 72 years my identity has been stolen three times. Once I read my telephone credit card to a marine operator on the ship to shore radio and it was intercepted and sold to someone in England who ran up about $600 worth of charges before the phone company called my wife at home to learn that I was floating around somewhere in the Pacific, not the English Channel. Twice my Mastercard info was stolen in the traditional manner (someone kept a copy of a receipt).
Despite the fact that I purchase more on the Internet than in stores, I have never had my identity stolen electronically or digitally. I use LifeLock and a reputable bank (USAA - my membership with them is the best benefit I ever received for serving) and I am a fanatic for using ultra-strong passwords and aliases for identities. I have a physical and virtual firewalls on my home computer network. And I use encrypted credential vaults.
That's how it's done folks.
Yes, we need better laws and agencies to enforce them manned by agents who aren't distracted by tasks that the government shouldn't be involved in. However, this won't happen so long as We the People keep electing celebrities rather than competent politicians, and keep reelecting incumbents who fail to do the right thing.
Keep in mind that we have precisely the government we deserve. If our government fails us, we deserve it...
CPT Jack Durish says that we get the government we deserve, and I fully agree. Each of us has the ability to influence the outcome of elections, not just with our votes, but by being active in politics.