# 2nd Amendment Quiz



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 5, 2012)

All you foreigners are exempt 

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


> How much do you know about the Second Amendment? A quiz.



I got 11 of 12 right.  I disagree with the answer to #10.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 5, 2012)

:grins:  Thanks Bill .  I'll have a bash at the test later - playing LOTRO right now


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 5, 2012)

"You answered 10 of 12 questions correctly for a total score of 83%."

I also disagreed with #10.


----------



## K-man (Apr 5, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> All you foreigners are exempt
> 
> 
> 
> I got 11 of 12 right.  I disagree with the answer to #10.


Just who you callin' foreigner?
I wanna play too!          :tantrum:


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 5, 2012)

I got 9 of the 12 right, which I think is pretty good for a dog-tired foreigner whose been drinking .

I tripped up on the one where the answer was "All of the above", the disreputable #10 and why that evil fellow who shot Senator Gifford was able to get his 'large capacity' mags {I still don't believe that the right answer is the right answer on that one :lol:}.

I reckon that shows that you chaps here have done a good job of making clear what the 2nd Amendment is about - take a bow.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 5, 2012)

8 of 12.  Disagreed with several.  Got #10 "right" only because I knew what they would say, not my own opinion.  

High capacity mags... Not evil.  Consider that several mass shootings during and after the ban solved the problem the easy way.  They had extra guns or lots and lots of magazines.


----------



## Buka (Apr 5, 2012)

I'm a retired LEO, I should have gotten all of them. I didn't.

As for disagreeing with any of them, I disagree with anything that prevents good people from protecting themselves and their families from bad people. As simple and naive as that may sound, it's not, it's the only thing that makes any damn sense.


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 5, 2012)

Got 11 or 12, simply because I said "Impossible to know" on one of the questions, instead of "probably not."


----------



## Haakon (Apr 5, 2012)

I got 10:12. Missed 7 and 10. I think their answer to 10 is debatable.

I hate quizzes where they put each question and answer on separate pages. Are they really that desperate to push advertising on their viewers?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 5, 2012)

Grenadier said:


> Got 11 or 12, simply because I said "Impossible to know" on one of the questions, instead of "probably not."



Me too.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 5, 2012)

Haakon said:


> I got 10:12. Missed 7 and 10. I think their answer to 10 is debatable.
> 
> I hate quizzes where they put each question and answer on separate pages. Are they really that desperate to push advertising on their viewers?



Yep, they are.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 6, 2012)

Missed 6 and 9 it was down to two answers and I guessed wrong but if you get less than a 50 percent on that thing whether or not you are from the USA and if you are fluent in English all it proves is you did not take the time to read the choices I mean Starsky v. Hutch, jet fighters, and tanks, and be able to ventilate a soup can....come on.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 6, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> Missed 6 and 9 it was down to two answers and I guessed wrong but if you get less than a 50 percent on that thing whether or not you are from the USA and if you are fluent in English all it proves is you did not take the time to read the choices I mean Starsky v. Hutch, jet fighters, and tanks, and be able to ventilate a soup....come on.



True, but not too many people, IMHO, know much about Miller, including that the layer and defendant did not even show up in court to argue their case; Miller had headed for the hills he came from, and the attorney had not been paid and so did not go to court.  Miller was argued against an empty chair on the defense; the conclusion was inevitable and led to a monstrous injustice that is still being repaired.  By allowing the government's argument that the 2nd Amendment applied to weapons that would or could be used by the 'militia' and then arguing that the short-barreled shotgun Miller was charged with having was not a 'military weapon', the government armed the gun-grabbers with a powerful argument that they clung to for decades; that the 2nd Amendment was a 'militia' right and not an 'individual' right.  I was rather surprised to see the questions about Miller in the test, as well as the subtlety of the answers; not many would know Miller, even fewer would understand what happened then and what it meant.  Good work to them for getting it right.  But yeah, they softballed a few others.


----------



## lklawson (Apr 6, 2012)

Question 10 is an anomaly.  It asks the participant to make an opinion statement about their belief of the intent of the 2nd Amendment, unlike the other 11 questions which ask questions of established fact ("how many X" or "the SCOTUS ruled X").

One of three things is going on with this quiz.
1) The question was poorly stated and could have been better written as something along the lines of, "According to written SCOTUS Opinions and prior rulings the 2nd Amendment protects individual rights to own machine guns, assault weapons, or even rocket launchers." or something similar.
2) The maker of the survey holds this opinion and, for whatever reason, included it in the survey, perhaps as a method of promoting his view.
3) The answer to question 10 was the real focus of a survey disguised as a quiz - i.e. find out what people's opinions are of the intent of the 2nd Amendment and correlate them to how educated they are on the legal history of the 2nd.

