Take another quiz >
thumb

U.S. Bill of Rights Quiz

Guess the missing words in the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Give Up?
Enter missing words here:
0 / 25 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored /25 = %.
This beats or equals % of test takers
The average score is
Your high score is
Your best time is remaining
Points
You have earned / 5 points for this quiz
This quiz is not eligible for points
Next Level
/
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
×
Help

Enter answers in the area marked "Enter missing words here".

You can enter any answer, at any time - they don't have to be in order

Punctuation and capitalization don't matter on JetPunk.

#
Text
1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
3
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner,
nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
4
The right of the people ... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...
5
No person shall be held to answer for a ... crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
except for [military persons during wartime].
nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,
by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law,
and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses
in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
7
In Suits at common law, ... the right of trial by jury shall be preserved...
8
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny
or disparage others retained by the people.
10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Answer Stats
#
Text
% Correct
Your %
(44)
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.
reply
delete
Sep 1, 2012
(69)
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.
reply
delete
Jan 15, 2013
(43)
it was not for public defense but rather for protection or private property IE slaves it was a compromise to slave owners so that they could squash slave revolts before they turned to riots. And BTW it is one of the least relevant things in the 10 amendments listed. Unless the NRA concedes and everyone goes back to having flint lock rifles like they did when teh second amendment was approved via a compromise.
delete
Jan 15, 2015
(69)
Yeah I've read that argument and while slave-owning states were definitely more intent on keeping their own weapons out of the hands of the federal government, it's still very clear by the wording and the position next to the 3rd amendment what the authors had in mind if you know about what was going on in the colonies prior to the Revolutionary War.

In either case, though, whether it's to provide for a national defense, or to keep slaves from revolting against their well-armed masters, the amendment's relevance has long since expired. Even if we were to keep following it to the letter, I always notice how those that yell about the "shall not be infringed" bit never seem to remember the "well regulated" part of the same sentence.
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(38)
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. It held in D.C. v. Heller, 544 U.S. 570 (2008) that it is an individual right; i.e. it means individuals can keep and bear arms, as individuals. It is not restricted to militias.
delete
Jan 23, 2015
(67)
Regardless of the intention, as written it does seem to protect an individual right. The only part of it that explicitly states any right is, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The first part does not grant or limit any right, it merely provides the authors' reasoning for providing the right given in the second part. Yes, if one were being true to the spirit of the law and not merely the letter, one would take heed of the well regulated part, but taken absolutely literally at face value, the text does not appear to demand regulation, nor does it limit the right to militias - it merely states that, given that well-regulated militias are important, the citizens have the right to bear arms. Now personally, I am a firm believer in gun control - it works just great for us here in Australia - but regardless of ones own thoughts on the issue, its pretty hard to argue that the Second Ammendment does not specifically protect the right to own and carry a gun
delete
Sep 29, 2016
(66)
Least relevant is #2? Do you really think we need to fear having soldiers bunking in our homes (#3)? I would say nos. 9 and 10 are the least respected, though.
delete
Nov 9, 2016
(69)
Roger, we have to fear having soldiers quartered in our homes only slightly more than we have to worry about relying on local militias to defend us from the redcoats, but I could at least envision a scenario where someone might propose the first thing, as unlikely as that would be. The 2nd thing, though, will never again happen.
delete
Mar 8, 2017
(77)
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.
reply
delete
May 21, 2013
(44)
but thats not why the law was written, although it has been expanded by judicial review to include the right to protect one's family, but i would argue that that protection is necessitated by the violence caused by the proliferation of guns which the amendment's very existence has caused in the first place. the 2nd amendment should have been reined in after wwii, and we would be as safe and non-violent as germany and japan are now. Now, it is out of control. the whole world laughs at us because they think you can't go a week without witnessing a shooting. its not that bad...yet
delete
Aug 2, 2014
(69)
Many more people are killed or wounded by the guns they own than are protected by them. We've got police and home security systems and even then most of the time these things aren't even necessary. That said very few people including the most liberal of Democrats are against allowing people to own certain kinds of firearms provided they are trained to use them properly, the guns are registered, well-regulated, kept in a safe place, and every measure possible is taken to keep them out of the hands of criminals, felons, and the mentally impaired. None of those people belong in the "well regulated militia."
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(69)
and out of curiosity plats, where do you live exactly? I've gone 35 years living and traveling through Washington, Baltimore, Chicago, Richmond (allegedly the most dangerous suburb of San Francisco), Los Angeles, Miami and the slums of Manila, Bangkok, Addis Ababa, Cairo, Delhi and Palestine amongst other places. Never once been in a situation where the presence of a firearm would have helped or made anybody safer.
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(71)
We own a gun not because we expect to use it on people, (although I was glad to have one on hand when a man being chased by deputies for a shooting chose to drive down my driveway before turning around after he saw me with a shotgun - thank goodness our neighbor had phoned to warn me about him) but we have used them several times to protect our pets and livestock from marauding coyotes and wild dogs. They are vicious when attacking sheep and pet cats and dogs, and one large wild dog was about to attack me when our neighbor saw what was happening and shot it. Living in a rural area where it can take up to an hour for deputies to arrive after an emergency call, one must do what one must to protect ourselves and our property. We are not hunters, but I also have no problem with deer hunters thinning the heavy populations to put meat in their freezers. We have had five vehicles totaled when deer ran into us. They don't look so Bambi-like when they are about to come through your windshield.
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(77)
@beetboy, I disagree somewhat that personal defense is not why the law was written. Although the intent they included was specifically about the maintenance of a militia, I doubt the founding fathers could have forgotten about the forced disarmament of individuals whose homes their soldiers were being quartered in. Perhaps the 2nd Amendment is a self-fulfilling prophecy--that granting the right created a culture in which it is more important, but you cannot simply change that culture by legally revoking the right, as criminals aren't generally restrained by the law.

