The ideological viewpoint would be poorly informed, elitist, liberal. Liberal, since they seem to have little trust in their fellow citizens. Poorly informed, since there are already several thousand gun control laws that are ignored by criminals. Elitist, since the speaker seems to feel that only wealthy people that can afford expensive guns (it does reference cheap handguns) should be able to defend themselves.
The ideological view that would support the original statement is a flawed view that contends it is possible to regulate behavior by regulating things. In a like manner, would banning the sale of cheap cars be a reasonable fix for the problem of drunk driving?
It made them citizens of our form of government.
The citizens vote for the President AND Congress.
Citizens, the congress, and the president. Basically the citizens sometimes send the idea in, the congress and president approve it.
Congress has the authority to form commissions when necessary.
The Bill of Rights places limits on Congress when it comes to the rights of US citizens.
If you mean the Congress of the Unites States of America, then that congress has the power to determine how non US citizens can (if they want) become US citizens. It does not have power to determine the rules for citizenship for any other country.
No.
Congress
congress congress
what degree, if any, can the actions of the First Congress and President help citizens understand the meaning of the Constitution? How else can citizens understand it?
Congress