U.S. Bill of Rights Quiz

Guess the missing words in the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Quiz by Quizmaster
Rate:
Last updated: December 22, 2019
First submittedJune 22, 2012
Times taken15,072
Rating4.39
5:00
Enter missing words here:
0
 / 25 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is
Your high score is
Your fastest time is
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
#
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.
+4
Level 44
Sep 1, 2012
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.
+5
Level 79
Jan 15, 2013
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.
+1
Level 49
Jan 15, 2015
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.
+4
Level 79
Jan 16, 2015
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.
+1
Level 72
Sep 29, 2016
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
+1
Level 79
Mar 8, 2017
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.
+1
Level 47
Mar 30, 2020
i say its relevant only because criminals dont care if guns are illegal.
+1
Level 73
Apr 7, 2020
I'd agree with Findlay that it does seem to protect an individual right. However, a key thing also falls on the word "infringed". What does infringement actually mean? Where's the limit? All but the most virulent 2nd amendment types admit that private citizens should not have nuclear weapons. But why then can a similar limit not be placed on rates of fire or magazine size? What about a no-cost mandatory registration and background checks would infringe on someone's rights? The latter would make straw purchases extremely difficult and likely significantly help in keeping guns out of criminals' hands...
+3
Level 87
May 21, 2013
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.
+2
Level 44
Aug 2, 2014
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
+3
Level 79
Jan 16, 2015
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."
+3
Level 79
Jan 16, 2015
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.
+1
Level 78
Jan 16, 2015
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.
+1
Level 87
Jan 16, 2015
@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).
+1
Level 87
Jan 16, 2015
(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.
+1
Level 79
Jan 16, 2015
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.
+1
Level 68
Jul 29, 2016
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.
+1
Level 44
Mar 22, 2020
Second all of that @kalbahamut
+2
Level 53
Apr 16, 2015
Without the right to bear arms, we have no other rights.
+3
Level 79
Mar 8, 2017
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.
+4
Level 59
Jun 30, 2018
Yes, apparently in the UK we have no rights then. What nonsense.
+5
Level 60
Oct 22, 2018
mate, without the right to bear arms we still have the right to bear legs!
+1
Level 79
Mar 16, 2020
Saudis don't have the right to bare legs. I tried walking in to the mall wearing shorts and security would just point at my legs and say "family!"
+2
Level 74
Jan 31, 2017
Come try to take our guns you damn liberal. I dare you.
+4
Level 79
Mar 8, 2017
easier just to let you die from shotgunning bacon grease down your gullet.
+3
Level 71
Mar 8, 2017
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.
+3
Level 79
Mar 8, 2017
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.
+1
Level 54
Mar 8, 2017
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.
+3
Level 63
Mar 14, 2017
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.
+1
Level 65
Nov 24, 2017
Not so. The majority (2/3) of gun related deaths in the US are suicides which is not illegal. Hey, sometimes we all get sad and having the means to kill ourselves readily to hand...
+2
Level 60
Oct 22, 2018
Just out of curiosity, which news source do you think is the least biased and which do you believe is the most biased
+1
Level 81
Dec 9, 2019
I find it odd no one ever remembers "well regulated".
+1
Level 70
Mar 16, 2020
Educate yourself. Well regulated in 1783 meant being able to operate, clean, maintain your weapon, not today's definition meaning government control
+1
Level 81
Dec 9, 2019
In Maine we all have the right to bare breasts.
+1
Level 50
Mar 16, 2020
I think that the ninth amendment is also really important. Most of us don't think of it this way, but if this amendment never existed, then people could only do what was in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution...which is crazy. People would not be able to have a job, have a family, or even use JetPunk! OH NO, WITHOUT JETPUNK, HOW WOULD WE SURVIVE!?
+3
Level 35
Sep 1, 2012
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.
+2
Level 32
Sep 1, 2012
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.
+3
Level 44
Sep 1, 2012
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.
+2
Level 32
Sep 2, 2012
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.
+3
Level 79
Jan 15, 2013
baloney.
+3
Level 74
Feb 25, 2017
It's a good thing most people don't think like kalbahamut.
+4
Level 79
Mar 8, 2017
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.
+1
Level 60
Oct 22, 2018
actually, about 50% of the people in the US think like @kal, and the other half dont
+1
Level 74
May 12, 2014
If the government comes for us, it will be with tanks and bombers. That 20-gauge in the shed won't help much.