@kal, I completely agree, guns do more harm than good. However, statistics like that are less than comforting when you're accosted by someone with a gun, and you don't have a way to defend yourself. I am all for better regulation of firearms, but not to the extent it puts me at the mercy of a criminal (been there, done that, never again. For your curiosity, that was in Hong Kong, a 'gun-free' state).
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(77)
(ran out of space). The two instances I alluded to in my earlier comments occurred when I lived in suburban areas of Houston and Los Angeles. I spent years in both areas, and excepting these events, never felt in any danger in those neighborhoods. The only place I've felt compelled to carry at all times was in Luanda.
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(69)
I think if I lived out in the wilderness somewhere I may feel a little bit differently. But I don't know. I never felt like I needed a gun when I was camping. I can see it as a tool (of arguable necessity) for ranching or farming. First and only time I've shot a gun myself was at a firing range in Thailand last year.
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(59)
I've lived almost 63 years and not once have I ever needed a gun. and no, I am not in the backwoods. If you want to keep a firearm, fine and dandy. But don't try to cram one down my throat, as in these right-wing nut job legislators who wants to require everyone of legal age to own one. These idiots who want to strut around with open carry are doing nothing but showing off, like my nephew. He comes into a church fellowship hall at our family reunion wearing his just because he can. No, we don't have a wild gathering, no drinking, etc.
delete
Jul 29, 2016
(63)
I doubt the founding fathers could have imagined telephony and the world wide web, either. Is the First Amendment no longer relevant?
reply
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(69)
It's more relevant than ever. Please explain how it wouldn't be.
delete
Jan 17, 2015
(77)
@kal, I think that's his point. The first amendment is relevant even though it outlived what the founders could imagine, and he's arguing the second has as well.
delete
Dec 16, 2015
(69)
Then it's a very poor argument. If he's responding to me, he is strawmanning, too.
delete
Mar 8, 2017
(51)
Without the right to bear arms, we have no other rights.
reply
delete
Apr 16, 2015
(69)
Ridiculous NRA propaganda. When was the last time a gun-toting mob stormed Congress or the White House and demanded that the crooks there stop disrespecting the Constitution for their own personal gain? I see so many gun nuts fully behind would-be-dictator Trump's dismantling of democracy, liberty, and a free press lately that I *really* don't think we can depend upon these guys to protect anybody's freedom, even their own.
delete
Mar 8, 2017
(60)
Come try to take our guns you damn liberal. I dare you.
reply
delete
Jan 31, 2017
(69)
easier just to let you die from shotgunning bacon grease down your gullet.
delete
Mar 8, 2017
(67)
Kal, we all get it -- you don't like guns. Here's a solution -- don't own them. Your right to choose not to own is not infringed. If a person chooses to own a weapon they have a Constitutional right. The last time the government tried to use the Constitution to prohibit an act we ended up with greater violence and criminal activity. You can talk (or type) until you're blue in the face and it won't make your opinion any more right than the person who wants to own the weapon.
delete
Mar 8, 2017
(69)
My not owning a gun won't stop someone else from using their gun to kill somebody. In this case, your right to own a firearm could very well affect me and my right to be alive. Ironically those same people who love guns also seem immune to this argument you just made when it comes to something that actually *doesn't* affect them, like gay marriage. Go figure.

