Showing posts with label 2nd Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2nd Amendment. Show all posts

Friday, June 21, 2013

2nd Amendment Quiz--my results



 

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

Quiz results

Your score
Average reader score
Expert score
8
Correct
7
Wrong
53%
You answered 8 of 15 questions correctly for a total score of 53%.
71%

·                                  

Do you know Chechnya? Take the quiz

·                                  

How much do you know about Myanmar? Take this quiz and find out.

·                                  

What do you know about GMOs? Take the quiz

·                                  

How much do you know about the Trayvon Martin case? Take our quiz!

·                                  

Think you know Turkey? Take our country quiz.

·                                  

Test your St. Louis Cardinals baseball IQ

·                                  

Can you manage your money? A personal finance quiz.

·                                  

Are you a weddings expert? Take the quiz.

·                                  

Test your Gangnam style?

·                                  

How much do you know about pop culture? Take our quiz to find out!

·                                  

'Star Trek': How well do you know the Trek universe?

·                                  

American moms: What makes a mom in the US? Take our quiz

Your results

Question
Your Response
Correct Answer
Score
Which right is protected by the Second Amendment?
Keep and bear arms
Keep and bear arms

Which is the correct text of the Second Amendment?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Constitutional scholars have long debated whether the Second Amendment protects the private possession of firearms or only the possession of firearms in the context of a well-regulated militia. The US Supreme Court examined the question in a 2008 case. What was the name of that landmark decision?

District of Columbia v. Heller

What issue was at stake in the 2008 Heller case?
All of the above.
All of the above.

What did the Supreme Court decide in the 2008 case?
Americans have a fundamental right to own and openly carry weaponry useful to a modern-day militia – except missiles, artillery, jet fighters, and tanks.
Residents of a federal enclave, like Washington, D.C., have a constitutional right to possess handguns and other commonly available firearms for personal protection in their homes.

Prior to 2008, the US Supreme Court last decided a case involving the Second Amendment in 1939. The case, US v. Miller, was a challenge to the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934. What did that federal law require?
Registration of machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and other “gangster weapons” carried across state lines.
Registration of machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and other “gangster weapons” carried across state lines.

What prompted Congress to pass the National Firearms Act of 1934?

The use of two Thompson submachine guns in Chicago’s 1929 St. Valentine’s Day massacre.

In the 1939 case, US v. Miller, two men were caught with an unlicensed sawed-off, double-barrel shotgun that they had transported from Oklahoma to Arkansas. They claimed the federal license requirement violated their Second Amendment rights. What did the court decide?
A shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches lacks any reasonable relationship to a well regulated militia. Since the weapon would not be useful to a militia, it was beyond the protection of the Second Amendment.
A shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches lacks any reasonable relationship to a well regulated militia. Since the weapon would not be useful to a militia, it was beyond the protection of the Second Amendment.

In 2010, the Supreme Court took up another landmark Second Amendment case, McDonald v. Chicago. What was the issue the high court decided?
Whether the court’s 2008 ruling establishing a constitutional right to possess handguns in Washington, D.C., would also apply to all state and local governments across the country.
Whether the court’s 2008 ruling establishing a constitutional right to possess handguns in Washington, D.C., would also apply to all state and local governments across the country.

Does the Second Amendment guarantee a personal right to own fully automatic military-issued combat rifles, heavy machine guns, and perhaps even shoulder-fired missiles?
No.
Probably not.

Does the Second Amendment guarantee a personal right to own semi-automatic rifles that resemble the fully-automatic military versions of the same firearm?
Yes.
Not clear at this point.

Following the 2008 Supreme Court ruling overturning the handgun ban, the District of Columbia City Council passed a new gun control measure, this one banning “assault weapons.” The Council defined “assault weapons” as semi-automatic rifles and pistols with certain military features. The new ban was challenged in federal court. A federal appeals court in October 2011 voted 2 to 1 to uphold the ban. What did the court say?

All of the above.

Gun rights advocates filed a new complaint in 2012 seeking to overturn the District of Columbia’s assault weapons ban. The lead plaintiff is Dick Heller, the same gun owner who successfully fought the District’s handgun ban. To challenge the assault weapons ban, Mr. Heller attempted to register a semi-automatic rifle he uses for target shooting, a Bushmaster XM-15-E2S. Which of the following individuals also used a Bushmaster XM-15-E2S?

All of the above.

In 1994, Congress passed a ban on certain semi-automatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. How was Jared Loughner, the admitted gunman in the 2011 shooting spree involving Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, able to purchase 30-round magazines for his pistol?
The 1994 federal assault weapons ban and restrictions on large capacity magazines expired in 2004 and have not been renewed by Congress.
The 1994 federal assault weapons ban and restrictions on large capacity magazines expired in 2004 and have not been renewed by Congress.

