Previous Post
Next Post

 Constitute that! (courtesy

Pascal writes: “Before this gets deleted for not being gun enough, this new Google tool allows you to search through “Constitutions” from other countries. When talking about gun stuff, UK vs AUS vs USA it is interesting to compare the different documents out there. While the compare feature is not available yet, it is coming. Also, if the democrats wish to rewrite ours, I guess Google will help them along.” ThayneT adds: “I did a seach on right to bear arms. The constitutions for four other countries came up – Guatemala, Haiti, Iran and Mexico. If you want to see what the gun control advocates would like our second amendment to look like, here it is . . .

Guatemala:  The right to own [tenencia] weapons for personal use, not prohibited by the law, in the place of inhabitation, is recognized. There will not be an obligation to hand them over, except in cases ordered by a competent judge.

Haiti:  Every citizen has the right to armed self-defense, within the bounds of this domicile, but has no right to bear arms without express well-founded authorization from the Chief of Police.

Iran:  …the government is obliged to provide a programme of military training, with all requisite facilities, for all its citizens, in accordance with the Islamic criteria, in such a way that all citizens will always be able to engage in the armed defence of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The possession of arms, however, requires the granting of permission by the competent authorities.

Mexico:  The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to possess arms in their residences for their protection and legitimate defense, except such as are expressly forbidden by law or which have been reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law will determine the circumstances, conditions, requirements, and places in which the bearing of arms by inhabitants will be authorized.


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “The possession of arms, however, requires the granting of permission by the competent authorities.”

    That would never work in America, because we would have to much trouble finding the competent ones to grant permission.

        • 🙂

          I remember hearing somewhere there’s an expected code of behavior for getting mugged in DC. Carry an extra wallet with cash to give the mugger, don’t look him in the eye, and they let you go at that.

          Not much else you can do if you aren’t allowed to defend yourself. Would piss me off to no end.

        • @OldBen, back in the day when I lived in NYC, nobody left their home without $20 “mugger money,” just to placate the b@stards when they robbed you at knifepoint or gunpoint. Now I carry $20 worth of hollow points.

      • No no no…The LULWUT is because Haiti is BASICALLY saying “You can have a gun, you just can’t use it. Anywhere.

        “Every citizen has the right to armed self-defense, within the bounds of this domicile…” <–okay, so I can kill home invaders and people trying to kill me

        "…but has no right to bear arms without express well-founded authorization from the Chief of Police." <—okay, so I CAN'T kill home invaders and people trying to kill me…without the permission of the Chief of Police.

        That's WORSE than DC…I know, I know, hard to imagine.

        • Yes, I noticed that they said basically:
          “You can but you can’t without permission”

          This allowed them to say “You can…” instead of “With permission you can…”, while meaning the same.

  2. In Albania we might not have it outlined in our constitution but you can bet no one gives a shit about the law. Firearms ownership is the reason we have an Albania.

    • I think there are also many, many other reasons why America is better than Iran, Haiti, Mexico, and Guatemala. I’d imagine the whole poverty, religious extremists, and occasional dictatorship thing might ruin the fun some.

      • So just where was it that the Revolutionary Guard got the weapons it used to overthrow the Shah? I can assume that it wasn’t the CIA, as he was our boy, so maybe come “other” country was in competition with us in the illegal guns trade? What do you want to bet that that other country is a signatory to the Arms Trade Treaty?

        • Actually if you watch “Tales of the Gun: Guns of the Revolution”, the show mentions how the Iranian revolutionaries used CommBloc guns, guns they stole from arsenals (US, M14, M1), and hunting rifles.

  3. With those piece of crap constitutions, why do those countries even have a damn constitution? All they say is “you (the serfs) have the right when we (the gooberment) say you have the right.”

    • I think the fundamental difference is that our founding fathers recognized that our constitution simply lists the rights we already have, and spells out protections for those rights. Other countries see rights as something bestowed by the government. If those governments did not give it to them, they don’t have it.

      That’s a difference that a great many people in our own country either don’t understand or wish to ignore.

      • >> Other countries see rights as something bestowed by the government. If those governments did not give it to them, they don’t have it.

        You nailed it.

      • >> Other countries see rights as something bestowed by the government.

        The society, not the government. That is why constitutions are traditionally ratified by referendums.

    • Yes, though on 2A I wish someone could go back and advise them. Actually on more than 2A. Tell them of leftist weasels. Tell them how leftest weasels operate. Write the constitution accordingly.

      The right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms comparable to those of an infantryman of the time in question shall not be infringed, weasels.

      • If you read “The Federalist Papers” you will learn quickly that the Founders were VERY aware of the problem of “leftists” trying to subvert the Federal Republic they were trying to create and to give too much authority to the central government. Almost everything they debated and discussed regarding the Constitution was aimed at hog-tying the federal government to the greatest extent possible, including the first ten amendments.

