Test about the second amendment

[MillCreek]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/1104/Second-Amendment-Quiz/Topic-of-Second-Amendment?google_editors_picks=true

Anyone who scores less than 100% has to blame Fistful.

[birdman]

Bad test.

 "does the second amendment guarantee the right to own assault rifles, machineuns, and missiles"
Correct answer (according to them): "probably not"
(note, it doesn't define assault rifle as a select fire weapon, and given its later referrals to the AWB, one would assume it means the same as that ban did)

Then saying the expiration of the AWB is the reason jared l was able to get 30rnd magazines?!

Wtf.  This test is the best example of a "logical" slide down a slippery slope I've ever seen.

[Regolith]

Bad test.

 "does the second amendment guarantee the right to own assault rifles, machineuns, and missiles"
Correct answer (according to them): "probably not"
(note, it doesn't define assault rifle as a select fire weapon, and given its later referrals to the AWB, one would assume it means the same as that ban did)

Then saying the expiration of the AWB is the reason jared l was able to get 30rnd magazines?!

Wtf.  This test is the best example of a "logical" slide down a slippery slope I've ever seen.

Yeah, I had a few problems with some of their phrasing as well. Still, they did a better job than most reporters (or anyone else outside of the pro-gun crowd) would have.

[lee n. field]

Missed two.  I missed the question on the roots of the NFA, and the one birdman noted, on whether the 2nd guarantees the right to own ugly guns with shoulder things that go up.

Anyone else spend a few seconds identifying the guns on the dealers counter?  1911, Sig, at least one Colt, S&W or clone, ....

[Jamisjockey]

If the answer to machine guns assault rifles and missles wasn't "yes", then I'm not going to bother taking the test.  CSmonitor can kiss my tush.

[MicroBalrog]

If the answer to machine guns assault rifles and missles wasn't "yes", then I'm not going to bother taking the test.  CSmonitor can kiss my tush.

This.

[Fly320s]

Thirded.

[makattak]

Fourthed.

(Just for the benefit of the parliamentarians here.)

[Tallpine]

Based on Miller, one could argue that only military grade weapons are protected   

[KD5NRH]

Based on Miller, one could argue that only military grade weapons are protected   

It's the only legitimate argument one could make that the Belton Rifle isn't proof the Founders intended 2A to include automatic weapons; not counting it since it was never adopted by the military, rather than denying the clear evidence the BOR was ratified by men well aware of the existence of a fully automatic, cartridge loaded small arm.

[Doggy Daddy]

Well, I didn't miss any.  But the CSM missed one.

DD

[kgbsquirrel]

Bad test.

 "does the second amendment guarantee the right to own assault rifles, machineuns, and missiles"
Correct answer (according to them): "probably not"
(note, it doesn't define assault rifle as a select fire weapon, and given its later referrals to the AWB, one would assume it means the same as that ban did)

Then saying the expiration of the AWB is the reason jared l was able to get 30rnd magazines?!

Wtf.  This test is the best example of a "logical" slide down a slippery slope I've ever seen.

Yeah, right at question 10 the "quiz" departs the realm of law and fact and enters that of personal opinion.

And a pinch of snark for flavor: "But 'in-common-use' couldn't possibly refer to the hundreds of millions of assault rifles and machine guns in use--uhh, wait. Being borne--err, no. Hmm, kept--damnit! Toted! There we go, being toted around the world!"

[MechAg94]

It's the only legitimate argument one could make that the Belton Rifle isn't proof the Founders intended 2A to include automatic weapons; not counting it since it was never adopted by the military, rather than denying the clear evidence the BOR was ratified by men well aware of the existence of a fully automatic, cartridge loaded small arm.

I guess to me, at worst they should say 2nd Amendment doesn't define the term "arms".  Just assuming it doesn't include modern weapons is weak.

[Jamisjockey]

I'm trying to find cites, but weren't many cannons provided for the revolution by private ownership? I'm pretty sure many were, but having trouble finding cite.
That would settle the arguement hands down, IMHO.
We do know for a fact that Privateer vessels were armed with cannons. 
Just sayin.

[AJ Dual]

I'm trying to find cites, but weren't many cannons provided for the revolution by private ownership? I'm pretty sure many were, but having trouble finding cite.
That would settle the arguement hands down, IMHO.
We do know for a fact that Privateer vessels were armed with cannons. 
Just sayin.

Well, the simplest answer was that the U.S. Constitution offered the power to issue "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" which by definition would be granted to ships owned by private individuals.

And it stands to reason they weren't going to go after pirates, or the British navy with just muskets. 

[Ned Hamford]

And it stands to reason they weren't going to go after pirates, or the British navy with just muskets. 

Well, folks were a bit manlier back then 

[Jamisjockey]

Well, the simplest answer was that the U.S. Constitution offered the power to issue "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" which by definition would be granted to ships owned by private individuals.

And it stands to reason they weren't going to go after pirates, or the British navy with just muskets. 

But those cannon were owned privately or by a company and put onto a ship.  Hell even merchant ships were quite often armed with a few cannon. 

[AJ Dual]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, that was my point, privately owned cannon, not .gov issue.

[Jamisjockey]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, that was my point, privately owned cannon, not .gov issue.

Roger roger.

[Fly320s]

Roger roger.

Don't you mean Jolly Roger?

[Jamisjockey]

Don't you mean Jolly Roger?

I prefer the bleeding heart.

[geronimotwo]

as previously mentioned, question 10 was messed up.  it asked about the second amendment, but then referred to the heller decision for the answer.  also, i had no idea how many guns were out there in question 12.  this quiz seemed biased against large cap mags.

[AZRedhawk44]

I'm trying to find cites, but weren't many cannons provided for the revolution by private ownership? I'm pretty sure many were, but having trouble finding cite.
That would settle the arguement hands down, IMHO.
We do know for a fact that Privateer vessels were armed with cannons. 
Just sayin.

The Brits confiscated and destroyed two cannon in Concord on April 19th, 1775.  Those cannon were paid for by the Concord Militia and were the property of the people of Concord.  Not pirate cannon.  They were owned by the collective free association of the people of the town for their common defense. 

The Redcoats did not take muskets from individual homes.

They went after cannon and powder and stores of shot.

Fudds were fine back then, just as they are now.

[brimic]

CSM is teh suxxorz