What Bill of Rights are outdated and should be eliminated?

The lowlifes who dominate political discourse today want to or already have violated pretty much all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. But real progress toward a better country would mean discovering a newfound veneration for the Constitution and aggressively impeaching and voting out the officials who want to violate it. If I could preserve just one Amendment, it would be the tenth: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That would mean abolishing all laws, taxes, regulations, and government agencies not authorized by the Constitution (i.e. most of them).

I think it is pretty clear that the right to bear arms with almost no regulation should not be a federally guaranteed right.

repeal the 2nd amendment and let the states work on that one. NJ's gun control interests have nothing to do with iowa's - the two shouldn't have to use basically the same rules.

ruggiero wrote:

I think it is pretty clear that the right to bear arms with almost no regulation should not be a federally guaranteed right.

That is not objectively true, it's merely your own stupid opinion reflecting your malicious desire to reverse the American revolution and subjugate individual rights to the cause of unlimited Federal power.

Oh snap!

I would get rid of the right that sets the speed limit to 55mph.

I would add a new amendment to set the speed limit to 75mph

Asdfghjkl wrote:

ruggiero wrote:

I think it is pretty clear that the right to bear arms with almost no regulation should not be a federally guaranteed right.

That is not objectively true, it's merely your own stupid opinion reflecting your malicious desire to reverse the American revolution and subjugate individual rights to the cause of unlimited Federal power.

did you read my post? I'm recommending that the states make the decisions on gun control. How is that expanding federal power?

ruggiero wrote:

I think it is pretty clear that the right to bear arms with almost no regulation should not be a federally guaranteed right.

repeal the 2nd amendment and let the states work on that one. NJ's gun control interests have nothing to do with iowa's - the two shouldn't have to use basically the same rules.

Why not?

If anything repeal the 7th.

You're giving the federal government the right to give these powers to the state. So, the federal government just grows and grows.

Can you explain why changing the Bill of Right would impact the US constitution?

Farenheit wrote:

Can you explain why changing the Bill of Right would impact the US constitution?

Not to worry, assuming you're American, you'll learn about this when you've completed fifth grade.

Monkeys typing wrote:

Farenheit wrote:

Can you explain why changing the Bill of Right would impact the US constitution?

Not to worry, assuming you're American, you'll learn about this when you've completed fifth grade.

I didn't attend school in the US and didn't study US History but I though that they are two separate documents

ruggiero wrote:

I think it is pretty clear that the right to bear arms with almost no regulation should not be a federally guaranteed right.

repeal the 2nd amendment and let the states work on that one. NJ's gun control interests have nothing to do with iowa's - the two shouldn't have to use basically the same rules.

Well, other than the simple fact that an armed populace is by far the best way to make sure government does not take over our lives. The 2nd Amendment is by far the amendment that guarantees all Americans the most freedom.

Farenheit wrote:

Monkeys typing wrote:

Not to worry, assuming you're American, you'll learn about this when you've completed fifth grade.

I didn't attend school in the US and didn't study US History but I though that they are two separate documents

The Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution.

photofinish wrote:

ruggiero wrote:

I think it is pretty clear that the right to bear arms with almost no regulation should not be a federally guaranteed right.

repeal the 2nd amendment and let the states work on that one. NJ's gun control interests have nothing to do with iowa's - the two shouldn't have to use basically the same rules.

Well, other than the simple fact that an armed populace is by far the best way to make sure government does not take over our lives. The 2nd Amendment is by far the amendment that guarantees all Americans the most freedom.

so repeal the 2nd amendment and replace it with a new amendment - something like the establishment clause. "The federal government should make no law that abridges the right of citizens to bear arms"

then let each state dicker and make rules that make more sense than the absurdity of a bloodbath that we have now.

The 10th is still valuable in concept but has been rendered all but meaningless in practice.

The part of the 2nd Amendment that says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," because everyone ignores that part.

It should be corrected to say: "Because even crazy people have the right to as much firepower as needed to kill large numbers of innocent people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

They're all outdated. In fact, the Constitution is near 250 years old, it's about time we rewrote the whole thing.

fdsdfasdf wrote:

They're all outdated. In fact, the Constitution is near 250 years old, it's about time we rewrote the whole thing.

I suspect the separation of Church and State would disappear and the right to bear arms would become "the duty to bear arms".

Match Reality wrote:

The part of the 2nd Amendment that says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," because everyone ignores that part.

It should be corrected to say: "Because even crazy people have the right to as much firepower as needed to kill large numbers of innocent people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So the problem is "crazy people"? Seems discriminatory already.

We should infringe on the rights of a majority to potentially (emphasis) limit the destructive power of an extreme minority? Let's make an Amendment to register and regulate all sharp objects. That way we won't have stabbing rampages like in Chinese subways.

What about all the violence prevented by defensive gun use?