+2
Level 39
Sep 1, 2012
hdny42 is obviously a liberal
+3
Level 49
Dec 5, 2012
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.
+2
Level 74
Feb 25, 2017
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.
+2
Level 59
Aug 16, 2018
@Cheesey, the difference between guns and cars is that cars have a genuine purpose other than killing people. The main purpose of guns is self-defence, but they demonstrably make people less safe. There are some exceptions to this, which is why some people (farmers, for example) should probably be allowed to have guns, provided they get a license and only use ones that couldn't kill a human. @Bernard, it would certainly reduce accidental deaths and suicide. Also it would allow police to take the guns away from the criminals. The main difference between drugs and guns is that guns aren't addictive.
+2
Level 79
Jan 16, 2015
Are you saying that because he's right? Or because he's not employed as a fluffer at the NRA?
+1
Level 19
Sep 1, 2012
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.
+1
Level 76
Sep 1, 2012
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?
+2
Level 53
Apr 16, 2015
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.
+1
Level 79
Mar 8, 2017
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.
+2
Level 60
Oct 22, 2018
When was the last time the government came into your house with a 12 gauge? I certainly have never been in that situation
+1
Level 58
Sep 5, 2012
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.
+1
Level 87
Jan 16, 2015
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...
+1
Level 14
Dec 7, 2018
Automatic weapons are illegal in the US.
+1
Level 41
Nov 17, 2012
Did anyone else feel short on time?
+1
Level 44
Dec 15, 2012
Not really - not on this quiz, anyway. This is sort of a "you know them or you don't" type of quiz.
+2
Level 44
Dec 15, 2012
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.
+1
Level 79
Jan 15, 2013
Not when you're the guy selling arms (the NRA).
+1
Level 58
Jul 5, 2014
Why does a line have to be drawn somewhere?
+2
Level 60
Oct 22, 2018
Well, I'm pretty sure that owning a nuclear bomb really would not be for self-defense, but more for terrorism. There should definitely be a line drawn there.
+3
Level 73
Mar 16, 2020
Because Captain Picard said so.
+1
Level 76
Jun 11, 2016
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.
+1
Level 47
Mar 8, 2017
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.
+3
Level 44
Aug 2, 2014
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."
+4
Level 44
Jan 16, 2015
I'll arm them with sunshine and rainbows. I hear home invasions can be stopped by unicorn farts!
+1
Level 79
Jan 19, 2015
Because the USA has been invaded so many times in the last 200 years.
+4
Level 44
Jan 20, 2015
home invasions =/= invasions on the scale of country vs country. And according to the nightly news, we had 7 in the last 3 days.
+1
Level 79
Jan 21, 2015
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.
+2
Level 44
Jan 21, 2015
That was in the city I live alone...c'mon man.
+1
Level 79
Mar 8, 2017
the numbers still are not in your favor.
+1
Level 83
Nov 10, 2014
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.
+1
Level 79
Jan 16, 2015
The 50s were a crazy time.
+1
Level 60
Oct 22, 2018
I know, I think as a 13-year old I am going to sue the government and ask them to replace "God" with "Allah" just to see how conservatives will react.
+3
Level 66
Jan 16, 2015
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.
+2
Level 87
Jan 16, 2015
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).
+1
Level 79
Jan 16, 2015
How do you make the strikethrough?
+1
Level 87
Feb 25, 2015
< strike > text < / strike > (Without spaces) produces text
+1
Level 79
Mar 8, 2017
cool
+1
Level 71
Jan 16, 2015
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...
+2
Level 65
Mar 8, 2017
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!
+2
Level 70
Mar 8, 2017
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
+2
Level 64
Mar 8, 2017
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.
+1
Level 65
Mar 9, 2017
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.
+2
Level 27
Mar 26, 2017
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.
+1
Level 65
Nov 11, 2017
Then clearly, it's better gun control that is required. The death toll from gunfire in the USA between 1968 and 2011 eclipses all wars ever fought by the country. According to Politifact, there were about 1.4 million firearm deaths in that period, compared with 1.2 million US deaths in every conflict from the War of Independence to Iraq.