by the way you can breathe and type at the same time. If it makes you blue in the face you might be doing it wrong.
delete
Mar 8, 2017
(44)
The references to the second amendment are so common because they are often of importance. A police officer might try to take your gun, but chances are he will not try to change your religion.
reply
delete
Mar 8, 2017
(48)
It is the most well known because the media can't stop reporting on it, and it is short and easy to remember. Just a reminder; the majority of gun-related deaths occur by those who are not following the law. The problem isn't as much the gun owners, as it is the supply chain of illegal weapons. So, no matter how many gun control laws we pass, the "gun" problem will never go away. The first amendment is probably the most ill-quoted amendment in the bill of rights. Take for example the right to "peaceably assemble." How many violent protestors have we seen claiming their first amendment right while torching cars and shooting cops? How many biased reporters have we seen all but praising these violent protestors? There are problems on both sides of the argument. It would be more of a fair fight if the media just reported the facts, and nothing but the facts without prejudice.
reply
delete
Mar 14, 2017
(36)
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.
reply
delete
Sep 1, 2012
(32)
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.
reply
delete
Sep 1, 2012
(44)
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.
delete
Sep 1, 2012
(32)
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.
delete
Sep 2, 2012
(69)
baloney.
reply
delete
Jan 15, 2013
(60)
It's a good thing most people don't think like kalbahamut.
delete
Feb 25, 2017
(69)
On this issue, most people *do* think like me. You're just unaware of it. On other things, yeah, I guess it would be horrible if everyone was more open, tolerant, trusted in science, helped their fellow man, rejected racism and bigotry, respected facts, valued personal freedoms so long as they didn't harm anyone, minded their own business when it came to what you were doing in your bedroom, didn't fight pointles wars over nothing, stopped killing each other over disagreements about god, respected and gave full rights to women, etc, those are a handful of things that would happen if most people thought like me. What a nightmare.
delete
Mar 8, 2017
(66)
If the government comes for us, it will be with tanks and bombers. That 20-gauge in the shed won't help much.
reply
delete
May 12, 2014
(39)
hdny42 is obviously a liberal
reply
delete
Sep 1, 2012
(1)
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.
reply
delete
Dec 5, 2012
(14)
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.
delete
Apr 23, 2013
(66)
Hectorious, FYI more people are killed in auto accidents than are killed by firearms. Do you believe these "deathmachines" should be outlawed as well? It's far more difficult in the US to purchase a firearm than to purchase an auto.
delete
Apr 30, 2014
(60)
Do you seriously think making guns illegal would solve gun crime? All it would do is keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Just like how the War on Drugs made the drug problem in this country even worse.
delete
Feb 25, 2017
(69)
Are you saying that because he's right? Or because he's not employed as a fluffer at the NRA?
reply
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(19)
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.
reply
delete
Sep 1, 2012
(65)
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?
reply
delete
Sep 1, 2012
(44)
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.
reply
delete
Sep 2, 2012
(65)
Thank you. Gary Johnson 2012!
delete
Sep 3, 2012
(1)
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.
delete
Dec 5, 2012
(77)
I think 'wouldn't work perfectly' is a gross understatement, and goes again to the point that the weapons that wouldn't get turned in were already more likely to be the ones used in crimes.

