Support NeoGAF

[Jonm1010]

Well, not if you use them in the middle of nowhere. :lol



Actually, I don't care about any governmental assessment of cost benefit ratio.

I'm saying that I generally don't care what weapon someone owns at all. I don't even care what weapon someone uses in the act of self-defense, but something that does massive splash damage, like say something involving explosives, well, that's of extremely limited use to that person in that role because of the reasons I outlined above.

I'm not even advocating a government ban, mind you, I'm just saying from the point of view of a buyer, it's not a very good self-defense weapon so it doesn't have a lot of value.

As for what you said about shotguns and whatnot - if a mugger attacks me, and I draw my concealed handgun, and I fire wantonly and hit some old lady, the mugger is not liable for the death of the old lady - I am. I was completely justified in owning the weapon and in using it to defend myself, but that does not matter very much in the specific case of the old lady.

Of course, ultimately I'm sorry, but I have zero respect for the standard Brit argument that criminals need to have guns or swords if private citizens have guns or swords, because that argument is overly concerned with the idiot dressed in black breaking into someone's home in the middle of the night. They don't need anything - they need to not do what they're doing, and if they don't, they need to get shot or stabbed. I argue with a poster on another forum who makes that sort of "escalation" argument daily.

* * *

I guess this situation effectively ruins my suggestion from the Tyneside Ninja thread, whereas the U.K. policeforce would start employing Claymores and Longbows. :lol

i am not quite sure your understanding what im saying. I am saying that their needs to be regulations on concealed weaponry and for that if left unchecked, you will have an escalation scenario or increased amount of violence. hence the cost/benefit, hence the earlier questioning about unalienable right to have a sword. I really dont care if someone owns guns in their home its their property their home and they can have them. But you step out onto property and land governed by the "people" you need to have laws that function to keep people safe, meet maslows basic needs, giving everyone the ability to have a gun is not safe, for the reasons i mentioned earlier. the costs outweigh the benefits.

captainbotch
I am not ignoring the fact that bad-guys have weapons, but you would have to agree if im going to a bar and everyone is allowed to bring a gun then its even harder to tell the real trouble makers. Its also more likelly that deadlly violence will occur, what was once solved with fists will be solved with guns. Now if guns are banned and searched for, society tells us that those carrying the guns out of uniform are bad and it makes it harder for those that have them to carry out violence with them, again cost/benefit analogy.

 

[Jonm1010]

People understand what you're saying, they just disagree with you. Feel free to back up your statements.

I gotta agree with our local libertarians on this one--I don't care to have the government conduct a cost/benefit analysis on my behalf.

I think the same can go for you all too, back up why we should be able to carry any weapon we want?

I was rebutting someone for saying they should have the right to carry and in return I have been given no reason to believe they should be allowed to carry, I gave a reason as to how to figure out if we should allow it or not and i think it is a fair way to determine it.

 

[captainbiotch]

In a responsible persons hands, an ak47 is no more of a danger to other people than any other weapon or a stick or a rock. But realistically no one would ever want to LUG around rifles, unless they were going to and from the range. People are still liable for the misuse of their weapon, being responsible is in their every interest. It is the violent irrational minority who always abuses these rights and is rightly persecuted by society. The gun control advocates spread fear by lumping all citizens in the violent irrational group, that if you put a gun in a persons hands they become a thug.

Jon, as much as I'm a staunch advocate of right to carry, bars or any business or person should also have the right to not to permit guns on their property.

 

[Hitokage]

Well, not if you use them in the middle of nowhere. :lol

Unless you get yourself blown up. :lol

 

[JayDubya]

Unless you get yourself blown up. :lol

In which case, in the words of James T. Kirk, "double dumbass on you."

 

[Hitokage]

In which case, in the words of James T. Kirk, "double dumbass on you."

Yeah, I don't think we'll worry about that case.

