People think that the Bill of Rights is just fine the way that it is. There are those who think that there should be no limits placed on the Bill of Rights. Yet, when I challenge them with certain simple scenarios they pause and some, the honest ones, come to realize that perhaps there are limits or that there should be limits. When it comes to the 2nd amendment, many people are steadfast in their position that there should be no restrictions. According to their reasoning, I should be allowed to buy as many fully functional bazookas and automatic machine guns as I like without background checks or any other type of check. Therefore I proceed to another right. How about the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment? Since there is no restriction stated, can I burn dogs if it is in keeping with instruction in my religion? If Im a religious pacifist, should I be allowed to stop paying taxes? If my religion prevents me from taking blood, can I refuse a blood transfusion (even if it might result in my death)? Does freedom of the press allow unethical but honest news reporters to post stories about our military plan of action in a war? I dont see such exceptions in the Constitution. If I find out that the US Army is going to launch a major offensive in northern Iran in a week, am I allowed to describe it in tomorrows paper? There are many more scenarios that I think should cause people to pause and think about the Bill of Rights. Are there understood limits to the Bill of Rights? If so, shouldnt these limits be somehow included in the Constitution? If you dont believe in limits, it is logical to conclude that you think that I have a constitutional right to stop paying taxes, burn dogs, post expected military action, and buy as many of all of the types of guns that I want without question.