Maybe I just have my aluminum foil cap on too tight but 10 really stands out to me and waves a big red flag.

FWIW, I got 10 "wrong" too.  Screw 'em.  From what I can tell from the Founders writings, they intended that private individuals could own grenades, heavy cannon, mortars, and fully armed war vessels and those things were the WMD's of the day.  That doesn't change just because technology advanced.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Apr 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> True, but not too many people, IMHO, know much about Miller, including that the layer and defendant did not even show up in court to argue their case; Miller had headed for the hills he came from, and the attorney had not been paid and so did not go to court.  Miller was argued against an empty chair on the defense; the conclusion was inevitable and led to a monstrous injustice that is still being repaired.  By allowing the government's argument that the 2nd Amendment applied to weapons that would or could be used by the 'militia' and then arguing that the short-barreled shotgun Miller was charged with having was not a 'military weapon', the government armed the gun-grabbers with a powerful argument that they clung to for decades; that the 2nd Amendment was a 'militia' right and not an 'individual' right.  I was rather surprised to see the questions about Miller in the test, as well as the subtlety of the answers; not many would know Miller, even fewer would understand what happened then and what it meant.


It's a double edged sword and most of those favoring the "military serviceability" seem to forget that, when pairing that test with the individual right which has now been upheld by the SCOTUS, it opens the door to arguing that individuals have a 2nd A. right to own "machine guns," "assault weapons," and "rocket launchers."  I'm reminded of the old saw, "be careful what you wish for."  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Apr 9, 2012)

lklawson said:


> Question 10 is an anomaly.  It asks the participant to make an opinion statement about their belief of the intent of the 2nd Amendment, unlike the other 11 questions which ask questions of established fact ("how many X" or "the SCOTUS ruled X").
> 
> One of three things is going on with this quiz.
> 1) The question was poorly stated and could have been better written as something along the lines of, "According to written SCOTUS Opinions and prior rulings the 2nd Amendment protects individual rights to own machine guns, assault weapons, or even rocket launchers." or something similar.
> ...


To test out the above theories, I clicked on the 50 question, "Are you scientifically literate" 'quiz'.  I was doing pretty good, clicking through questions about heaviest Noble Gas, most common gas in the atmo, that kinda stuff.  On question 10, I got hit with "How old is the Earth?" and was presented with four answers, one of them being 4.5 Billion and one of them being ~6,000 years.  6K is how old certain Creationists date the Earth based on some genealogies in the Bible.

I also took part of the Money Management "quiz" and found a few questions which might be interesting to some people/orgs about what the people taking the quiz know about stuff like FICO and Sallie Mae repayment.

I think the Christian Science Monitor is data-mining these quizzes.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## punisher73 (Apr 9, 2012)

lklawson said:


> To test out the above theories, I clicked on the 50 question, "Are you scientifically literate" 'quiz'. I was doing pretty good, clicking through questions about heaviest Noble Gas, most common gas in the atmo, that kinda stuff. On question 10, I got hit with "How old is the Earth?" and was presented with four answers, one of them being 4.5 Billion and one of them being ~6,000 years. 6K is how old certain Creationists date the Earth based on some genealogies in the Bible.
> 
> I also took part of the Money Management "quiz" and found a few questions which might be interesting to some people/orgs about what the people taking the quiz know about stuff like FICO and Sallie Mae repayment.
> 
> ...



I didn't go to the other quizzes, but how some questions/answers were worded, there was a specific purpose behind them beyond testing the knowledge of the 2nd amendmant.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 9, 2012)

Well... the survey was from the CHRISTIAN SCIENCE Monitor...  And Christian Science does kind of have an agenda & POV.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 9, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> Well... the survey was from the CHRISTIAN SCIENCE Monitor...  And Christian Science does kind of have an agenda & POV.



I think the CSM is reasonably clean of that sort of taint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_Monitor



> The paper has been known for avoiding sensationalism, producing a "distinctive brand of nonhysterical journalism".[4][5] In 1997, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, a publication critical of United States policy in the Middle East, praised the Monitor for its objective and informative coverage of Islam and the Middle East.[6]


----------



## Josh Oakley (Apr 9, 2012)

lklawson said:


> It's a double edged sword and most of those favoring the "military serviceability" seem to forget that, when pairing that test with the individual right which has now been upheld by the SCOTUS, it opens the door to arguing that individuals have a 2nd A. right to own "machine guns," "assault weapons," and "rocket launchers."  I'm reminded of the old saw, "be careful what you wish for."
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Actually, I am all for it.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## lklawson (Apr 9, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Actually, I am all for it.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