 

[Jonm1010]

In a responsible persons hands, an ak47 is no more of a danger to other people than any other weapon or a stick or a rock. But realistically no one would ever want to LUG around rifles, unless they were going to and from the range. People are still liable for the misuse of their weapon, being responsible is in their every interest. It is the violent irrational minority who always abuses these rights and is rightly persecuted by society. The gun control advocates spread fear by lumping all citizens in the violent irrational group, that if you put a gun in a persons hands they become a thug.

Jon, as much as I'm a staunch advocate of right to carry, bars or any business or person should also have the right to not to permit guns on their property.

when i said temporary anger i was inferring to a situation that is common, for instance a man hits on your girl or grabs her in the street, you are both allowed to carry guns, What are the odds this situation would be deadlly if guns were allowed to be carried? compared to if they are banned. With them banned the probability of either person having a gun is less likelly and the probability of it developing into extreme deadlly violence is also less likelly.

 

[captainbiotch]

when i said temporary anger i was inferring to a situation that is common, for instance a man hits on your girl or grabs her in the street, you are both allowed to carry guns, What are the odds this situation would be deadlly if guns were allowed to be carried? compared to if they are banned. With them banned the probability of either person having a gun is less likelly and the probability of it developing into extreme deadlly violence is also less likelly.

With me personally? With most people? Or with two violent thugs? The last case is an extreme but sensationalized minority, and the only situation where guns would likely be drawn. And personally I wouldn't miss either of them. If some asshole pulls a gun on you though, you have every right to shoot them right then and there.

 

[MMaRsu]

If gangs are using swords then Indiana Jones showed us all what needs to be done.

 

[Vieo]

THEY CAN TAKE OUR SWORDS BUT THEY CAN'T TAKE OUR NECKBEARDS, WALL SCROLLS, AND POCKY RAWWWRRRR CHARGE!!!!!

What the hell is a neckbeard?

 

[Hitokage]

What the hell is a neckbeard?

Just what the word implies...

 

[Espada]

What the hell is a neckbeard?

1. Facial hair that does not exist on the face, but instead on the neck. Almost never well groomed.

2. Derogatory term for slovenly nerdy people who have no sense of hygene or grooming. Often related to hobbies such as card gaming, video gaming, anime, et. al.

:lol

...Yeah. Didn't even know there was a name for it.

 

[Nicodimas]

To me one of the more frightening things about other people are:

They actually believe when outside you do not have the right to defend yourself.

That the Police will be their to save you, so place all your eggs in that basket.

Regulation/Gun control only serves the goodwill of the people and prevents crime.

That me not taking a gun somewhere, somehow prevents others from having a gun or knife. (Jonm1010 argument) Guns are not the full argument. Leaving out all weapons is just wrong. A knife is four times more likely to kill you than gun (FBI Statistics). A gun is neat anyone study ballastics: Well they put a strait hole through you with some of the following effects, if fast enough: Cavitation, Fragmentation, and/or Bullet180. A knife wound is a larger wound that can hit vitals if 4 inches. It does not come back the same way it went in.

====================================
I firmly believe in the fact an Armed Society is a Polite Society. There are two counties in America that FORCE the people to carry. They have the least amount of crimes in America across the scale.
====================================

The stipping of weapons based off peoples perception of amount of harm caused is foolish. The problem does not dissapear because people access have been lessened. What type of crime will this reduce? The two big ones are:
Crimes of Passion
Previous Felon

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

 

[mollipen]

Do you think that if a samurai sword's only purpose were for baking cakes they would be nearly as popular? Nobody even makes them in the traditional fashion anymore—so what's the point in having a piece of beaten steel in your home?

All cars can take you from one place to another - what's the point in buying expensive ones? People who aren't kids anymore aren't actually going to play with those action figures they buy, they're just going to sit them on a shelf somewhere, so they shouldn't buy them!

It's none of anybody's business why somebody wants something, unless they're going to do something harmful to other people with it. I'm sure you own one or more things that you have "no valid reason" for owning.

The argument for owning a sword for defense, though... that's just dumb. If you want to defend yourself, get a gun. Don't run around your house looking for the person who just broke in with a sword.

