Should All Able Americans Be Required To Know the Constitution that we pledge our lives to defend?

Outstanding, answer! I contend that the single weakest point is the 2nd amendment. As we become more gentrified it becomes more tenuous. We all know folks who are over armed and under trained. I had to plead with a neighbor here some years back to please get rid of the .357 mag he was brandishing in our apt building and replace it with a shotgun as he was more likely to kill a bystander with an errant shot than an intruder and the ballistic power meant it would go through anything in its path. I further contend, that if we continue with these mass shootings we are not going to have the option as it will be unarmed outraged American Moms who believe their child's right to live trumps my right to keep and bear arms that I no longer need nor am I sufficiently trained to use. This would be a populist wave we would be unable tp prevent and after they were done singing Kumbaya would come the realization that they have just set the precedent needed to undermine the rest of their freedoms. This is why we must be proactive.

SGT Bryan O'Reilly - I hold a different belief. I personally think the 2nd is vital to our culture. With that said, I think that too many people see it as a cop out for allowing people to buy ANY weapon they want and, to be honest, I don't think that was the framers' intent. "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."

"well regulated militia" The states have their part in the second amendment. They can establish minimum qualifications for ownership of a firearm primarily through requiring training on the proper use of the weapon you wish to possess. What they can't do is outright ban them. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." One thing I will point out, in this respect, is that this falls under states rights which means that the fed has no business in gun control. It's not the amendment that is weak, but rather the enforcement of it by the states.

Shootings are a tragedy, however, most seem to happen in areas that the use of firearms is a Federal offense. Taking firearms away only ensures the law abiding citizen doesn't posses one when they need it most.

I also support the 2nd amendment. But I believe that unless we proactively take steps to protect it, i.e. Require small arms cert, and training as a part of the constitutional training module, instilling the basics at an early age to demystify it we risk losing it via a combination of over armed under trained zealots who would be no match for unarmed outraged American moms who believe their kids right to life trumps my right to keep and bear a weapon I no longer need nor am adequately qualified to use.

SGT Bryan O'Reilly - I agree with the sentiment. Regardless, such a change would have to be done by the individual states as it's the states' job to both train aspiring firearm owners and determine who in their state is allowed to vote. As such, there is no way to force it into becoming the national standard without violating the very document that we would be requiring the voter base to become experts on.

I believe anyone aspiring to higher office should be required to sign an affidavit that they understand and will abide by its writing.