+1
Level 65
Nov 24, 2017
Oh, and don't forget the ca. 22,000 gun suicides which occur each year but don't get captured in the gun violence statistics. How many of those wouldn't have happened if there wasn't a gun readily available (and usually legal) in the house? Suicides represent 2/3 of all gun related deaths in the US, predominantly white males and not crime related. Almost no deaths due to legal firearms? Think on my friend.
+1
Level 79
Mar 8, 2017
Cruel and unusual "punishment" not "punishments".
+2
Level 58
Mar 8, 2017
Without the 2A you have none of the rest.
+1
Level 44
Mar 9, 2017
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.
+1
Level 66
Mar 10, 2017
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.
+1
Level 14
Dec 7, 2018
The Constitution doesn't give the federal government permission to have a federal department of education, does it? Doesn't that mean it should be state only?
+2
Level 64
Mar 10, 2017
This is not correct.
+1
Level 27
Mar 26, 2017
Agreed
+3
Level 67
Jun 8, 2017
I came hearing about the arguments in the comments. I was not dissapointed.
+1
Level 60
Oct 7, 2018
same here bruv
+2
Level 60
Oct 7, 2018
kalbamahut is essentially the chief representative of liberal gun policy in this whole comment section
+1
Level 60
Oct 22, 2018
He would make a great lawyer or senator.
+2
Level 82
Jun 3, 2019
Reasoning is the better term.
+1
Level 79
Mar 16, 2020
Most liberals in Washington don't agree with me at all about this.
+3
Level 70
Mar 16, 2020
kal, please read you previous comments throughout these post. YES, you are for total gun control. You don't want me to own a gun. YES, you are just like the liberals in Washington and throughout the USA. Beto..".we are coming to take your guns" and liberals cheered. Guess what kal, I have guns. I never shot or even pointed my gun at anyone. I conceal carry to protect myself and my family. I try to avoid situations and areas that would put myself in danger but I am prepared. kal, do you know that a parachute is unnecessary until you need it. Do you know how many people are legally and illegally carrying a weapon as you walk down the street ?...Don't panic !!!! But it is a lot more than you think..Oh, and get off your FOX news hate. Maybe if you took your time and actually looked at the Fox website, you would actually see how much news the lib media avoids reporting because it would go against the liberal agenda.
+2
Level 82
Mar 16, 2020
You know what I find hilarious? If I try to type “tbolt” on my phone, it autocorrects to “troll.”
+2
Level 79
Mar 16, 2020
tbolt, if you stopped watching the ridiculous propaganda on Fox maybe you'd realize that virtually zero politicians in Washington are trying to take your sad phallus enhancers away from you. So if that really is my position, as you assert that it is, then what I said is correct.
+2
Level 64
Mar 16, 2020
Tbolt knows the libs are up to no good because Fox News tells him so. And he knows Fox News tells the truth because it tells him the libs are up to no good. I'm not too handy with a gun, but I think it's pretty easy to shoot holes in that logic.
+1
Level 70
Mar 17, 2020
Clearly, all of you are in denial. You support gun control. Just look at Virginia. Since the liberals took control of the government, they have passed numerous gun control laws. They even came close to start confiscation of the so called assault rifles. You know what, the flintlock musket was considered the assault rifle in 1783. kal, you keep on stating Washington is not trying to take my guns. WRONG. There are plenty of news articles and videos of liberals wanting to pass massive gun control laws but never make it by committee. It is funny that you think I am brainwashed by FOX news. However, you do not think you are brainwashed by cnn, msnbc, ny times, abc, cbs, nbc, etc. because you agree with their ideals. Do I watch cnn, msnbc, etc ? Yes, I do. I want to look at both sides of an issue, unlike you FOX haters. Finally, I know liberals like you try to insult me. Insults mean nothing to me. However, it does show a childish behavior. If you still want to debate, please keep it civil
+3
Level 64
Mar 17, 2020
No, we aren't brainwashed by CNN, the Times, etc. 90% of sources (all of them but yours, pretty much) are saying the same thing...because it's true. They're only "liberal" because they don't promote the unreality that Trumpkins need to believe to rationalize their support for an incompetent monster. The overwhelming majority of reporters, scientists, researchers, professors, lawyers, economists, etc. agree on things, and the mainstream media reports those things. The far right just doesn't want to hear it, so they retreat to their corner and do the whole "well the other side does it too!" thing. It's nonsense. If the media is always reporting that Ohio State has a better football program than Indiana, it's not because there's an anti-Indiana bias. It's because Ohio State is in fact better at football. The media is likewise always negative about Trump because he is incompetent and immoral. No one is out to get you. We just want you to act like a grownup.