 

[JayDubya]

Fair enough, Shidoshi, but in close quarters and if you've done some Kendo, a katana might do you more good than a handgun. Now granted, your average cheap shotgun would likely be best in most situations, but if all you've got is a katana, that's better than nothing...

And of course, if I lived in Britain where guns are banned, I'd still want something for home defense, so perhaps a katana or a longsword and lessons to use the weapon properly. Or a Bowie knife. Something. Not neccessarily no matter where I lived, but if I lived anywhere where crime was prevalent, it'd be a neccessity.

 

[Nicodimas]

Your more likely to go to jail if you defend yourself using a sword/knife!

Use something people could see you naturally having in your home. A sword is going to make for a messy scene. Remember that.

Gun is the least likely to go to jail for in America. Shoot as little as possible, two times..try not to unload the whole clip.

Over there..A bat would probably be the best self defence item.

Imagine now they are showing pictures of the poor thief in your home who is missing an arm and has a slash wound or two in his torso/head. It will look like your murdered him versus killed in self defence.

 

[JayDubya]

Things like what you're describing, Nico, are why I totally support "castle doctrine" laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

 

[mollipen]

Over there..A bat would probably be the best self defence item.

Yup, that's what I was going to say... a bat or a golf club, something like that.

Seriously, though, if you honestly know how to use a sword, I mean REALLY know how, and you have one that is actually worth a damn, then hey, go to town. The problem is, 99% of the time, you're going to have people who have cheapy swords who have no clue how to actually use it, and they're going to get themselves into MORE trouble by trying to pretend like they do.

At least with a bat, golf club, pipe, stuff like that, all you need to know is how to swing your arm.

 

[Flo_Evans]

nunchaku* dudes! people see you spinning these suckers around and the back the **** up. just make sure you know what you are doing, or you are more likely to crack your own skull open.

*probably banned in the UK anyway.

 

[JayDubya]

*probably banned in the UK anyway.

Nunchucks are banned because they are dangerous weapons that children think are cool.

Using the word "Ninja" in popular culture is itself, banned, because it leads to children thinking ninja weapons are cool.

I wish I were making this shit up.

"Hi, what crimefighting team am I a part of, and what is my favored weapon?"

If you said Ninja Turtles and nunchucku, you're incorrect. In Great Britain. Because the government of Great Britain is completely ****ing bonkers.

 

[Flo_Evans]

what are the ninja turtles called in england? :lol

 

[KimiNewt]

Nunchucks are banned because they are dangerous weapons that children think are cool.

Using the word "Ninja" in popular culture is itself, banned, because it leads to children thinking ninja weapons are cool.

I wish I were making this shit up.

EDIT: Damn quick edits

 

[JayDubya]

what are the ninja turtles called in england? :lol

I swear, I have never used nunchuku in all my life. That is a bold faced lie. I only use grappling hooks. Most people use them for their utility in climbing, but not me, sir. I use them as weapons.

 

[demon]

Nunchucks are banned because they are dangerous weapons that children think are cool.

Using the word "Ninja" in popular culture is itself, banned, because it leads to children thinking ninja weapons are cool.

I wish I were making this shit up.

Wow. That's absurd.

 

[Ark-AMN]

I've heard that Naruto in the UK has been edited beyond the realm of sanity.

 

[JayDubya]

I've heard that Naruto in the UK has been edited beyond the realm of sanity.

Yeah, I heard that you couldn't even show someone using nunchucks in the equivalent of an NC-17 film. Which kind of destroys the whole "for the children!11!" argument by showing it to be pure lunacy.

 

[bionic77]

What time are they allowed to start showing nudity on television in the UK?

When I was a teenager I would have gladly traded Ninja Turtles for free boobies on cable tv.

 

[Dabookerman]

Nunchukas are banned? Well i managed to buy two. One looks like a pair of dildos.


Ok what about the folks who already have swords?

 

[Espada]

Nunchucks are banned because they are dangerous weapons that children think are cool.

Using the word "Ninja" in popular culture is itself, banned, because it leads to children thinking ninja weapons are cool.

I wish I were making this shit up.

"Hi, what crimefighting team am I a part of, and what is my favored weapon?"