One point that always seems to be missing when discussing the total removal of weapons, though, is in the 5th Amendment cited above... the government cannot seize private property without just compensation. And since the government is not running a surplus (and there I go with a gross understatement...) they would need to raise taxes to pay for the seizure. So, they would need to charge us in order to take our property.
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(69)
No worries. They could just resell them in Africa or the Middle East somewhere. And continue making all those places safer. What's the worst that could happen?
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(51)
Why don't people realize that the reason we needed the right to bear arms in the first place was because our own government (the British) was working against us? The 2nd amendment is not meant to protect us against foreign invaders, but against our own government. If they don't fear the people, they can do whatever they want.
reply
delete
Apr 16, 2015
(69)
They don't fear the people. They do do whatever they want. When the average gun-toting 2nd amendment fan is foolish enough to believe the propaganda on Fox News, they've already won. They don't need violence to oppress him. and if they did, nobody is afraid of the Texas minutemen. 1776 was a long time ago. Times have changed. The NRA lies to you to increase their profits.
delete
Mar 8, 2017
(58)
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.
reply
delete
Sep 5, 2012
(19)
Good point.
reply
delete
Nov 17, 2012
(14)
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.
reply
delete
Apr 23, 2013
(44)
how do you know they happen, if they're not reported?
delete
Aug 2, 2014
(69)
from trusted alternative news sources like InfoWars and PrisonPlanet.


did I keep a straight face when I said that? I tried.
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(77)
See, this is a position I can get behind. The problem I see is where to draw the line on 'sporting' firearms. Rifles for hunting should be okay, but do I really have the "right" to a Kalashnikov for use at ranges? The other argument that I'm sure it'd face is that if an inch is given a mile will be taken, so don't give the inch. However, the friends I have who make that argument are also the ones who wear foil-lined hats, so that grain of salt is the size of a Volkswagon...
reply
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(44)
@zimba: It is apparent based on your post that you don't know much about guns. The term "assault rifle" is literally meaningless, and it is virtually impossible to own an automatic firearm in the United States legally. If you haven't learned the most basic concepts about the item in question, it's hard to take your opinion on related public policy matters seriously.
reply
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(34)
Did anyone else feel short on time?
reply
delete
Nov 17, 2012
(44)
Not really - not on this quiz, anyway. This is sort of a "you know them or you don't" type of quiz.
reply
delete
Dec 15, 2012
(19)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... loses its meaning when Senators pray in Congress. Unreal.
reply
delete
Nov 17, 2012
(65)
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.
reply
delete
Dec 1, 2012
(31)
The establishment of religion has nothing to do with individual, personal exercise of prayer, which is also protected in that clause.
reply
delete
Jan 6, 2013
(14)
It applies to Senators too. They can practice any religion anywhere they want. They don't have to be religiously neutral.
reply
delete
Apr 23, 2013
(69)
yeah I don't see how there is any contradiction there. Though it does seem to go against he well established separation of church and state, which is not an amendment to the Constitution but a very long-standing and pretty well enshrined tradition of American government. Increasingly under attack in recent decades.
reply
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(44)
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.
reply
delete
Dec 15, 2012
(69)
Not when you're the guy selling arms (the NRA).
reply
delete
Jan 15, 2013
(42)
Why does a line have to be drawn somewhere?
reply
delete
Jul 5, 2014
(69)
I did read a stat somewhere saying that a gun in a household is 5 times more likely to be used to shoot a family member than a burglar.
reply
delete
Jun 11, 2016
(46)
More people are killed by firearms in suicides than homicides daily. Guns are used EXTREMELY infrequently for necessary self-defense, and most claims of self defense took extreme measures. Guns are the Mongols of America. They create a sense of security if you can forget about the bubonic plague infected corpses being catapulted into cities and the thousands of square miles of destroyed cultivated land.
reply
delete
Mar 8, 2017
(44)
You want to protect your family? Arm them with knowledge, wisdom and understanding. Arm your sons with compassion and your daughters with confidence. Arm yourself with humility and forgiveness. With self-control and a smile. "While the careful man tries to dodge the bullets, the happy man takes a walk."
reply
delete
Aug 2, 2014
(44)
I'll arm them with sunshine and rainbows. I hear home invasions can be stopped by unicorn farts!
reply
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(69)
Because the USA has been invaded so many times in the last 200 years.
delete
Jan 19, 2015
(44)
home invasions =/= invasions on the scale of country vs country. And according to the nightly news, we had 7 in the last 3 days.
delete
Jan 20, 2015
(69)
Okay I missed the "home" part. Allow me to recalibrate my sarcasm. Yes... 7 homes out of 125 million in the USA. Clearly an urgent and pressing matter and good reason to flood the entire country with guns. Meanwhile, an average of about 3 people per day end up killing themselves or someone else in their home from accidental discharge or "undetermined intent." And a much larger number are killed by intentional suicide or homicide through firearms.
delete
Jan 21, 2015
(44)
That was in the city I live alone...c'mon man.
delete
Jan 21, 2015
(69)
the numbers still are not in your favor.
delete
Mar 8, 2017
(75)
I find that first line strange in relation to adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance in 1954. Of course it's no law, but still the pledge is repeated often enough that it is rather unfair to add religion to it given that first right.
reply
delete
Nov 10, 2014
(69)
The 50s were a crazy time.
reply
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(60)
I find it rather interesting that one of the more intelligent and polite discussions about gun control exits on JetPunk...not on a news site.
reply
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(77)
QM, can we please get a 'Like' button. Just for this comment.