According to the National Rifle Association, how many privately-owned guns are currently in the United States?
More than 250 million.
More than 250 million.


Friday, June 14, 2013

Understanding The 2nd Amendment


THESE ARE NOT MY PERSONAL COMMENTS---

The 2nd Amendment---From Corwin and Peltason's Understanding the Constitution (7th Edition) pg 144

Pg 144 Militia and the Right to Bear Arms

“”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (this refers to “”state”” in the generic sense rather to states of the Union), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.””

There has been no definitive ruling on the matter, but the weight of opinion of most informed commentators is that the amendment was designed to prevent Congress from disarming the state militias, not to prevent it from regulating private ownership of firearms. In upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of sawed-off shotguns, the Court found no evidence that such weapons had any reasonable relationship “”to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”” The Second Amendment, it held, “”must be interpreted and applied”” with a view to maintaining a militia. “”The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia—civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.”” (note 124 from US v Miller 1939)

The Supreme Court has never listed this amendment as being one of those provisions of the Bill of Rights that limits the power of the state governments. As Justice Douglas wrote in an opinion dissenting on another point, “”A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that…gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment…There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.”” (note 125 from Adams V. Williams 1972)



AMENDMENT 2

BEARING ARMS

Amendment 2
""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.""
The protection afforded by this amendment prevents infringement by Congress of the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose, but does not apply to such infringement by private citizens. For this reason an indictment under the Enforcement Act of 1870,[1] charging a conspiracy to prevent Negroes from bearing arms for lawful purposes was held defective.[2] A State statute which forbids bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, does not abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms.[3] In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, the Court refused to hold invalid a provision in the National Firearms Act[4] against the transportation of unregistered shotguns in interstate commerce.[5]


MILITIA ACT 1792  http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

MILITIA under control of President (as Commander in Chief) and Congress---NOT to fight government tyranny




 WEAPONS and laws of Militia


ANOTHER great piece on MILITIA, 2nd Amendment and what Founders had in mind

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/fieldsandhardy.html  

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Piers Morgan wrong on 2nd Amendment


Time to correct Piers Morgan again---this time on the 2nd Amendment

here is the first time Piers was wrong---on ""no guns in England""
http://libdem2.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-truth-about-guns-in-england-and-uk.html 


On his program Wednesday June 12, 2013 he showed the story of the grandmother who defended herself against an intruder with her gun---Piers said “”this is what the 2nd amendment is for---for people to defend themselves””

No—it was NOT written for an individual right to own guns for self defense---OR as NRA and pro gun lobbies say “”to defend against govt tyranny”” either.

The 2nd Amendment was SIMPLY creating a reserve army of Americans who would defend America and the states from external invasion and internal insurrections----essentially an internal police force or military, but without a standing army which the Founders feared because of their experiences with English rule and their history as Englishmen.

Constitution Article 1 Section 8 (Congress can create an army but only for 2 years at a time)

***To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

***To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article 2 Section 2
***The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

Militia Act of 1792
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm


Militia Act and weapons---sorry no tanks allowed


Origin of the 2nd Amendment and English history

Thursday, February 21, 2013

My response to Emily Gets Her Gun

I saw today’s Washington Journal (Thursday, February 21, 2013)

I am not anti gun but am anti gun violence and mass murder

First thing---as you said---LOCK YOUR DOOR!!! Ok good ----also I recommend an alarm for your doors and windows----also security cameras are good as well---OK good

Next is DON’T FOLLOW CRIMINALS-----even if you are armed in a future event

Next thing is don’t assume they were drug users--but alright for now

ALSO VERY IMPORTANT-----THEY WALKED OUT OF YOUR HOME-----if you don’t keep your gun ON YOU at all times or locked when not in use it is more likely that it will be used AGAINST YOU if someone burglarizes your home

My house was broken into TWICE both times no one was home----once for a whole week and once for the whole day---if I had a gun at home and it wasn’t locked up where would it be now???

Guns stolen from homes--from Christian Science Monitor



Ok so you have a gun—great!!