+3
Level 64
Mar 17, 2020
I'll add the qualifier that there is definitely media with an unabashed and unwarranted liberal slant (MSNBC and the Huffington Post, for example). Most liberals know that, and I honestly know like two liberals that even watch MSNBC. But to lump the Times, the Washington Post, and every other major media outlet into that group just because they don't flatter Trump is childish and ridiculous. Those are esteemed news organizations that work really hard and put out researched, vetted, and analytical content that deserves respect.
+1
Level 70
Mar 17, 2020
The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses. Malcolm X
+2
Level 79
Mar 17, 2020
The media is definitely powerful. They convinced near 40% of the country that Donald Trump, the most guilty man in history, is the victim of a witch hunt. They've also helped convince gun nuts that someone is coming after their stupid guns when nobody really is. The media includes Twitter, Facebook, Fox News, the Internet, and talk radio, by the way.
+1
Level 69
Mar 16, 2020
Aren't all these coronavirus restrictions violating the right to assemble?
+1
Level ∞
Mar 16, 2020
A strict reading says the Congress can't make a law prohibiting assembly. Perhaps the states can still do it.
+1
Level 79
Mar 16, 2020
Congress can pass any laws they want to. Whether or not those laws are constitutional isn't decided until after the law is passed.
+1
Level 64
Mar 16, 2020
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land though. Any state law has to meet the minimum standards of the federal Constitution. I imagine each state (or most states) has an emergency executive power akin to the president's that permits the governor broad authority, but it's also worth noting that that there is no ban on public assembly. If 100 people want to stand in the park together, no one can stop them. The ordered closures of certain businesses is not broad enough to constitute a ban on public assembly. You can still assemble. You just have to do it elsewhere. The First Amendment has a broad body of case law regarding time, place, and manner restrictions with regards to free speech. It'd be easy to transfer the reasoning to peaceable assembly. (And also Kal is right that Congress can pass any law and then it's up to the Supreme Court to strike it down).
+1
Level ∞
Mar 16, 2020
The Constitution does not say anything about the Supreme Court striking down laws. That's something that was invented by the first Chief Justice, John Marshall:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States

+1
Level 64
Mar 17, 2020
Yes, but in practice, the first safeguard is Congress's own judgment of what is constitutional. If it deems a proposed law constitutional, then it's up to the president to veto it or the Court to strike it down. Whether that is in the Constitution or not, that's the system we have, so kal is right that in the first instance, Congress can pass any law it wants. Whether another branch stops the law from taking effect is a different question.
+1
Level 50
Mar 16, 2020
According to federal documents, the president of the United States can use executive power when there is a national emergency, meaning they can pass any law they want if the country is in danger.
+2
Level 64
Mar 16, 2020
I don't know about "any law," but yes, the executive emergency power is very broad.
+2
Level ∞
Mar 16, 2020
The Constitution does not give the President emergency powers. I'd encourage people with an opinion to read it.
+2
Level 82
Mar 17, 2020
Well clearly Trump hasn't read it.
+1
Level 64
Mar 17, 2020
Non American here so I have a question about your American gun laws. A broad picture shows that gun policy has been drawn across political lines, with the liberals being anti-gun and the republicans being pro 2nd amendment. So my question is, why is it that when the democrats were in power (Clinton, Obama) or had majority of the house votes, (I’m not sure which era but I’m assuming that has happened in the last 30 years) why didn’t they (the Democrats) do something about gun control? They do nothing until a Republican is in power and then complain about republicans not wanting gun control.
+2
Level 64
Mar 17, 2020
First, your understanding of the situation is an overgeneralization. Second, Congress, not the president, makes the laws. Obama probably would have loved to pass more gun laws, but at first he spent all his political capital on Obamacare, and in his second term, Congress was in the hands of the Republicans, who flatly would not allow gun legislation. The president is not a king. He cannot do whatever he wants, no matter what the current president thinks or says. The president is the symbolic leader of the country and the single most powerful person in it, but he is in fact the leader of *one branch* of our three branches of government. He can use his influence to advocate for laws in Congress, but he cannot write his own legislation.