Personal opinion, people who spend time on quiz sites like this are more likely to be logical and educated than the masses on both sides who start flamewars on MSNBC (or whatever your pundit company of choice is). The logic and education frequently comes with a liberal generous sprinkling of sarcasm, though, which can make the discussion even more fun (I'm looking at you kal).
reply
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(69)
How do you make the strikethrough?
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(77)
< strike > text < / strike > (Without spaces) produces text
delete
Feb 25, 2015
(69)
cool
delete
Mar 8, 2017
(69)
My thoughts exactly! Very logical and well made points. I think plattitude makes a good point about people on a quiz site likely being more educated, or at least having some sort of thirst for knowledge. Maybe if we could get the big national pundits on this site, maybe some of it would rub off...
reply
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(13)
First of all, the gun rights amendment was created to protect our country from another tyrannical government (having just fought the War of Independence). If the general populace had not been armed (the British were attempting to seize their weapons in 1775), then the revolution would certainly not have been won. Originally, the colonists were satisfied with British rule and it was thought that their weapons would never be used in fighting with their mother country, precisely our current view (besides the fact we are not a colony). It wasn't until their control became tighter after the Seven Years War (French and Indian War) that the colonists became disgruntled and revolted. This right was put in place for the specific reason of keeping the populace armed against a second tyranny that could occur in the future.
reply
delete
Jan 16, 2015
(69)
Aaaand...... yet another reason that is completely and totally irrelevant now. As someone else above pointed out, the glock you have in your bedroom and the shotgun you keep in the woodshed will do precisely fudge all against the federal government's array of nukes, stealth bombers, aircraft carriers and apache helicopters.
reply
delete
Jan 18, 2015
(53)
This is what bothers me about this argument. You think your personal cache is going to stop the government? It has the most sophisticated and large-scale weapons in the world. And no one ever addresses the soldiers' role in this proposed government invasion. You really think American soldiers would barnstorm an American town and start taking prisoners? I don't.
delete
Mar 8, 2017
(69)
jmellor, depends. In the event of some kind of civil war, yeah they'd have to take sides. There may be defections if the uprising was large scale enough. If it was just one crazy militia holed up in a compound in Waco, Texas, yeah, we could find soldiers to move on them.