If you said Ninja Turtles and nunchucku, you're incorrect. In Great Britain. Because the government of Great Britain is completely ****ing bonkers.

...This shit cannot be true. What else is banned along these lines? Broomsticks? Socks?

 

[Stronty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWLYxlqc3gQ

 

[Flo_Evans]

I've always wanted one of this guys swords >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rA4mSKGmwA&eurl=http://www.bugei.com/videogallery.html

http://www.bugei.com/forging.html

 

[pjberri]

All cars can take you from one place to another - what's the point in buying expensive ones? People who aren't kids anymore aren't actually going to play with those action figures they buy, they're just going to sit them on a shelf somewhere, so they shouldn't buy them!

It's none of anybody's business why somebody wants something, unless they're going to do something harmful to other people with it. I'm sure you own one or more things that you have "no valid reason" for owning.

The argument for owning a sword for defense, though... that's just dumb. If you want to defend yourself, get a gun. Don't run around your house looking for the person who just broke in with a sword.

My argument isn't that it's useless and therefore shouldn't be owned by anybody, it's that it does have a use, which is to harm others, and that if that use as become a problem then it's an item people can go without. And the fact that it is an instrument of death is why people are so attracted to the thought of owning one.

How a weapon is used and why depends on the choices a person makes. Those choices can be good or bad.

This is what it comes down to. Unofrtunately there are a lot of people who apparently aren't capable of making rational decisions.

 

[Jonm1010]

To me one of the more frightening things about other people are:

They actually believe when outside you do not have the right to defend yourself.

That the Police will be their to save you, so place all your eggs in that basket.

Regulation/Gun control only serves the goodwill of the people and prevents crime.

That me not taking a gun somewhere, somehow prevents others from having a gun or knife. (Jonm1010 argument) Guns are not the full argument. Leaving out all weapons is just wrong. A knife is four times more likely to kill you than gun (FBI Statistics). A gun is neat anyone study ballastics: Well they put a strait hole through you with some of the following effects, if fast enough: Cavitation, Fragmentation, and/or Bullet180. A knife wound is a larger wound that can hit vitals if 4 inches. It does not come back the same way it went in.

====================================
I firmly believe in the fact an Armed Society is a Polite Society. There are two counties in America that FORCE the people to carry. They have the least amount of crimes in America across the scale.
====================================

The stipping of weapons based off peoples perception of amount of harm caused is foolish. The problem does not dissapear because people access have been lessened. What type of crime will this reduce? The two big ones are:
Crimes of Passion
Previous Felon

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

thats not what im arguing at all, so quite reaching, thats like the beginning of a straw man your setting up and i dont appreciate it.

 

[Jonm1010]

No. If you want to ban something, the onus is on you to show that it needs to be banned.

when did I say it needs to banned regardless? thats right i didnt, i merelly said that i could understand the need to do so if the costs outweigh the benefits. This was all relative to someone saying it is ok to carry a sword. My only other argument stemmed for the fact i went on to argue about his reasoning which is that people have an unalienable right to defend themselves,(I agree) which meant they should be able to have swords. I challenged that. reread my posts. Now if guns really do benefit more then consequence then i would say go for it.

 

[qcf x2]

I've always wanted one of this guys swords >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rA4mSKGmwA&eurl=http://www.bugei.com/videogallery.html

http://www.bugei.com/forging.html

Oh shit, that's gangsta. I want me one of those. NOW!

 

[..pakbeka..]

first the ninjas, now the samurais are banned too? how long until they ban pirates?

Nunchucks are banned because they are dangerous weapons that children think are cool.

Using the word "Ninja" in popular culture is itself, banned, because it leads to children thinking ninja weapons are cool.

I wish I were making this shit up.


"Hi, what crimefighting team am I a part of, and what is my favored weapon?"