Train yourself in using it
http://www.tacticalparadise.com/001/

---and keep it safe at home---

Also as a gun owner for protection I would love if you---and other gun owners who use it for protection---carry everywhere or just at home----



Firearms Kept for Home Security

The decision to maintain a firearm in the home for self-protection is a serious, personal matter. Unlike passive safety devices, such as alarm systems, firearms used for home protection require significantly more involvement by the owner. Any added safety benefit that may be derived from a firearm depends in large measure on the owner's commitment to appropriate training and a clear understanding of safe handling and storage rules. Are your security concerns realistic and consistent with local crime rates? Do other adults in your household support the decision to maintain a gun in the house? If they will have access to the firearm, will they join you in a firearms training and safety program? What precautions will be practiced to safeguard children? Do risk factors such as drug and alcohol abuse exist within your household? In addition, issues such as individual temperament, reaction to emergency situations, and specific family circumstances should also enter in the decision.
If you must have quick access to a loaded firearm in your home, you need to take special safety measures. Keeping a gun to defend your family makes no sense if that same gun puts your family members or visitors to your home at risk. Many home firearms accidents occur when unauthorized individuals, often visitors, discover loaded firearms that were carelessly left out in the open.
If you choose to keep a firearm for home security, your objective should be to create a situation in which the firearm is readily available to you, yet inaccessible or inoperative to others. Special lockable cases that can be quickly opened only by authorized individuals are options to consider.
You must exercise full control and supervision over a loaded gun at all times. This means the gun must be unloaded and placed in secure storage whenever you leave the gun in your home or elsewhere. Secure ammunition separately.
Your most important responsibility is ensuring that unsupervised children cannot encounter loaded firearms. The precautions you take must be completely effective. Anything less invites tragedy and is a serious violation of your responsibility as a gun owner.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

The Stupidest Argument Ever Made




This from a gun dealer in NY--- > > > “If a citizen, you know, can’t own it, I don’t understand the reasoning why the law enforcement community should have it.”

The secret to gun dealers and makers is that they sell to police and military at a discount, and then advertise these guns to civilians, full price, as “”the ones the cops and military have””   see this interview    http://www.npr.org/2012/12/20/167694808/assault-style-weapons-in-the-civilian-market   

If a citizen wants to own the guns that police get, OR get the chance to arrest people, go on stakeouts, drive police cars (or open the door from the inside)

THEN ITS TIME TO APPLY TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT

There is a reason cops get some special privileges that normal citizens don’t get----they deal with criminals every day as a job description.

Cops can carry guns into banks---even though ordinary people cannot
Cops can arrest with probable cause---normal citizens can arrest ONLY IF THEY SEE THE CRIME BEING COMMITTED----a citizens arrest

COPS should get special access to guns and ammo because they have a different job description----same as soldiers should get special access---that normal citizens who are hunting, target practice, or self defense should not be able to get

There is an argument that criminals can get guns and they don’t care about laws----BUT they can only get what is legally available---or privately sold through loopholes which we should close.

Saturday, February 2, 2013

reporting on guns


Best reporting on Guns ---my list updated February 2, 2013

A list of the best articles, reports, pictures etc not in any particular order

News on Recent shootings

fact checking gun statements

a conservative judge in favor of assault weapons ban

Op-Ed from Mark Kelly and Gabrielle Giffords on gun control and their new PAC

The Truth about Fast and Furious

Fast and Furious Follow-Up article

Fast and Furious radio interview

Fast and Furious radio interview part 2


Guns in Israel


Israel rejects NRA claims


more guns less rules more deaths




violent death is gun death



your brain during a shootout—its not like tv

parent group that does school security is unarmed

NRA sues over bulk gun sales

liberal gun owner

liberal gun owner

who is confiscating guns??

liberal gun owner

Assault weapons ban graph—violence went down



how shooters get their guns


OCCUPY movement proves nonviolence works better against govt

laws against gun research

best reporting on guns from ProPubica

Reducing Gun Violence study

Reagan writes for the Brady Bill

Why Switzerland is not an example for US gun laws



Why Switzerland is not an example for US gun laws part 2

Reagan ""no AK47""  picture


NRA vs military on guns and suicides

NRA vs military on guns and suicides

Militias and the US Constitution—a history of intent

Background checks work



Border Patrol Memorial Page (Brian Terry and Fast and Furious)

Gun control facts

















Friday, February 1, 2013

Some of my thoughts on gun ownership




I am not anti gun
I am anti gun violence—especially mass murders

I believe in ammo capacity limits, background checks, permits that are reregistered annually with mandatory safety training, (armed guards in NYS need 47 hours annual training) a national registry, microstamping, safety techniques, locks and safes for guns, marksmanship training and self defense training with emphasis on rules of engagement

I am against Stand Your Ground—its ridiculous to give such broad legality to self defense---make shooters stand their ground ON THEIR REASONS and not give them an off the hook legality---shooters need to know that self defense ONLY applies to immediate threat of life—NOT when people turn or stop the attack—make every shooter face police evidence and a trial like everyone else does

