Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Second Amendment quiz

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by deen_ad, Feb 29, 2012.

  1. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    Here's the lead in story: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Educat...g-why-the-gun-owner-won-t-be-held-accountable

    The Christian Science Monitor is running a quiz on how much do you know about the Second Amendment.
    Second Amendment Quiz - Topic of Second Amendment - CSMonitor.com

    I don't agree with one answer though. The question is: "Does the Second Amendment guarantee a personal right to own assault rifles, machine guns, and perhaps even shoulder-fired missiles. Their answer is "Probably not" How do they get that answer as it's not yet decided where the line (if there is one) is drawn?

    Question 11 is about the Giffords shooting and the answer is "The 1994 federal assault weapon ban and restrictions on large capacity magazines expired in 2004 and have not been renewed by Congress" so we know which side they're on!!
     
    chariot13 and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Morpheus

    Morpheus Columbia Gorge Anyway, back on the farm.

    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    589
    Darn, only 83% (10 out of 12).
    I messed up the two I wanted to have the right answer to. :)
     
  3. DieselScout

    DieselScout S Clackamas County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,350
    Likes Received:
    1,726
  4. SigFanWA

    SigFanWA Clark County, WA Member

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    9
    scored 11 of 12.
     
  5. jbett98

    jbett98 NW Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    6,478
    Likes Received:
    7,723
    Missed two.
     
  6. Asp

    Asp Oregon, the promise land. Active Member

    Messages:
    561
    Likes Received:
    216
    Missed two also. Shouldn't shoulder fire rockets be covered under the constitution?
     
    chariot13 and (deleted member) like this.
  7. MikeSettles

    MikeSettles Vancouver, Washington Active Member

    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    116
    I took the quiz and purposely missed questions 6 and 10. Their writer skewed the possible answers: 1934 NFA was a method to legally limit certain arms to those who could afford to pay the hefty tax - which was how they got around 2A challenges at the time. And the founders declared that citizens should have arms similar to those carried by Soldiers, in order to meet their obligations as members of the Militia. Thus the arms MOST protected by 2A should be assault rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, and even shoulder-fired missiles!
    Until the courts and various legislatures recognize this, our Liberty will continue to be in danger from those elitists who think that they must take care of us. Let's stop sending them back to DC, Olympia, Salem, etc.
     
  8. oregonty

    oregonty Salem, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    46
    Missed two. LOL
     
  9. coop44

    coop44 Tacoma ,WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,609
    Likes Received:
    988
    ha ha missed one, shoulder fired rockets are reasonable, dammit
     
  10. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner You'll Never Know Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,476
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    You answered 10 of 12 questions correctly for a total score of 83%.

    One because I didn't read the answers offered and jumped on one that was less correct, the other asked for conjecture, or more the belief of the test taker.
     
  11. drew

    drew OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    970
    Missed the same one I did.
     
  12. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    Missed one, the same in the OP.

    Dangerous and unusual weapons are not covered per SCOTUS, thus shoulder fire rockets are not protected.
    I think correct answer to the question should be "Impossible at this point to know", since 1986 law is yet to be
    litigated.
     
  13. sadiesassy

    sadiesassy Prescott Active Member

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    51
    Scored 11 out of 12The question on the Assaul rifles - I put down impossible to know.
     
  14. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,078
    Likes Received:
    377
    I aced it but due in part to your spoilers :)
    I think the second amendment needs to be clarified by the SCOTUS at some point in time, but I fear what they'd rule if it became an anti-gun SCOTUS (and it very well may if Barack gets re-elected. He's already demonstrated what type of judges he appoints TWICE)
    I believe the founders left the 2a intentionally vague. They weren't idiots. They knew weapons would continue to evolve, and wanted the people to have the ability to resist and overthrow a government that became tyrannical. That means having the same weaponry as the standing army (and some of the founders opposed the idea of a standing army, they saw what Britain did to the colonies with their standing army). That always brings the strawman "well then should people be able to own nukes?" No, but not because it's too powerful, but because things of that nature require very specific, special, constant, expensive storage, maintenance & handling to remain safe. Uncle Elmer who stores a MIRV 6 under his bed will likely vaporize himself and the entire neighborhood evenually.
     
  15. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    There is no evidence to suggest that cannons (used by standing armies) were protected, and were in common use by members of militia. Moreover, current legal framework limits Second Amendment protections only to arms that are presently in common use and are not dangerous and unusual. You would have a very hard time applying such standard to anything more than select-fire firearms.
     
  16. elsie

    elsie Way over there on the left Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    888
    Likes Received:
    621
    The battle of Lexington and Concord was fought because the british troops were sent to seize the local militia supplies, which included cannon. Battles of Lexington and Concord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or http://www.wpi.edu/academics/Depts/MilSci/Resources/lexcon.html



    elsie
     
  17. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    I said "members of militia", and your statement says "local militia supplies". Basically public armory, as opposed to individually owned arms of militia members. Or am I missing something ?
     
  18. elsie

    elsie Way over there on the left Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    888
    Likes Received:
    621
    You said "There is no evidence to suggest that cannons (used by standing armies) were protected,". At the time, the US did not exist and had no standing army so the local militia supplies including cannon must have been procured by the locals. Whether that was by an individual or collectively I have not been able to find out. But it does speak to their use, actual or intended, by the militia.


    elsie
     
  19. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    Fair enough :)
     
  20. MikeSettles

    MikeSettles Vancouver, Washington Active Member

    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    116
    fd15k: "... current legal framework limits Second Amendment protections only to arms that are presently in common use and are not dangerous and unusual." A LARGE part of our current 2A problems stem from the fact the SCOTUS has only recently visited those issues in Heller and McDonald. Previously, nothing since Miller in the '30s, which was a "non-judgement", (Miller dead, his accomplice disappeared, no attorney to speak for their side, the Justices sent it back to the lower court, which did nothing.) The famous statement that (sic) "short-barreled shotguns are not protected because they wouldn't be militia weapons" was part of the opinion sending it back to the lower court, and was rather silly, because Doughboys had just recently used them in France 1917-18.
    Before then, the Jim Crow laws (including disarming Negroes) were nullified by the 14th Amendment, late 1860s. In the first half of the 19th century, ANY attempt at limits on 2A were met, both by SCOTUS and state courts, with disdain.
    My point is that currently the Supreme Court has not yet said much about limits on 2A - including what specifically is protected, and what is not. If Mr. Obama appoints one or two more liberal justices to the Court (other than replacing Ginsburg or Kennedy), the limitations in further decisions could be quite extreme.

    GunCite: gun control and Second Amendment issues is a good place to find history and quotes.

    Cheers!