thumbnail

U.S. Bill of Rights

Guess the missing words in the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Quiz by Quizmaster
Rate:
Last updated: December 22, 2019
You have not attempted this quiz yet.
First submittedJune 22, 2012
Times taken29,380
Average score52.0%
Rating4.51
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.
101 Recent Comments
+6
Level 50
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.
+4
Level 92
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 13
Dec 7, 2018
Automatic weapons are illegal in the US.
+2
Level 46
May 21, 2021
You can acquire them in some states, but they are expensive and there are a lot of fees and paperwork with the ATF
+1
Level 40
Nov 17, 2012
Did anyone else feel short on time?
+3
Level 37
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.
+4
Level 37
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 59
Jul 5, 2014
Why does a line have to be drawn somewhere?
+5
Level 70
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 75
Mar 16, 2020
Because Captain Picard said so.
+3
Level 83
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.
+2
Level 43
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.
+2
Level 55
Jun 2, 2022
Those Mongols were something else, man
+4
Level 37
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."
+8
Level 43
Jan 16, 2015
I'll arm them with sunshine and rainbows. I hear home invasions can be stopped by unicorn farts!
+3
Level 82
Jan 19, 2015
Because the USA has been invaded so many times in the last 200 years.
+7
Level 43
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.
+4
Level 82
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.
+5
Level 43
Jan 21, 2015
That was in the city I live alone...c'mon man.
+3
Level 82
Mar 8, 2017
the numbers still are not in your favor.
+1
Level 65
Apr 29, 2022
This is great advice beetboy12. Now if we could only educate everyone else as well then we would be safe! You can teach your children to be good citizens, but you can't control what others do.
+2
Level 61
May 4, 2022
And then also arm them with a gun, because knowledge, wisdom, understanding, compassion, confidence, humility, forgiveness, self-control, and smiling are all great, but they won't stop a thug from coming after you or your family. BTW part of that knowledge should be on proper handling of a firearm.
+1
Level 77
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.
+3
Level 82
Jan 16, 2015
The 50s were a crazy time.
+1
Level 70
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.
+1
Level 43
Feb 22, 2024
That probably won't work as the USA was founded by Christians so God it is.
+11
Level 68
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 92
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).

+2
Level 82
Jan 16, 2015
How do you make the strikethrough?
+2
Level 92
Feb 25, 2015
< strike > text < / strike > (Without spaces) produces text
+2
Level 82
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 66
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!
+4
Level 76
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

+3
Level 67
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 66
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.
+3
Level 65
Apr 29, 2022
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, but where do you get the idea that the 2nd amendment has been amended? It is as it was when it was added to the constitution.
+3
Level 22
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.
+2
Level 66
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.
+2
Level 66
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.
+2
Level 52
Feb 21, 2024
Name one mass shooting committed by someone in the NRA. I can name you one that as stopped by one
+1
Level 85
Mar 8, 2017
Cruel and unusual "punishment" not "punishments".
+3
Level 55
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 67
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 13
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 65
Apr 29, 2022
Actually Adamsd, yes, in my opinion it does mean that the federal government should not have a department of education. There are many government departments/agencies/administrations that are unconstitutional. The federal government was never meant to decide things like how we should educate our children. Education, among many other things should be matters of the state exclusively.
+2
Level 67
Mar 10, 2017
This is not correct.
+1
Level 22
Mar 26, 2017
Agreed
+3
Level 74
Jun 8, 2017
I came hearing about the arguments in the comments. I was not dissapointed.
+1
Level 71
Oct 7, 2018
same here bruv
+2
Level 71
Oct 7, 2018
kalbamahut is essentially the chief representative of liberal gun policy in this whole comment section
+2
Level 70
Oct 22, 2018
He would make a great lawyer or senator.
+2
Level 90
Jun 3, 2019
Reasoning is the better term.
+3
Level 82
Mar 16, 2020
Most liberals in Washington don't agree with me at all about this.
+4
Level 76
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.

