On that page there was a link to a Second Amendment Quiz. So, I went and took their quiz. The funny thing is, the one they think I got wrong was number 10. The question asks, "Does the Second Amendment guarantee a personal right to own assault rifles, machine guns, and perhaps even shoulder-fired missiles?". The choices were, "Yes, No, Probably Not or Impossible at this point to know". My answer was "Yes". Apparently I'm wrong and the correct answer is "Probably Not". I'm just curious how an interpretation of a statement that includes "probably" could be considered correct over a direct answer. Hell, "Impossible at this point to know" would be a more correct answer than "probably not". I haven't taken the time to figure out how to contact them about this yet, and I'm not sure I will, but if you're going to interpret something to suit yourself, how about making a stand on something.
PS, since they emphasize the entire text of the Amendment earlier in the quiz to include the "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" I find it important to note that the militias of the time had every weapon available to the regular army. Maybe not the same quality or quantity, but the militias had cannons, mortars, etc. How do those "advanced" weapons of the day differ from the "advanced" weapons of today?
Sorry, but these agenda driven jackholes got on my nerves these days.
I already sent Warren Richey via the above link a little bit of information useful for him to use in revising Question #9. I noted to him that there is mo mention in the U.S. Constitution and Amendments of "legitimate sporting purpose" and also pointed out to him what the correct definition of "assault weapon" is.
Correction. Make that Question #10, not #9 that needs revision.
It is interesting that the quiz brings up the Miller decision then asks this question. If the U.S. military starts using short barreled shotguns just as they now use short barreled rifles, then does that mean that we are then "allowed" to possess them if we jump through the hoops and pay the tax/fee?
It's my understanding that the stand your ground law does not mention the use of firearms. It merely absolves an individual under attack from the necessity of retreating before resorting to any degree of force in self defense. It's still incumbent upon the potential victim to use only what he immediately believes to be reasonable force in a self defense situation. Removing the requirement of retreat does not encourage vigilante acts, it merely recognizes a person's preexisting right to protect himself by whatever means he deems immediately necessary. [W3]
On that page there was a link to a Second Amendment Quiz. So, I went and took their quiz. The funny thing is, the one they think I got wrong was number 10. The question asks, "Does the Second Amendment guarantee a personal right to own assault rifles, machine guns, and perhaps even shoulder-fired missiles?".
ReplyDeleteThe choices were, "Yes, No, Probably Not or Impossible at this point to know".
My answer was "Yes". Apparently I'm wrong and the correct answer is "Probably Not".
I'm just curious how an interpretation of a statement that includes "probably" could be considered correct over a direct answer. Hell, "Impossible at this point to know" would be a more correct answer than "probably not". I haven't taken the time to figure out how to contact them about this yet, and I'm not sure I will, but if you're going to interpret something to suit yourself, how about making a stand on something.
PS, since they emphasize the entire text of the Amendment earlier in the quiz to include the "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" I find it important to note that the militias of the time had every weapon available to the regular army. Maybe not the same quality or quantity, but the militias had cannons, mortars, etc. How do those "advanced" weapons of the day differ from the "advanced" weapons of today?
Sorry, but these agenda driven jackholes got on my nerves these days.
Confirmation of what Mark Roote wrote. The author of the Christian Science Monitor Second Amendment Quiz is Warren Richey:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.csmonitor.com/About/Contact/Staff-Writers/Warren-Richey
I already sent Warren Richey via the above link a little bit of information useful for him to use in revising Question #9. I noted to him that there is mo mention in the U.S. Constitution and Amendments of "legitimate sporting purpose" and also pointed out to him what the correct definition of "assault weapon" is.
Correction. Make that Question #10, not #9 that needs revision.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that the quiz brings up the Miller decision then asks this question. If the U.S. military starts using short barreled shotguns just as they now use short barreled rifles, then does that mean that we are then "allowed" to possess them if we jump through the hoops and pay the tax/fee?
It's my understanding that the stand your ground law does not mention the use of firearms. It merely absolves an individual under attack from the necessity of retreating before resorting to any degree of force in self defense. It's still incumbent upon the potential victim to use only what he immediately believes to be reasonable force in a self defense situation. Removing the requirement of retreat does not encourage vigilante acts, it merely recognizes a person's preexisting right to protect himself by whatever means he deems immediately necessary.
ReplyDelete[W3]