UUmm...correction for you adj;

The Bill of Rights is the name given to the first 10 amendments, and they were ratified as a group. But they are amendments.


You may check Wikipedia or any other of a few dozen sources on the Internet for confirmation.

i did say they were amendments

but not just ammendments

-----

Yes...they are "just amendments"

Oh..and good job on correcting your own misspells.

United States Bill of Rights
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
United States Bill of Rights
Image of the United States Bill of Rights from the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
Image of the United States Bill of Rights from the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
Created 1791
Location National Archives
Authors James Madison
Purpose A bill of rights for the United States

In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.[1] They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1791 as a series of constitutional amendments, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the Federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory.

they are not just amendments they are the bill of rights

Arguments against the Bill of Rights

See also: Federalist Papers.

A portrait of Alexander Hamilton by John Trumbull, 1792
A portrait of Alexander Hamilton by John Trumbull, 1792

The idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argued against a "Bill of Rights," asserting that ratification of the Constitution did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, and therefore that protections were unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations." Critics pointed out that earlier political documents had protected specific rights, but Hamilton argued that the Constitution was inherently different:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

kind of explains it right here

I can post stuff to Wikpedia and have you quote it later as gospel. You do know that, right? You can too, and quote it later.

We all can!

Try rereading your own post:

Yes...Even Wikipedia agrees that the first ten **amendments**
are collectively known as the Bill of Rights, as that is how they were introduced. As a group. And then approved to become our first 10 amendments.

They are still **amendments** to the Constitution.
Hence the reason they say First Amendment, and so on. In the *proposal* for them to become amendments to the Constitution they were prsented at the "Bill of Rights" with each point being called an Article. (Only 10 of 12 were passed.)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#The_Bill_of_Rights_.281.E2.80.9310.29

Yes it does. As the original proposal to ratify the Articles of the Bill of Rights to become amendments to the Constitution.
10 of 12 were agreed upon and became the first 10 **amendments**

and therefore that protections were unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations

that line pretty much says the people have these rights

thus no need to protect them

if there is no need to protect them

then they did not expect the govt to try to prevent law biding citizens from using them

thus any law infringing is against the forefathers intention

typical woman....

...always wants the last word....

Only until... 6:51pm! Then I will relinquish my "power"....

why is it the when people try to debate things the insults inevitably come out? spell check, etc. You people and your personal attacks is all you can throw out there. The simple fact is all the supreme court cases incolving the 2a from the foundng date to 1939 favored it as an individuals right to bear arms. Yes, the consitution can be amended, but it will not be for the 2a, guaranteed. Watch the supreme courts decision on the dc gun ban if you want more proof. The justices have already sided on individuals right, and this is 2008. Nice arguments, but precedent, and the law is in our favor. Your arguments are nothing less than thinly veiled contempt, insinuations, your opinion, generalizations, and outright name calling. The petty insults levelled by those who disagree with the postion doesn't change reality. Deal with it

You made it personal... you decided to get upset at what was light hearted, and still is. I think that means... you deal with it.

Usually, if I get upset about what a disagreeing stranger says to me, then I look within myself to figure out why. Usually it means it hit close to home.

I've tried and tried to explain to you my posts were not personal, and not directed at you.

You cannot agree to disagree, nor can you banter or joke around about it.

I am only saddened, not upset. An insult is an insult, and usually used to make a person feel good about a weak position. I don;t care how you try to twist it, your post was pathetic, and childish

See? That is your opinion. And in no way does it upset me, as I know it is not true.

The only person who was insulted... was the person who took general comments personally. It seems you did. I take no responsibility for your feelings or for your perception of my actions. If they were directed at you? I would.

This was your choice.

Grow up, Rob. Or put down the alcohol. Maybe both?

and more insults. Keep them flowing

ye s i know that but i was using his site i rarely to never use it but i was told to look it up on that site