I’m studying for my History class and don’t understand how to answer this. Can you help me study?

Question 1 -The Constitutional Convention in 1787 was billed as a meeting to amend and improve the Articles of Confederation. But several of the political elites of the time had a vastly different idea: They discarded the Articles and wrote an entirely new document that we still live under today – The Constitution.

The Constitution has a provision for convening a Constitutional Convention. There are no specific guidelines for such a gathering and, theoretically, the members could discard the Constitution and start all over again, as in 1787.

What are your thoughts on the potential benefits and dangers of a new Constitutional Convention?

Question 2- The reading, “Divisive Discourse…” gives excellent examples of the tactics and arguments on both sides of the issue of gun control, but in the end the debate boils down to differing interpretations of the second amendment. Many have argued that the element of “interpretability” is the strength of our Constitution. After having read about the bitterness and acrimony inherent in the guns debate, where do you come down on whether the Constitution should be interpreted or taken as written?

Directions- Answer the questions using a few sentences and answer completely.

Also respond to other students using the image in the file

The image in the file if for question 1 and its for responding to the student