The law in NYS says 5 reasons to use deadly force—rape sodomy murder attempted murder and robbery—Know the law and follow it—self defense is universal but needs to be applied legally and knowledgably—its not a reason to kill people and say self defense later----same with guns--

I am anti NRA because they have politicized the gun issue so that any regulation to stop gun violence is skewed as an attempt to seize all guns or abolish the 2nd Amendment

Microstamping for example should be a no brainer—it will only matter if you are a criminal or your gun was stolen—why is the NRA against this??
Same with the NRA’s hatred of law enforcement agencies like ATF and other gun research such as CDC—(see Tiahrt amendment)— because gun research would say that guns are dangerous—when guns are present they are used in crimes, violence and suicide AND self defense

Fast and Furious was an issue of LEGAL straw purchase sales in Arizona—ATF was building a case but its hard to build a case when purchases are legal because NRA wants no restrictions on gun sales—like a limit of 2 per month etc

Fast and Furious

I love the Constitution and believe in the Bill of Rights—they protect our God Given Inalienable Rights from abuses brought on by other people OR our government

But the 2nd Amendment WAS NOT an individual right to bear arms—it was to set up a militia—intended by the Founders to be a national trained regulated citizen army in place of a standing army to defend—as Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says—against insurrection and invasion when called upon by Congress.

Militia and the Constitution



Saturday, January 19, 2013

My response to ""more guns less crime""

This blog post responds specifically to this article www.thetrenches.us/2012/12/the-moral-case-for-less-gun-control/


as a liberal who bases my arguments on facts I have many issues with it—

1) govt is established to PROTECT our inalienable rights—not take them away—the Founders just threw out a king and set up a new government---they didn’t want to create a govt that could create more kings or collect power in any one branch—so they made 3 branches that check and balance (and today can blame each other)

2) the idea that a gun in the home would protect you against burglars---now two issues right here

            1) 5 crimes (at least in NYS) can be stopped with deadly force—murder, manslaughter, sodomy, rape and robbery (robbery is theft with a weapon used)

            2) the example used in your article---states that the burglars then break into another house and steal their guns—so either they were not home, the guns were not properly locked up and having guns didn’t stop the burglary

Then there’s this “”A microscopic fraction of high-capacity weapons are used in crimes. So high-cap mags must be banned? But, I thought they loved democracy? Wouldn’t that be “majority rule”, rather than tyranny of the minority?””

Here is my answer to this—there are thousands of gun deaths every year—I’ve heard different numbers from 10,000 to 30,000—most are handguns and include suicides, accidents, street gang crime and murders between family members—mass murders account for less than 100 deaths in most years—2012 had 120

So if majority ruled we would outlaw handguns—which no one is doing—partly because mass shootings get more media attention, partly because of race—most killed are young black//latino men killed by young black//latino men and because any gun has to have at least one bullet and one bullet can still kill one person (which is why I’m strongly in favor of civilian limits on ammo capacity)

Then there’s this as well---“”The point is this: top down policies never solve highly individualized problems. This is why I advocate federalism. Localized rule.  The government closest to individual citizens can best respond to individual issues. And they usually have more reverence for Natural Law.””
There has to be a balance of States’ Rights and Fed govt---end of sentence--- they have different roles and both make general rules of safety—Fed deals with other nations and interstate issues.
And then your argument about Hitler Cambodia etc as I’ve heard everywhere recently---here is a fact check from 2009---these comparisons that gun control was the ONLY factor in leading to mass murder leaves out many factors that lead to these genocides

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

The Truth about Guns in England and UK

Since Newtown the talk about guns has often included the UK as an example.

Monday night January 14, 2013 Piers Morgan was on The Colbert Report and said (paraphrasing some of his quotes) ""there are no guns in England, the police don't have guns and there are no guns and we have 35-40 gun murders every year""

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/422859/january-14-2013/piers-morgan

So what are the facts?? Well first of all ""the police dont carry guns"" struck me as false when after the 7/7/05 bombings in London police famously shot a Brazilian man in the subway who they believed was a terrorist.

U.K. Police Shoot Man Dead at London Subway Station (Update5)
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ayUaKAcZlbsA&refer=top_world_news
quote from the article--->>  ""Most British police officers on daily patrols aren't armed. Only specially trained officers carry firearms.""

Also some numbers on general guns in UK from
 www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

Number of Privately Owned Firearms

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United Kingdom is 4,060,000
In the United Kingdom, annual deaths resulting from firearms total 

2009: 13812


United States 

2009: 31,347