2A Quiz

BTW there are 12 questions. It is rather annoying that each question takes 2 clicks a piece and each click requires a BUNCH of ads to load...which seems to be par for the course with journalistic websites.

Also question 10 is absolutely ridiculous. All of the other questions were based on facts, that question is based on speculation and the presume to come up with their own speculative answer.

OK I've been to that site twice and my computer has seized up twice before I got to #10.:banghead:
Out of curiousity .... what is question #10?

Question #10 was 'Does the 2nd amendment guarantee the right of a private citizen to own Assault rifles machine guns and even shoulder launched grenade launchers?' or something to that effect.

I got 10 of 12 correct, I misread 1 question.
I didn't get any pop-ups while taking the quiz.

Spoiler Alert



Question #10

Does the Second Amendment guarantee a personal right to own assault rifles, machine guns, and perhaps even shoulder-fired missiles?

Pure Opinion on the answer.
from the quiz
"The majority justices in the 2008 Heller decision said the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to possess firearms in common use – meaning rifles and handguns commonly used by civilians. The issue may be litigated in a future case, but Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in the Heller decision, suggested that the states and Congress would not violate the Second Amendment by passing and enforcing restrictions on machineguns and specialized military weapons."


Not sure how many question actually have anything to do with 2A.

Question #12
According to the National Rifle Association, how many privately-owned guns are currently in the United States?

OK I managed to go there without <deleted> up my archaic POS computer. Yeah, I agree I don't like the question. Technically it really should protect the right to assault weapons and machine guns (IMHO) but when they throw in missile launchers it obfuscates the issue. A missile might be considered ordnance.
There is a "shall not be infringed" in the second amendment.
And some people will no doubt point to the fact that in the Founding Fathers' days, people owned cannon and armed ships so I know some people will take exception to my excluding man portable missiles under the 2A.

Tommygunn said:

what is question #10?

Click to expand...

Does the Second Amendment guarantee a personal right to own assault rifles, machine guns, and perhaps even shoulder-fired missiles?

choice are

yes
no
probably not
impossible at this point to know

Their answer is "probably not"

My answer would more likely be "probably yes"

Even "impossible at this point to know" is not really a good answer. I assume they mean because SCOTUS has not ruled on it. IMO SCOTUS rulings are not the be all end all on Constitutional Law. They are individually motivated people just like the people in the Legislature drawing up these laws, they are just as fallible as anyone else in the Government.

My own opinion is that the Second Amendment was written to give the people whatever means necessary to protect a free State. Keeping the people from being armed as well as a possibly oppressive government doesn't exactly secure a free State.

Farcical, to say the least...

The government's own lawyers argued before the SCOTUS that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller said:

1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

Click to expand...

No expert witnesses bothered to show up and inform the Justices that the Army did indeed use a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, so Miller was convicted. However the government's own lawyers essentially argued that I should be allowed to own a MP5SD, M4A1, M249, M240L, Mk46, Mk48, Mk16, Mk17, and so on.

That quiz mentioned United States v Miller but apparently they didn't read the full background of the decision.

US code also states that all males between the ages of 17 and 45 are members of the unorganized militia (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt), so even if you subscribe to the "only the militia can have guns" viewpoint you're basically saying all males 17 - 45 can own a MP5SD, M4A1, M249, M240L, Mk46, Mk48, Mk16, Mk17, and so on.

But hey, I got 11 of 12 right on their quiz, and the one I missed was their opinion question.

Yup, that ultimate bastion of left-coast liberalism that is the... Christian Science Monitor... hmm...

I answered yes to 10 and I'm sticking by that.

I missed one. I was torn between Bonnie and Clyde or the saint valentines day massacre. I chose poorly.


Yea 10 is not a good test question.

Spoiler alert II

The ridiculously slow multiple re-clicks got very annoying.

When a quiz or test has the word "probably" not only as an option but in fact the correct answer... count me out.

Stupid quiz. Selective language and varying formality steers people to the right answers. Also leftist.

The Second Amendment should allow us to be as well equipped as our own military.

When I was reading through the Federalist Papers years ago, I came across a statement by Madison, saying that the people should have the right to keep and bear arms that were at least equivalent to those carried by the military.

Sorry that I don't have a citation for you.

I missed one. I was torn between Bonnie and Clyde or the saint valentines day massacre. I chose poorly.

Click to expand...

Then I'm in good company!

ApacheCoTodd said:

The ridiculously slow multiple re-clicks got very annoying.

Click to expand...

I'm glad I wasn't the only one with that problem . . . . maybe my computer is only rickety, not completly DOA.

Federalist. 48. And he argued the state militias should be better armed than the federal government. It is not however an assumption that the armory would be maintained by state governments. It would be maintained by the people.

I would love to say I remembered the number. Iwill admit it i had to google it.


Question 10 is ridiculous.


Edit-in response to post 17. Dont know why it didn't quote.

The answer to Question 8 is incorrect. US v Miller did not come to that conclusion.

It is not clear to me that their answer to Question 7 about the NFA is true. If folks have more info on that, I'd appreciate it.

Then what conclusion did Miller reach?

I think their web designer and quiz coder should be fired out of a cannon.

Into the sun.

Of course when the Federalist Papers were written, many of the founding fathers, specifically Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans, believed that Standing Armies were an implement of tyranny. So to go beyond that and deny citizens the right to be as well armed as a standing army is doubly against the wishes of people like Jefferson

I put yes for question 10 and I am right... it may not be "legal" but I bet our founding fathers would want it to be legal

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck wrote:

The Second Amendment should allow us to be as well equipped as our own military.

Click to expand...

Not "should", DOES!

Our Founders addressed the question of "What manner of weapons does the 2nd Amendment protect the right of the citizenry to keep and bear?", and their answer was "all the terrible weapons of the soldier".

You can read my own post on this matter here [on a forum from which I have been banned for life!]:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=450833

Excerpt:

As the Second Amendment is intended as a deterrent to tyranny, it makes perfect sense that the citizens should be as well-armed as the standing army, and organized into militias, and thus capable of resisting that standing army should a tyrannical government turn it on them.

Click to expand...

However, please bear in mind that neither the 2nd Amendment, nor any other part of the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution, "allows" us these rights.

The entire concept is that our rights are God-given and unalienable, and our founding documents represent our government's pledge to protect (and not infringe on) those rights.

What a radical concept, huh?