The Bill of Rights was put into place to protect the people from their own government. Jefferson said that a new generation of citizens needed a new set of laws, but that does not necessarily mean we should scratch the Bill of Rights. We must remember that it was put into place for a reason. For instance, the First Amendment has and should remain unchanged. The right to freedom of speech and religion is part of our national identity and is one of the most powerful and effective ways of speaking out against injustices. The second amendment should be up for debate. Personally, I hate the debate about gun control. It all depends on how literally you interpret the constitution and the Bill of Rights. You could make an argument for both sides. …show more content…
The Bill of Rights was written after a group of armed civilians defeated a withstanding army. That does not happened often mainly because we have the National Guard. So, the need for citizens to carry anything stronger than a hunting rifle, in my opinion, is not necessary. We now have access to advanced automatic weapons, something civilians 200 years ago did not own. The media was also not as prevelant and the Founding Fathers did not have access to instant news. Back then, people owned weaponry for the sole purpose of ensuring their own personal safety. While there were still deranged shooters, the concept of owning a gun was not nothing to boast about. People treated their right to bear arms with respect and dignity. Nowadays, with the help of the media, people have convinced themselves that we are living in a world of chaos, where you are likely to encounter a mad man everywhere you go. Because of this, people begin to act out of fear and emotion, rather than rational thought. The debates about gun control have gotten out of hand partly thanks to the media. Don't get me wrong, there are two sides of this debate. We certainly need to do a better job of decreasing the amount of mass shootings in this