Posted: 12/13/2012 2:37:14 AM EDT
|
I did a search....if it's a dupe, you know the drill.
I would think most on here would ace this. I did OK....I missed #10. 
2nd Amendment Test 
|
|
Quoted: 10/12 I got wrong on the valentines day thing (said Bonnie and clyde etc) and also answered "impossible to know" about machine guns, assault rifles etc, when the right answer is supposedly "probably not" which I don't agree with. Yeah, question 10 was retarded. 'Probably not,' and 'Impossible to know' are pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME ANSWER. |
|
What the hell on #10??
Even if you were biased against, It hasn't been ruled on yet. Earlier in the test they even explained that US v. Miller required some usefulness to a Militia. What is this bullshit? ETA: WTF on #11 too. He couldn't have bought pre-ban magazines even before 2004? Yikes. |
|
Quoted: Even the evidence the author used:Quoted: 10/12 I got wrong on the valentines day thing (said Bonnie and clyde etc) and also answered "impossible to know" about machine guns, assault rifles etc, when the right answer is supposedly "probably not" which I don't agree with. Yeah, question 10 was retarded. 'Probably not,' and 'Impossible to know' are pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME ANSWER. The majority justices in the 2008 Heller decision said the Second However, since the 1934 case indicated that weapons used by the Militia (military weapons) were the ones the 2nd protected, it is impossible to predict what the Supremes would decide.Amendment protects the right of Americans to possess firearms in common use – meaning rifles and handguns commonly used by civilians. The issue may be litigated in a future case, but Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in the Heller decision, suggested that the states and Congress would not violate the Second Amendment by passing and enforcing restrictions on machineguns and specialized military weapons. Clearly, the "impossible to know" is more correct than probably not. |
|
I got number ten wrong but fundamentally disagree with their "correct" answer.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
10/12 I got wrong on the valentines day thing (said Bonnie and clyde etc) and also answered "impossible to know" about machine guns, assault rifles etc, when the right answer is supposedly "probably not" which I don't agree with. Yeah, question 10 was retarded. 'Probably not,' and 'Impossible to know' are pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME ANSWER. my thoughts as well and the one I missed...so they say |
|
They have #10 wrong. The answer is yes. Reading early founding documents should be ample proof even if using the "militia needs argument". "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." "The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." "The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them" |
|
Quoted: I did a search....if it's a dupe, you know the drill. I would think most on here would ace this. I did OK....I missed #10. 2nd Amendment Test http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/470/2ndamtest.jpg I missed #10 as well... Very poorly worded question. Also.......COULD THEY MAKE YOU CLICK MORE BUTTONS IN ORDER TO TAKE THE FUCKING TEST!!?!?! |
|
Like everyone else, I missed #10. Or, rather, they got it wrong. 92% Correct I'd be willing to bet anyone that gets over 80% will likely miss #10, as the more you know about the 2nd Amendment, the less likely you are to choose the bullshit answer they deem correct. |
|
8 and 10. 8 because the Miller case was remanded back to the lower courts as stated because one of the guys was broke and the other died and could not present arguments as to why a sawed off shotgun could in fact be used as a militia weapon. 10 because it damn well does cover those types of weapons. As Pat Henry put it, "every terrible implement of the soldier is an Americans birthright." The Second sets no limits on what "arms" we have a Right to keep and bear. |