2A Quiz from the CSM

I took it a year or so ago, then again last week when it resurfaced. It starts out okay, but then delves into some questions that have no definitive answer, such as this one:

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


Yes.


No.


Probably not.


Impossible at this point to know.

Click to expand...

The answer given by the CSM as being correct is "probably not." But, the use of the word "probably" makes the choice the same as the next one down the list. Remove the word, and the choice becomes the same as the one above it.

9 out of 12 correct. I missed the ones about the origin of the NFA...

I agree that it delves into some undecided issues, relying on opinion justices opinions but not settled case law. I think there will be many more cases, especially in the coming days.

cant say i agree with #10

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

Arobably not.

Click to expand...

ide imagine the correct answer would be "yes" or at the very least "impossible to know" as there has yet to be a supreme court ruling otherwise.

I got 92%. seems somehow the answer for Question 10 is wrong.

In regards to question #10, the Second Amendment must be read with consideration given to the Declaration of Independence. The Second Amendment is not about hunting or the right to self protection from criminals. The Second Amendment is 100% about the right and duty of the citizen, spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, to overthrow a government which has become tyrannical, violating the basic civil rights of the governed. Given that duty, spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is really to ensure that they have the means to throw off such a government, using force if necessary. So, how could the same firepower that the government possess not be allowed to be kept and borne by the citizen of that government?

One has to remember that the founding fathers of this country overthrew their current government by force, using firearms equal to what that government had available at that time.

NAVY, we know the meaning.. we're only pointing out that the CSM, in its use of this question as phrased, does not acknowledge it.
Based on what you (and we) say, the correct choice would, of course, be "yes." But check it (did you try the quiz?), and you'll be marked as having gotten it wrong.

The recommended answer to at least one question is wrong (that the NFA '34 applied only to machine guns, etc., moving in interstate commerce).

They could have clarified question 10 by asking:

Q: Did the Heller ruling find the Second Amendment guarantees a personal right to own assault rifles, machine guns, and perhaps even shoulder-fired missiles?

The question of what is covered under the 2A, number 8 or 9 I think, is wrong. Honestly, that has not been determined by the courts, but it is possible that man portable weapons like belt-fed GPMG's and RPG's would be "arms."
I think they are and the majority opinion in Heller mentions the M-16 and other weapons which are "unusual" among the civilian population as well.

NavyLCDR - I learned as a college freshman that the Founders based our form of self-government heavily on John Locke's ideas of a government that exists and governs only due to the authority granted to it by the governed. Should the governed wish to repair or replace that government with one that works better, Locke argued that citizens had that right. The Founders believed this and that's why they included the Second Amendment. I don't understand why we're called extremists for insisting on rights that were defined by one of the greatest Enlightenment thinkers nearly four centuries before I was born. The idea wasn't mine (or yours) after all, and I'm not the one who included it in the Bill of Rights.
We're just a couple of the guys who won't let people conveniently forget it's there.

I missed the "what led to NFA in 1934 question?" 92%

I missed the "what led to NFA in 1934 question?" 92%

Click to expand...

You weren't the only one. I dispute that the St. Valentine's Day massacre of 1929 led to the NFA fully five years later. There were plenty of intervening events.

With the already stated issues about question 10, and the wording of question 11 leading up to its' correct answer, it is apparent to me that the surveys creator has purposeful intent.
That intent isn't to show fervent support for the 2A.
The websites homepage seems unsupportive of the 2A in a toned down manner, based off of a few other relative topics offered there.

I dispute that the St. Valentine's Day massacre of 1929 led to the NFA fully five years later. There were plenty of intervening events.

Click to expand...

As do I. But it seems plausible CSM might choose to modify history given how these days an event such as that would be leveraged to push for gun control legislation. Linking the 1934 NFA to the VDM would make today's new proposed measures' linkage to Sandy Hook seem more historically precedented.

The 2A guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. It does not specify the type. Therefore, any and all arms that a man might keep and/or bear fall under this protection. So, anything man portable; rifles, shotguns, pistols, muskets, swords, spears, arrows, anti-tank weapons, machine guns, axes, rocks, airguns all fall under this protection. Artillery, battleships, tanks, nukes, and submarines do not, as they are not man portable.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This means that it shall not be reduced, lessened, impeded, or altered in any way. Likewise, any tools, parts, or accessories for man portable arms cannot be outlawed. Doing so infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms. Under the 5th amendment, no individual shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. No blanket gun control can be applied to the population, as it deprives them of their guaranteed rights under the 2A. Since all gun control laws are technically unconsitutional per the 2A, the only due process that would allow control of arms is to repeal the 2A altogether. This is an all or nothing proposition. It's time to take the fight to the Supreme Court under this argument. The 2A is clear, all arms control is in direct violation of the 2A. It must be struck down in it's entirety. If the American people want to control arms, then the only means to do so is to repeal the 2A by passing an amendment and having it ratified by the several states. This way, we'll know who our enemies are who stand against us, and who will stand with us.

So, anything man portable; rifles, shotguns, pistols, muskets, swords, spears, arrows, anti-tank weapons, machine guns, axes, rocks, airguns all fall under this protection. Artillery, battleships, tanks, nukes, and submarines do not, as they are not man portable.

Click to expand...

I disagree that there's a distinction in the 2nd Amendment based on portability. Remember that the classic case of arms seizure that the Founders had in mind, when they wrote the 2nd Amendment, was the British attempt to take the militia's artillery and powder stored at Concord. "Arms," in the 18th century, were all the weapons of a military force, including "ordnance." (On the other hand, "arms" did not include fowling pieces, unless they were perchance pressed into military service.)

As a practical matter, it would be difficult or impossible for a private individual to own a battleship or a nuclear weapon, but following the original logic of the 2nd Amendment, he should be able to. But let's not get caught up in the anti-gunners' technique of reducing this to the absurd.

The militia was the military force to be called upon by the government to fight for the country, to repel invaders.

From that, I'd have to say that the unorganized militia should have parity of weapons with the riflemen of the National Guard and the Army/USMC.

The 2A says "arms". I don't see a distinction as to what arms. If I have the financial wherewithal to own an M1 Abrams I should be allowed to have one.

If you have the money, and keep it beyond the 200 mile limit, you absolutely can own a nuclear submarine, as federal law does not hold international standing. AFAIK

Only missed the 1934 NFA question....thought it was the Bonnie/Clyde, et all answer. Pretty good quiz, other than the hand-held rocket laucher question. Thought the answers weren't definitive enough.