The Third Amendment

"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in manner to be prescribed by law."

The Third Amendment is the most outdated amendment in the Bill of Rights. This amendment protects the citizens of the United States from soldiers being quartered in their house without their permission. This amendment was in response to people in the colonies being forced to house British soldiers against their will. I like most people would be more than welcome to let any American Soldier  stay at my house in time of need. So I doubt that this amendment will have any challenges to it in the future.

This picture to me makes fun of the outdated Third Amendment. I doubt anybody would want to be forced to house a soldier if they did not want to, but if they did repeal the Third Amendment I doubt it would affect society today at all. Most people I think like me would house a soldier in a time of need without being forced.

This video shows one of the main reasons why the Third Amendment is outdated, American military personnel are provided housing. Most likely the only reason a soldier would ever have to stay at a citizens house would be in time of war, and the Third Amendment doesn't protect against quartering in time of war (however it would be regulated by law). 

The Second Amendment

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment has been at the heart of one of the most heated debates about the Constitution in recent memory. This Amendment gives every citizen in the United States the right to own a gun (bear arms).  Did the founders mean for it to include fully automatic machine guns that hadn't even been invented yet? To me the meaning of this amendment changed as soon as the United States decided to keep a large standing military. Before without the ability of the citizens to keep  a gun to protect themselves we might not have been able to fight back against the British or keep the country together during the Civil War. Now with a police force in every town and city, and the most powerful military in the world a citizen does not need a military style weapon. I believe that if you want a gun to protect your family or hunt that is a right that should be protected. However, there is no reason for anyone not in the military to possess a gun that could kill 30 people with one round of bullets.

This video brings up the point (in a funny way) that I made above; the Second Amendment was created right after a war when the people of the country still needed the ability to protect themselves from their enemies because the country could not. I don't believe the Second Amendment was included in the constitution so a guy in Texas could own a fully automatic machine gun. The need for citizens to protect themselves from an enemy invader has passed, it doesn't mean what it may have meant back when the founders included this right into the Bill of Rights.

This picture brings up a point about why the public should have the right to "bear arms". The protection of your family is very important, but I believe protection of an average citizen from anyone with a gun is just as important. I do believe that people should have the right to have a gun in their house to protect themselves from invaders, but I also think that right should be well controlled by the government. Handgun's for protection is alright, a machine gun in your house for protection is not.

The First Amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

To me the First Amendment is the most important of the Bill of Rights amendments. Not only does it give the average citizen the right to speak freely without fear of retaliation from the government, it gives the same right to the press. Freedom of the press is a crucial part of a free Democracy. Without freedom of the press we might never have learned about scandals such as Watergate or the Monica Lewinski fiasco. We need the press to keep us up to date on what is going on with the country and the strengths and weaknesses of political candidates. Also there are so many different religions in the United States that without the freedom of religion given to us by the First Amendment this country would fall apart.

To me this cartoon shows us that even without fear of retaliation from the government, free speech like everything can be controlled by the wealthy and powerful. Who knows how many large company scandals have been hidden from the public by a reporter who got paid off. However, that is why it is good to have so many different media outlets; if the scandal is big enough, the people involved won't be able to keep it from the public for long.

This picture brings up a topic that has been debated ever since the freedom of speech was included in the Bill of Rights. Should speech that is meant to hurt other people be protected by the First Amendment? The only reason I think "Hate Speech" should be protected is the fact that it would be an impossible form of speech to regulate. So many people in this country say things without thinking about how it could affect the people around them, that if "Hate Speech" wasn't protected the justice system would be overwhelmed with new cases.