+1
Level 79
Mar 17, 2020
Huge oversimplification. There are liberals and conservatives in America. And Democrats and Republicans. Roughly 50/50 split on both of those if you apportion out the independents and moderates, with liberals/Democrats having some advantage. But not every issue is black and white one side or the other (though certain forces want you to think that every issue is binary, and increasingly this is how it is becoming). Not every Democratic issues is "liberal" and not every Republican issue is "conservative," and sometimes the parties, particularly the Republicans, completely abandon whatever conservative or liberal principles they claimed to support for one reason or another. See the Republican party in recent years and their support of Trump.
There's nothing really at all liberal or conservative about unfettered access to firearms. This is purely an issue created by lobbyists for gun manufacturers who wish to sell more firearms and ammunition.
+1
Level 79
Mar 17, 2020
And, for the past many decades, the Republican party has championed this issue because they receive a lot of donations from the NRA and also because the insane gun nuts in the country, though they are a small minority compared to the general population, are nevertheless a passionate and dedicated voting bloc that the Republicans have come to count on supporting them, because this bloc have been brainwashed by the NRA and affiliated groups into thinking that anything other than complete and unfettered unrestricted access to firearms for everyone is somehow a threat to their ludicrous and dangerous hobby/fetish.

Both Democrats and Republicans, those with any intelligence or integrity at all (very hard to find any of the latter with integrity these days, Mitt Romney and... that's about it...), often praise and support the Constitution of the USA. In the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the citizenry to bear arms.
+1
Level 79
Mar 17, 2020
There are many different honest interpretations of this amendment. A true conservative and strict constructionist might observe that, in the context of when the amendment was written, and clearly in the language of the article, gun ownership was meant to be a means of arming militias for national defense, and that the Constitution specifically includes the language "well regulated militia".. so it is absurd to claim that any and all regulation of gun ownership is unconstitutional. The opposite is true.

However, it's also true that this is part of the Constitution, and you would find very very few Democrats who actually espouse the idea that all guns should be banned or confiscated.
That is, of course, what the insane paranoid delusional propaganda on the "right" WANTS you to believe.... but that's because FEAR of having their guns confiscated drives up sales of guns and ammunition, and remember, that is ultimately the end goal of those producing the propaganda.
+1
Level 79
Mar 17, 2020
but... as much as the cretinous merchants of death out there want you to believe that this is an imminent threat, in reality, the majority of Democrats have only ever called for sensible gun control legislation such as background checks, restrictions on the sale of certain types of dangerous firearms, and closing of loopholes in gun sales at gun shows, et cetera. Democrats support these things because a vast and ovewhelming majority of Americans support these things. In fact, the NRA itself supported these things, back before it got taken over by gun manufacturers looking to increase profits. And back then it would have been a bipartisan issue.

So... Bill Clinton did not ban guns in America because he had no desire to do so. Also it may have cost him politically as it would have motivated the gun nuts to get out to the polls. But, he and Congressional Democrats DID pass an assault rifle ban, which was effective while it lasted.
+1
Level 79
Mar 17, 2020
And Republicans oppose such legislation not because they are more conservative or because they are more in touch with the culture of rural America or any such nonsense. They oppose any and all regulation of firearms and firearm sales because they are in the pocket of the NRA. If not for that, they and Democrats would both be on the same page. That's it.

As to why Obama didn't really pursue this... I think mostly it just was not at the top of his agenda. He was trying to tackle healthcare reform and a lot of other things and Congressional Republicans dug in pretty hard to oppose literally everything he was doing. And making an issue out of guns inflames the Republican base so it's not something that he would have done casually, as he was a pragmatist and a centrist. Remember that stupid Fast & Furious fiasco? The truth of the matter was that this only happened because of lax gun control laws in the SW. But Obama didn't even mention this because it was an election year.
+1
Level 34
Mar 18, 2020
You've been replying to comments on this quiz for 7 years now...you've got some dedication I'll give you that.
+1
Level 79
Mar 21, 2020
I just like coming to the site.
+1
Level 50
Apr 1, 2020
@kalbahamut same here
+1
Level 59
Mar 17, 2020
15/25 not bad for a Brit