If you said Ninja Turtles and nunchucku, you're incorrect. In Great Britain. Because the government of Great Britain is completely ****ing bonkers.

they edited every single episode to change his weapon?? what was it changed to anyway?

hm.... maybe the UK was one of the reasons they toned down the second TMNT movie

 

[pulsemyne]

It wasn't the governemnt that band nuchakas its was the BBFC(British Board of film control). The ban was lifted several years ago.
Yes our government is crazy for having wacky policies such as gun control! You ask 100 brits if they would love to have no gun control and 99 would say "no thanks" the other 1 would probably not understand the question.

 

[Woo-Fu]

A samurai sword is only a samurai sword if it is in the hands of a samurai. Otherwise it is just whatever type of sword it is.

They really need to be a bit more specific.

A well-crafted weapon is a work of art like any other, and can be appreciated as such without harming people with it.

Note: i'm not saying that most of what they're calling samurai swords are well-crafted weapons, far from it. But, for the people who actually do have authentic blades, they should have the right to keep them... if not necessarily walk around town brandishing them.

 

[Ripclawe]

Scotland already has a ban on swords.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/4788881.stm

Monday, 14 August 2006, 14:09 GMT 15:09 UK

Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson announced laws to ban swords unless sold for legitimate reasons.

Shops selling swords will need a licence, as will businesses dealing with non-domestic knives and other bladed weapons such as machetes.

The measures are the latest steps from the Scottish Executive to curb the problem of knife crime.

They come weeks after a nationwide knife amnesty.

A total of 12,645 blades - including lock knives, machetes, swords, meat cleavers, bayonets and axes - were handed in during the five-week amnesty

 

[captainbiotch]

hi lol nice 2 meet u. Now then, wouldn't you agree theres quite a significant difference between buying a chainsaw and a baseball bat as opposed to an actual WEAPON.
Or did you not know that baseball bats are actually commonly used in a game called baseball? Or that chainsaws are generally used for chopping down trees?
Please enlighten me as to what purpose, fundamentally, other than maiming/slaying, that a samurai sword could grant on a person.

How many samurai sword owners go on to kill people with said samurai sword, can you tell me? :lol How many people has your friend slaughtered so far? Your arguement is bad bad bad, not even worth a rational response.

 

[JayDubya]

God, are you dumb or what?

Yeah, I can tell you're going to last a long time here, junior.

 

[BobbyRobby]

What about self-defense from the government?

What would you do if your started getting rounded up like kulaks and slaughtered?

 

[travisbickle]

What about self-defense from the government?

What would you do if your started getting rounded up like kulaks and slaughtered?

I guess you're being facetious?


I think there should be a ban on these swords, they're fudging crazy! There's a shop on my walk to town (Glasgow) that sells all this kind of stuff, replica guns, swords, crossbows!, probably got real guns out the back, who needs this stuff? You just get kids staring at the window all day, gets me thinking of that South Park episode, some kid getting an arrow in his eye.

 

[captainbiotch]

Banning all dangerous weapons would be well and good if weapons had some mystical power over people, making them kill. They don't. Violence comes from humans, not weapons.

It is bad people that kill other people, plain and simple, and no matter how many weapons you ban, they are still going to be bad people. The only thing you can do against them is get them off the street and into jail. All you can do when attacked by a bad person is defend yourself, or surrender to their every whim, and pray that the government swoops in at some point to save you. It seems to me the best method to protect yourself against those murders you fear so much is to be armed, and prepared to use it.

Do you deny that people should be allowed to defend themselves when attacked?

How do you propose that decent citizens protect themselves when attacked by those who are bigger, stronger, well armed, or in greater numbers? Kung fu? Remember, disarmament laws don't impact people who care nothing about laws in the first place.

Now banning weapons does have some statistical merit. As weapon availability drops, deaths by the weapons drop as well. That much should be clearly evident. On the other hand, crime goes up as a populace is disarmed. People become easy pickings to thugs and scoundrels. Crime correspondingly goes down when people are given the right to defend themselves. Shouldn't less human suffering be the goal of every law we make? How do you justify disarmament in the face of that? Because a few less people die, in comparison too the hundreds of thousands that are mugged, robbed, assaulted, raped? How does that make sense?