However, as I pointed out above, this isn't even necessary. As Fox and friends have proven, you don't *have* to use violence to get the average person to acquiesce to their own oppression. Control the media where people get their worldview from and you can train them to consistently vote against their own interests. You can get evangelical Christians to vote in thrice-divorced greedy pussy grabbers. You can get people who chanted drain the swamp in the primaries to support a president who is clearly a Russian puppet, a secretary of state who is CEO of Exxon, and more Goldman Sachs employees in the cabinet than you can shake a golden calf at. It's so effective it boggles the mind.
delete
Mar 8, 2017
(79)
It seems there is no leeway with terms for this quiz, except for "lawyer" being a substitute for "counsel." I should think "practice" would work for "exercise" and to a lesser extent "boarded" in place of "quartered."
reply
delete
Sep 7, 2016
There is some leeway, but yeah, I'm not going to accept "boarded" for "quartered". Sometimes, you just gotta know the exact words because it sounds cooler.
reply
delete
Sep 8, 2016
(77)
The one I struggle with is #10. I know it starts with 're' but after that I struggle. Remanded, Retained, Returned and occasionally Refunded make it into the box before I come up with the right one.
reply
delete
Sep 26, 2016
(55)
2nd amendment? The rest of the civilised world shakes its collective head at the Americans and their right to bear arms. When another mass shooting takes place in a school or some bigot chooses to shoot the predominantly non-white congregation in a church. With their pro-gun rhetoric, the NRA has a lot of blood on its hands. As an outsider it's hard to dictate what another country should do, but common sense and statistics surely says it's time to change the gun laws. And to those that say it's unconstitutional, remember...it's an Amendment!
reply
delete
Mar 8, 2017
(61)
bonzo007.. Are you going to blame all the mass shootings in France, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc on the NRA ? The Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment the protect the citizens against an overbearing government, which was very common in Europe during that time. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
reply
delete
Mar 8, 2017
(53)
I'm pretty anti-gun, but your last sentence is dead wrong. An amendment is absolutely part of the Constitution. There are strong arguments regarding the proper application of the 2nd Amendment, but you can't just ignore it. It's part of the Constitution.
reply
delete
Mar 8, 2017
(55)
I didn't say it wasn't part of the Constitution - it absolutely is. What I was inferring, was that an "Amendment" indicates that change has happened in the past, and maybe could do so again, this time for the better? The 2nd Amendment has the honour/honor of being the most amended Amendment - with over 1,000 changes to date. Inserting the tiny word 'not' would make America a safer place, though I concede it might take some time.
delete
Mar 9, 2017
(28)
Um... how many firearm deaths are due to legal firearm owners? Almost none. The vast majority of crime happens due to illegal guns, that would still be illegal even with 'gun control'. You argument has no merit.
reply
delete
Mar 26, 2017
(67)
Cruel and unusual "punishment" not "punishments".
reply
delete
Mar 8, 2017
(46)
Without the 2A you have none of the rest.
reply
delete
Mar 8, 2017
(40)
As a lawyer, I disagree. I think the much more important amendment is actually the 10th, it's the one that prevents a strong centralized government by limiting it's power only to those enumerated, and allows for the vastly different laws of the states. That way, the will of the people is truly reflected.
reply
delete
Mar 9, 2017
(46)
Indeed. As a UVa graduate, I know that Jefferson once noted (against his own interests): "...A strong federal government, however well assembled, appointed, elected, or intended, is the enemy of a free people." That's bullshit - I did attend UVa, but he never said that. I just imagine him saying that to a few interested onlookers on the steps of Monticello, sometime in the late 18th century.
delete
Mar 10, 2017
(53)
This is not correct.
reply
delete
Mar 10, 2017
(28)
Agreed
reply
delete
Mar 26, 2017
×
Congrats!
You have reached a new level
To save this level, you'll have to
create an account
×
Congrats!
You have earned a new badge
To save this badge, you'll have to
create an account