U.S. Bill of Rights Quiz

I continue to find it fairly unsettling that more people remember the 2nd amendment than any other. In my opinion a few of the 5 freedoms of the 1st amendment alone are more important, such as the freedom of speech and of religion. I also think the freedom to a trial by a jury of our peers, to have an attorney, and to be told the charges are more important. I'm not saying I'm against 2nd amendment, but as a student of history I have a good understanding of the kinds of arms our founders were speaking of, and I also believe that it is by NO means our MOST precious right.

Yes it's actually by far the least relevant of the 10. As it clearly states in the amendment, the intention was to provide for public defense. At the time, standing armies were a rarity, there was no national guard, and the nation had just won the Revolutionary War in part due to the help of local militias (which the British of course wished to outlaw). These days, it's absurd to say that local militias are in any way a vital, or even relevant, part of our national defense.

It is an interesting argument that trial by jury, attorney, etc. are more important rights than that of the right to bear arms. I think, conceptually, I would agree, it is a right more central to the foundation of a just society. However... it's one I have not yet (and hopefully never will) needed to exercise. Conversely, I have had to exercise my 2nd amendment right twice to protect my family, including once firing a warning shot. I do not carry a gun as part of a militia or for national defense, I carry a gun because I cannot rely on others to protect my family from criminals.

If you, as a citizen, are not able to bear arms, then when the government would little problem to infringe the other rights that you mentioned. Number 2 helps ensure the rest of our rights.

Do you really believe that the government doesn't dare to hurt your rights just because everyone can carry a weapon? Indeed, since 9/11 the government has gained way more power in what they are allowed to do.

that is why, as citizens, it is our duty to monitor and manage the government. Vote for people who will defend individual freedoms rather than those who want a more expansive and more powerful government.

milk, you're totally right. The weapons of a citizen to defend himself from the government aren't guns. These are just a very last resort.

baloney.

hdny42 is obviously a liberal

Good on them. Guns have become a ridculous problem. How many deaths have been caused unnecessraily because idiots can freely purchase deathmachines. Sure as hell they were needed to fight us British, but it's called an "amendment". Whats the point of calling them that if they never change? Ben Franklin himself said amendments should be changed regularly to KEEP WITH THE TIMES.

You do realize most crimes committed with firearms are committed against people who do NOT own firearms. People may be idiots, but they know enough not to mess with a guy with a gun.

Just like it said in the Second Amendment, way back when, there was much of a formal army; towns were defended by militias. And it was for that reason that all men were allowed to bear arms. Now, of course, we don't use small militias, we have an army and a national guard. Now, having guns on the streets like this is just plain dangerous, and it's for these reasons that I say we do not need and should not HAVE the right to bear arms, and I'm absolutely behind the government trying to regulate them. And yes, I am a liberal. Sue me. So was Jesus.

What happened to the first amendment? We can't base government policies on someone who had the ability to give out free health care without taxing others. Furthermore, compare gun control to the war on drugs. Doesn't seem to work, does it?

FlyingStar468, I like your comparison to the war on drugs because that is exactly what will happen if guns are made illegal; they will be still be sold illegally. If a bad guy wants to get his hands on a gun he will whether it's legal or not. This being said, I would rather be able to go and legally buy a weapon to protect myself because we will never get to a point where there are absolutely no guns on the streets.

Thank you. Gary Johnson 2012!

And yeah, criminals will always find ways to get guns, but an armastice that causes all available and owned weaponry to be handed in would sort out a lot of that Yes, obviously it wouldn't work perfectly, I'm not that naive, but it would get rid of loads of weaponry. (Anyone who owns a firearm legally is recorded, right?) But I'd rather live in the UK where it's nigh on impossible to get a gun. France had 80 gun related deaths per year in the mid '90s. Pretty sure the States had about 33,000. Makes me really sad.

So naive.

Everyone should absolutely be allowed to own weapons. However, why would anyone ever need an automatic assault rifle? Has anyone ever saw a news story where a private citizen stopped a rapist, burglar, etc because they had an assault rifle? The only time you hear about those types of weapons are when tragedies occur like the movie theater shooting in Colorado.

Good point.

It's because the government wants to make guns for a bad thing. everyday, people stop invasive criminals with all sorts of firearms, but they never make the news. But whenever someone does something with a gun and kills somebody, it makes the lead story on every network.

Did anyone else feel short on time?

Not really - not on this quiz, anyway. This is sort of a "you know them or you don't" type of quiz.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... loses its meaning when Senators pray in Congress. Unreal.

The bill of rights says everyone has a right to exercise their religion. You just can't force other people to practice your religion is all.

The establishment of religion has nothing to do with individual, personal exercise of prayer, which is also protected in that clause.

It applies to Senators too. They can practice any religion anywhere they want. They don't have to be religiously neutral.

I believe that I should be able to own a gun (and I do) to protect my family... but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. After all, if we were to STRICTLY follow the 2nd amendment, we could all own nuclear weapons... right? The Amendment sets no difinitions for what "arms" are, and sets no limitations on who can own them. Some common sense needs to be applied somewhere.

Not when you're the guy selling arms (the NRA).