Disarmament has been the tool of every tyranny in mankinds history. The fact that countries do it now in the name of your own safety doesn't make it any better.

 

[travisbickle]

On the other hand, crime goes up as a populace is disarmed.

Statistics?

 

[captainbiotch]

Violent crime (Table 1.3)
10. For the period 1997 - 2001, the average rise
was 22% in the EU for violent crime with the
highest rises in France (50%), Spain (49%),
the Netherlands (35%), Portugal (29%) and
England & Wales (26%). Amongst the other
countries, there were high rises in Japan
(79%), Poland (27%) and Australia (22%).
There were falls in Estonia (18%), Russia
(18%), the U.S.A. (12%), the Czech Republic
(7%) and Cyprus (4%).
11. In 2000 - 2001, the average rise was 5% in
the EU with the highest rises in Northern
Ireland (22%), France (15%) and England &
Wales and the Netherlands (both 11%).
There was a 1% rise in the USA.
Robbery (Table 1.4)
12. For the period 1997 - 2001, the average rise
was 24% in the EU for robbery with the
highest rises in England & Wales (92%),
France (67%), the Netherlands (48%),
Austria (42%), Portugal (34%), Sweden
(29%) and Denmark (27%). Amongst the
other countries, there were high rises in
Japan (128%), Turkey (88%), Poland (72%),
South Africa (71%), Cyprus (68%), Norway
(39%), Slovenia (35%), Russia (32%),
Estonia (29%) and Australia (25%). There
were falls in Bulgaria (37%), Germany (18%),
New Zealand (18%), USA (15%), Switzerland
(10%), Czech Republic (8%), Canada (7%),
Scotland (6%), Italy (5%) and Greece (1%).
13. In 2000 - 2001, the average rise was 5% in
the EU with the highest rises in England &
Wales (28%), Northern Ireland (26%) and
France (22%). There was a 4% rise in the
USA.

http://www.csdp.org/research/hosb1203.pdf

4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't.

True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

I'm sure your googling is as good as mine.

 

[reallyfull]

Last Saturday some friends and I witnessed a crack head holding a samurai sword at the local Citgo gas station... I swear it looked like just like Tyrone :\

Just as we were leaving two police cars pulled up. Wish I would have had my camera with me.

 

[Spainkiller]

It makes me laugh, some of your attitudes here are awful. I don't think I'm alone in thinking this. I've had to refrain from posting in some topics because of the sheer dumb-assery involved.

Anyway, when someone replies to a perfectly legitamate post of mine saying 'it's not even worth a rational responce', I'll just bend over, yeah?

Anyway, we'll agree to disagree. I think it's wrong to sell Samurai Swords. Just like I think it's wrong to sell guns and other deadly weapons.
If the UK ban the sale of them, It won't change yours or my life in one bit, the only peoples lives it will effect are those nerdy guys who collect them and the killers who use them.

You're not alone. I usually avoid the gun threads now - too many paranoid nutjobs obsessed with some out-of-date 'law' on this board.

 

[Jake.]

you can't even legally carry a pocket knife on you in australia (which i think is a joke). a samurai sword would be way better.

 

[Nicodimas]

''Anyway, we'll agree to disagree. I think it's wrong to sell Samurai Swords. Just like I think it's wrong to sell guns and other deadly weapons.
If the UK ban the sale of them, It won't change yours or my life in one bit, the only peoples lives it will effect are those nerdy guys who collect them and the killers who use them.''


-So are you one of those guys who believes the U.N. is out to help you when they say they want to ban self-defence, because after all to prepare for a fight is to be violent. Violence is bad! Afteral,l this doctine could serve others.-

"You're not alone. I usually avoid the gun threads now - too many paranoid nutjobs obsessed with some out-of-date 'law' on this board."

-I guess the constitution, bill of rights, is not really that important. Lets just get rid of it, after all it is old. On that note we sure do use a low of old laws. I mean some of these are from the 1950s to the 1800s.-

<<<Do we have a clue?


Amendment I
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.


Amendment II

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.


Amendment III

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.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; 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.


Amendment VI

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 defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

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.