I was referring to the liberal "gun grabbers" who want to apply the "military serviceability" test.  Adding that to the recently upheld Individual Right means military grade weapons as an individual right.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Josh Oakley (Apr 9, 2012)

lklawson said:


> I was referring to the liberal "gun grabbers" who want to apply the "military serviceability" test.  Adding that to the recently upheld Individual Right means military grade weapons as an individual right.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk




Oh, well that is dumb. So many people misunderstand the term "regulated" in "well regulated militia". Many people forget that "regulate" refers to an external control. In the case of the 2nd amendment, the people are the control AGAINST the militia, this being necessary to the security of a FREE state.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Big Don (Apr 9, 2012)

I love this answer:


> Bank robbers, drug dealers, and mob enforcers must be given an  opportunity to register their firearms with local authorities and then  become eligible for a professional discount on licensing fees.


I concur, # 10 is a crock of ****...


> You answered 10 of 12 questions correctly for a total score of 83%.


My estimate on gun ownership was ridiculously low...


----------



## lklawson (Apr 10, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Oh, well that is dumb. So many people misunderstand the term "regulated" in "well regulated militia". Many people forget that "regulate" refers to an external control. In the case of the 2nd amendment, the people are the control AGAINST the militia, this being necessary to the security of a FREE state.


There has been significant scholarship surrounding the phrase "well regulated."  Currently, the best research seems to indicate that "well regulated" means "running smoothly and efficiently" similarly to how a modern Yoghurt commercial would tout its benefits to "regulate" your digestion.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## pgsmith (Apr 10, 2012)

> My estimate on gun ownership was ridiculously low...


  Sorry! It's Texas' fault since we all have 6 or 7 guns of various type sitting around.


----------



## David43515 (Apr 11, 2012)

9/12 I missed the dreaded #10 on opinion, and was thrown on another by the phrase "across state lines".


----------



## lklawson (Apr 11, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> Sorry! It's Texas' fault since we all have 6 or 7 guns of various type sitting around.


It's funny that you mention that.  Estimates on number of individuals who own firearms range from 80 million to 150 million. Estimates of number of privately owned firearms range around 250 million to 300 million.  Divide out the estimated number of guns evenly between them and, at the extremes, that could be something like 3 3/4 guns per owner.  Now we also know that many of these gun owners own only one firearm which skews the results.  Well, if statistics has taught me anything it's that there is probably a Bell Curve or a modified Bell for ownership and many of us are actually pushing the curve to the right because we're collectors.

For me, anyway, it's not just about "guns," though I admit I'm one of those pushing the curve to the right.  It's a general life-long obsession with martial arts.  I have spears, clubs, knives, sticks, swords, and all manner of weapons as part of my larger "collection," some of which are "working weapons" and some are for "display only" (no, I'm not going to take my damascus bowies out camping and my antique Napoleonic cav saber is not going out into the salle).



Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Josh Oakley (Apr 12, 2012)

lklawson said:


> There has been significant scholarship surrounding the phrase "well regulated."  Currently, the best research seems to indicate that "well regulated" means "running smoothly and efficiently" similarly to how a modern Yoghurt commercial would tout its benefits to "regulate" your digestion.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Um.. Yoghurt would be again an external influence _causing_ the proper digestion.

In any event, there is not a consensus of "best research".

The point of the Bill of rights was:
_THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire,* in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, *that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
_
Now keep in mind that the point of the militia was to execute the laws of the Union, *prevent insurrection,* and repel invasion.

The regulation against the militia is the _people_ keeping and bearing arms.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 12, 2012)

I got the first 2 right then quit i hate hitting next next next next nexr blah blah blah just let me answer the questions already give me the answers at the end


----------



## chinto (Apr 14, 2012)

i got all but 2 and I disagree with 10 as well.  the other was a history lesson call.... started over the st valentine massacre, but Dillinger and the boys helped get it through... not that it ever kept an automatic weapon or shotgun out of a criminals hands since 1934 ever!


----------



## wingerjim (Apr 17, 2012)

Bill,

     I too got 11 of 12. The one about what you can own per the 2nd amendment got me, as the answer was "Probably Not".....not my idea of the right answer. People can own all those different weapons with the right permits and background checks.....ever watch Sons of Guns....those guys get access to all kinds of stuff.


----------



## skribs (Nov 15, 2013)

It's out of 15 for me, I got 12 right, so 80%.  One was an incorrect guess on a court statement, the other two I disagreed with.  I am a purist and I believe that without an amendment making 2A null and void, there should be no restrictions on the right of free men to keep and bear arms.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Nov 16, 2013)

Just got 9 correct.  Not to good on some of the DC stuff.


----------