+3
Level 90
Mar 16, 2020
You know what I find hilarious? If I try to type “tbolt” on my phone, it autocorrects to “troll.”
+4
Level 82
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.
+1
Level 52
Feb 21, 2024
There it is. People who own guns are compensating for their small member. Just admit you hate guns and don't want people to defend themselves
+4
Level 67
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 76
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
+6
Level 67
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.
+6
Level 67
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 76
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

+4
Level 82
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.
+2
Level 46
May 21, 2021
They also encourage you to think that all conservatives are racist nazis, and that senile joe was a good pick
+3
Level 82
Apr 29, 2022
not even worth responding to
+1
Level 55
May 17, 2022
Just my two cents on this.

You guys pay too much attention to the media. Step away from it for a little. Look at the sky or the trees or something. The media, I don't care which news source you watch, just wants to divide you. They portray anyone they don't like as being the wrong or the evil. And the aftermath of that is evident right here in this comment thread. You guys are totally right when you say that the media is powerful. It's probably the most powerful entity in the USA. But that's how they operate, divide, divide, divide. All of this Democrat vs Republican nonsense is just creating more hatred, more disrespect, and more chaos. They say they just want the sides to get along, but that's not what they put out in their articles. Don't hover over the news every second of your lives. I'm not saying don't look at the news ever, but just check in on it every now and then. And especially stay away from politics.

The media is a monster.

+3
Level 75
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.
+2
Level 82
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 67
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 85
Feb 21, 2024
QM: John Marshall wasn't the first Chief Justice, he was actually the fourth! The first three were all nominated by George Washington - number one and three (John Jay and Oliver Ellsworth, who served about 4.5 to 5.5 years, resp.) while the 2nd, John Rutledge, was a recess appointment, and was rejected once the Senate reconvened. Marshall was nominated by John Adams, and served for about 34 and a half years - still the longest tenure for a Chief Justice.

He wrote in Marbury v. Madison, the case generally credited with establishing Judicial Review, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

+2
Level 67
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 65
Apr 29, 2022
I think what Quizmaster is trying to say is that the court can't make a law null and void and remove it. They can certainly set a precedent that has the effect of making a law unenforceable. Where the supreme court can overstep their bounds is when they make judgements based on their political opinions rather than the intent of the constitution. These rulings have the effect of changing the intent of the constitution. Some call it "legislating from the bench". They take an oath when sworn into office to adhere to the constitution regardless of their own prejudices.
+1
Level 60
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 67
Mar 16, 2020
I don't know about "any law," but yes, the executive emergency power is very broad.
+4
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 90
Mar 17, 2020
Well clearly Trump hasn't read it.
+1
Level 65
Apr 29, 2022
Jacktheguy, your statement applies to Biden as well as many other presidents. You did make the statement while Trump was in office, but with what has transpired over the last almost year and a half of Biden's presidency, I can say with confidence that Biden is guilty of this as well.
+1
Level 90
Apr 29, 2022
Biden's been involved in politics since the 1970s, he's had plenty of time to have read it at least once, though he may not have looked at it recently. I wouldn't be surprised if I learned that Trump may not have actually read it at all.
+1
Level 68
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.
+3
Level 67
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.
+2
Level 82
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.

+2
Level 82
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.

+2
Level 82
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.

+2
Level 82
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.

+2
Level 82
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 36
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.
+4
Level 82
Mar 21, 2020
I just like coming to the site.
+2
Level 60
Apr 1, 2020
@kalbahamut same here
+1
Level 68
Mar 17, 2020
15/25 not bad for a Brit
+1
Level 79
Feb 21, 2021
I tried 'practice' instead of 'exercise', and 'due course' instead of 'due process'
+2
Level 82
Jan 7, 2022
Dang it, I knew what each amendment was but I didn't know all of the actual words. Very frustrating :-(
+3
Level 74
Apr 30, 2022
Good timing for this being on the front page, I'm taking my ap government exam in 3 days. The comments are something else though.
+1
Level 60
May 3, 2022
I used to think better of my country before reading this comment section…
+2
Level 55
Feb 6, 2023
People are nuts.
+2
Level 50
Jul 4, 2023
It's disheartening that this entire comment section is a discussion of the 2nd Amendment. It really is as if the others don't exist.
+1
Level 69
Feb 21, 2024
Neatly got a perfect score, but couldn't find the exact word for the tenth amendment. Such is life.