        The fact that the liberals have been able to subvert their intentions in spite of their attempted diligence only proves that their concerns were well founded.

  4. I am sure if the 2A were written today, it would be exactly like Mexico’s “right”. It is good that our forefathers put the 2A, as written, for some measure of protection from self serving myopic idiots who can’t look at the whole picture of gun ownership.

  5. So when it comes to gun ownership, our progressive overlords want the US to look just like Iran…minus the part where the government is obligated to provide military training to all citizens. Nice.

    • I’m pretty sure the “progressives” would rather say NO GUNS.

      Though I would be up for an amendment that provides military training on top of our current RKBA.

      • Actually liberals and the military were the people who came up with National Conscription; Revolutionary France, Prussia after being beat by Revolutionary France, and Russian progressives. I don’t know when Iran decided to have National Conscription.

        I don’t want National Conscription, but having the government pay for my ammo tab would be helpful.

        • The guys I know who were called up for a ready reserve for Gulf I or II were told that ammo was at a premium and they couldn’t shoot any more than was necessary to qualify. Seems to me that the lack of range time was a common complaint, then and now.

        • A Swiss style conscription with the military being barred from operating outside the territorial boundaries of the United States would be best and we could cut the defense budget by at least 50%.

      • I am opposed to a military draft. That said, I could get behind a law that REQUIRED attendance at military basic training in the summer between your junior and senior years as a mandatory requirement for high school graduation. No mandatory military service, but basic training, some advanced training of your choice, and go home with a set of uniforms and an appreciation of our country and our military heritage.

        Consider the advantage to mobilization if TSHTF – a source of trained volunteers ready on short notice to respond to the threat. Kind of sounds like a well regulated militia, doesn’t it?

        • So get those gangbangers trained up so they can shoot straight? Not that it makes any difference–these guys seem perfectly willing to volunteer for a two year stint as it is, and to offer the same training without the risk of going to war in Afghanistan? Such a deal!

        • How many gang-bangers actually care about graduating high school? Sure, they might get the training and then drop out, but like you say, at least they would be able to hit what/who they were aiming at.

          And I seem to recall a discussion here not too long ago about the problem of gang members already in our military. Maybe (possibly) some would go through the training and it would change their lives. No plan in its inception is without room for discussion. Why we are all here, right?

      • Seems to me that the militia clause in the Second Amendment actually does provide for universal military training, and even conscription, if it comes to that. Mandatory military training and/or service might rankle from a personal-freedom point of view (and I don’t know off the top of my head what the rest of the Constitution might say about it), but it wouldn’t infringe on the Second Amendment.

        The people have an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the government is told not to interfere with it, but to make good use of it.

  6. So what I am getting out of this is that… the only nation on earth with the stones to have an armed citizenry is us? Kind of depressing.

    • Depends on how you define “armed citizenry”. Switzerland still allows citizens to keep their service rifles in the house and subsidizes ammo sales; however that’s more like the concept of our Minutemen more than anything else. Russia still has National Conscription for young men unless they’re college students or have another exception, so that’s an “armed citizenry.” A lot of the former Yugoslav republics, and apparently Albania, have high ownership rates of gun ownership, but apparently they don’t have the right enshrined in their constitutions (or the guy who wrote this didn’t say).

      And there’s Yemen. Go figure.

      • In Switzerland, at least in some places but I think the whole country now, you get to/have to keep the gun, but they don’t give you ammo except when you are shooting or called up for duty.

    • And there’s plenty of third world shitholes where people own guns and RPGs and whatever else they can get their hands on and treat any government agent who tries to tell them NO with the contempt they deserve, regardless of what their “constitution” does or does not say on the subject.

      When you get down to the basics the whole point of the Second Amendment is so that the people, when it becomes necessary, can tell the government and/or government agents, to FOAD. Without arms that does not, ever, happen.

  7. The rights we have are given from God,being that one of the main reasons that the Founders of this country came to this country in the first place,was religious freedom.The rights that we have are not granted by anyone and cannot be taken away by the stroke of a pen,if this happens it is an act of tyranny,and must be fought against,that is why we have the 2nd,to be able to protect against the tyranny.To be able to rewrite the Constitution there has to be a referendum placed on a national ballot and voted on by the citizens before any new Constitution can be written,unless those in DC,go about without following the law of the land,if this happens then I will myself consider the government dissolved and consider those in office criminals and be punished accordingly to the laws of treason,and they will be given the maximum sentence!Be prepared and ready.Keep your powder dry.

  8. Reading some of these country’s constitutions, it’s quite obvious how little they actually comprehend about what a constitution is meant to do;

    “You have the right to do this, unless a new law says you don’t”.

    Kind of defeats the whole purpose of the document, does it not?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here