Amazon.com Widgets

Should the entire Bill of Rights be closely examined and rewritten for modern times?

  • The Bill of rights was written in a time when we were under threat of other more powerful countries.

    Back in 1791 when the bill of rights was ratified, the country was escaping a tyrannical rule from over seas, and the most powerful weapon of the day was a cannon, and it is hard to believe that they could have foresaw the destructive power of today. Does the right to bear arms mean that anyone should have the ability to purchase a nuclear missile, nerve gas, or weaponized disease? Anything that is considered a weapon is therefore labeled an armament; from swords, to rifles, to nukes the second amendment should therefore, in theory, make it legal to buy any weapon, even ones that could end life on earth. Besides all of what I have already have said, I believe that we should have only what is necessary for the security of our rights and freedoms, we do not need a weapon of war or mass destruction to defend our freedoms, and it is our duty to defend life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, and if that means limiting guns, than so be it.

  • Yes, it should

    I believe the entire Bill of Rights should be closely examined and rewritten for modern times. I believe this would be an incredibly difficult task and it should require input from every citizen in the country. If this were to be done, it shouldn't be in any one persons control.

  • Of Course it Should

    The Bill of Rights is outdated and no longer serves its intended purpose. It only protects the people from the federal government not states or individuals. The Supreme court, nine individuals, are left to interpret what are founding fathers wanted to convey. As man evolves so do their ideals. We need to support, even embrace, change.

  • Yes It Should

    I believe the entire Bill of Rights should be closely examined and rewritten for modern times. I believe this would be an incredibly difficult task and it should require input from every citizen in the country. If this were to be done, it shouldn't be in any one persons control.

  • We're stuck with what we have

    Maybe it would be a good idea to update the Bill of Rights. I can certainly see some room for improvement, personally. However, in order to amend or change the Constitution we would have to get a 2/3 majority to pass anything.

    This country is so polarized that there is absolutely no way we can get a 2/3 majority to pass a SINGLE amendment to the Constitution, much less an entire overhaul. For better or for worse, the Constitution we have is the Constitution we are stuck with.

  • & & &

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

  • No, the Bill of Rights should not be changed.

    I do not think that the entire Bill of Rights should be closely examined and rewritten for modern times. I do not think that the Bill of Rights is something that needs to be reformed and modernized for today's issues. I think that it would be a great injustice for the American nation

  • No, only parts of the Bill of Rights that are at odds with modern thinking should be rewritten.

    While I agree that parts of the Bill of Rights could be examined and rewritten to fit modern times, including the Second Amendment, a good majority of the document still reflects what it originally intended to. Because it is a living document, amendments are suggested, added and removed as the times change.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.