Do you believe the Bill of Rights is outdated and should be either dropped in its entirety or at least rewritten?

Should we slap our forefathers in the face? No sir.

We should however, slap "this entitled generation" on the butt. That ought to fix a few problems :)

Just curious, but who are the parents of "this entitled generation"?

This country was founded on Christian principles. Quite frankly, I'm tired and disgusted of having curb my opinion, accept things against my faith, and not expressing myself through my faith all in the name of political correctness and accommodating others and their beliefs. The freedom of religion means you can practice any belief you want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody (virgin sacrifices and such). It doesn't mean if you don't like someone else's beliefs and the way they practice it (prayer in schools, meetings, and events and the like) you get to squelch it. I can't kick a Muslim if he puts a mat on the sidewalk and prays to the east in the middle of foot traffic. I don't get repulsed if I see a Minorrah (sp?) in a store window or a made up Kwanza candle holder on public display.
As for guns, it will always be, if you take away guns from the people, only criminals will have guns.

Master Chief, the Bill of Rights is fine just as it is.

The problem with those who believe that the people should be deprived of their inalienable right to possess firearms have a tentative grasp of our national history and the current facts regarding their use in modern America.

We didn't shout the British off the continent. We took up arms (the arms we had on hand possessed legally)and fought for the better part of a decade to establish the greatest nation on the planet. The militias were formed by people who brought their own weapons to the fight. The Founding Fathers understood that, and included a prohibition against the government taking our weapons from us. It was intended to protect us from our own government's potential for excesses (given some of our government's recent choices, any cable news channel might enlighten the uninformed with regard to the type of behavior our Founding Fathers feared).

Dictators first seek to eliminate any method by which their detractors would oppose them, and then to regulate the media. Prevent people from protecting themselves and then provide them only the information that you want them to hear. History clearly shows that repeatedly. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

With regard to current use of weapons by armed citizens; lawfully armed citizens intervene to protect themselves and their neighbors far more often than professional law enforcement officers do. Cities with the most strict gun laws also have the highest violent crime. (see Chicago, Washington DC, etc.). A quick review of Department of Justice statistics for decades shows that. I have worked my entire adult life in law enforcement, and can attest to that fact from multiple personal experiences. The police can't be everywhere (and we as a society wouldn't want them to be) so the result is that legally armed citizens take action when needed preventing or stopping crimes more frequently.

As to the question of the First Amendment; the provisions included protect those who don't have a particular theology as well as those who practice their faith with great passion. A careful reading of the amendment's verbiage shows that it protects everybody's right to practice their religion or none at all without interference from the government. There is nothing that discriminates against any particular section of the public by enforcing a specific ideology upon them.

I would offer (and I'm reasonably certain you already have) to your Goddaughter that she might study history and current facts more closely before making a decision or formulating an opinion.

Open respectful discussions should be the norm; not feared for the number of down votes one receives for raising controversial issues. The mature, open, and nimble mind welcomes the opportunity to explore other points of view. BZ for bringing a worthy topic to the group for consideration.