Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

A 2nd Amendment Quiz


Subdeacon Joe

Recommended Posts

I got 11/12. They were wrong on what arms THEY think the 2nd Amendment protects. At the time of the writing the Bill of Rights the arms allowed for civilian use were the same as what the military had. That means we the people have the right to the same weapons the military has today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got 11/12. They were wrong on what arms THEY think the 2nd Amendment protects. At the time of the writing the Bill of Rights the arms allowed for civilian use were the same as what the military had. That means we the people have the right to the same weapons the military has today.

 

That is also what the Miller decision says. But in Heller it was hedged and Scalia wrote that it likely doesn't. To me, the most correct of the answers on that question is the last one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is also what the Miller decision says. But in Heller it was hedged and Scalia wrote that it likely doesn't. To me, the most correct of the answers on that question is the last one.

I missed that question also, as I answered "impossible to tell".

 

The rest were hard to get wrong, as most of the distractors were kinda out there- Starsky vs. Hutch?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got 11/12. They were wrong on what arms THEY think the 2nd Amendment protects. At the time of the writing the Bill of Rights the arms allowed for civilian use were the same as what the military had. That means we the people have the right to the same weapons the military has today.

 

 

 

Yup...Me too 11/12 .

 

And I agree wif ya too !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

How well do you do?

 

12/12 for me.

 

Okay.. so I had no IDEA so many people were armed.. lol,... Missed the last one.. geesh... I am out gunned ..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay.. so I had no IDEA so many people were armed.. lol,... Missed the last one.. geesh... I am out gunned ..

 

Try reading it again:

According to the National Rifle Association, how many privately-owned guns are currently in the United States?

 

Not how many people own guns, but how many guns are owned. Estimates for number of gun owners in the US range from about 65 million to close to 100 million. Average household size is about 2.6, so if the below is correct, then about 109,000,000 have ready access to at least one firearm. (which means that only .o3% of people with access to guns will shoot and kill someone. And about .09% will injure someone)

 

 

see http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15.full

 

Inj Prev 2007;13:15-19 doi:10.1136/ip.2006.013607

 

Original Article

 

The US gun stock: results from the 2004 national firearms survey

 

L Hepburn,

M Miller,

D Azrael,

D Hemenway

 

+ Author Affiliations

 

Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

 

Correspondence to:
 Dr D Hemenway
 Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; hemenway@hsph.harvard.edu

 

Accepted 4 October 2006

 

Abstract

 

Objectives: To examine the size and composition of the privately held firearm stock in the US; and to describe demographic patterns of firearm ownership and motivations for ownership.

 

Design, setting and participants: A nationally representative household telephone survey of 2770 adults aged ≥18 years living in the US, conducted in the spring of 2004.

 

Main outcome measure: Responses to questions regarding firearm ownership, the number and types of guns owned, and motivations for ownership.

 

Results: 38% of households and 26% of individuals reported owning at least one firearm. This corresponds to 42 million US households with firearms, and 57 million adult gun owners. 64% of gun owners or 16% of American adults reported owning at least one handgun. Long guns represent 60% of the privately held gun stock. Almost half (48%) of all individual gun owners reported owning ≥4 firearms. Men more often reported firearm ownership, with 45% stating that they personally owned at least one firearm, compared with 11% for women.

 

Conclusions: The US population continues to contain at least one firearm for every adult, and ownership is becoming increasingly concentrated. Long guns are the most prevalent type of gun in the US but handgun ownership is widespread. Ownership demographic patterns support findings of previous studies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try reading it again:

 

Not how many people own guns, but how many guns are owned. Estimates for number of gun owners in the US range from about 65 million to close to 100 million. Average household size is about 2.6, so if the below is correct, then about 109,000,000 have ready access to at least one firearm. (which means that only .o3% of people with access to guns will shoot and kill someone. And about .09% will injure someone)

 

 

see http://injuryprevent...nt/13/1/15.full

 

 

 

 

Okay.. I get it.. so I am one of the few who could injure someone.. The thing is I would not hurt a fly, unless you try to pull my wings off, or hurt someone I LOVE....Then I can be a problem.. lol I protect my own, and I have proven that in the past.. lol.. geesh..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay.. I get it.. so I am one of the few who could injure someone.. The thing is I would not hurt a fly, unless you try to pull my wings off, or hurt someone I LOVE....Then I can be a problem.. lol I protect my own, and I have proven that in the past.. lol.. geesh..

 

 

You saying that you could be part of the .09%?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You saying that you could be part of the .09%?

 

 

Dont know subs... I am who I am.. if that is part of the 09%.. then that is who I am..

 

i LOVE shooting and guns, and I would protect my family no matter what it took.. but

yeah, I am pretty easy going and the only way I would pull a gun if it were life or death, and I DO know that for a fact.. I have done it to save my own life. And yeah, I would do it again.. Cuz I do want to live..

 

I am not the sort of person who gives up on life easily. I am the sort of person who accepts defeat, and moves one to build a better life when given the choice.. I do not compete in most of lifes games of the heart... If I have to play a game.. then I guit.. I give.. you win... Not a game player. Dont like games.. in fact, clearly I hate games.. and i HATE anti stuff too..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got 11/12. They were wrong on what arms THEY think the 2nd Amendment protects. At the time of the writing the Bill of Rights the arms allowed for civilian use were the same as what the military had. That means we the people have the right to the same weapons the military has today.

 

I would assert that from the foundation of the right as an anglo-saxon duty, the citizenry had the right to carry weapons of a personal nature, while the government had ownership of larger weapons. Think cannons and the like. That is different than "the same weapons the military has." By today's standards, that means the government has control over anything of a crew served nature. Light, medium and heavy machine guns are technically "crew served," and would be the province of the government, as well as anything larger. Semi-automatic assault type rifles clearly are not, and should fall under the protection of the Second Amendment. RPGs, anti-tank weapons and the like also tend to fall under the government ownership because of their need for more than one person to effectively carry ammunition and the fact that they are explosive devices. At least, that is my humble opinion.

 

Oh, I missed the St. Valentine's Day Massacre question on a coin flip. I drew a blank, but knew it was that or the depression era gangsters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I missed the St. Valentine's Day Massacre question on a coin flip. I drew a blank, but knew it was that or the depression era gangsters.

I also tossed a mental coin on that one, but got it right.

 

 

 

Inj Prev 2007;13:15-19 doi:10.1136/ip.2006.013607

 

Original Article

 

The US gun stock: results from the 2004 national firearms survey

 

L Hepburn,

M Miller,

D Azrael,

D Hemenway

 

+ Author Affiliations

 

Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

 

Correspondence to:
 Dr D Hemenway
 Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; hemenway@hsph.harvard.edu

 

Accepted 4 October 2006

 

Abstract

 

Objectives: To examine the size and composition of the privately held firearm stock in the US; and to describe demographic patterns of firearm ownership and motivations for ownership.

 

Design, setting and participants: A nationally representative household telephone survey of 2770 adults aged ≥18 years living in the US, conducted in the spring of 2004.

 

Main outcome measure: Responses to questions regarding firearm ownership, the number and types of guns owned, and motivations for ownership.

 

Results: 38% of households and 26% of individuals reported owning at least one firearm. This corresponds to 42 million US households with firearms, and 57 million adult gun owners. 64% of gun owners or 16% of American adults reported owning at least one handgun. Long guns represent 60% of the privately held gun stock. Almost half (48%) of all individual gun owners reported owning ≥4 firearms. Men more often reported firearm ownership, with 45% stating that they personally owned at least one firearm, compared with 11% for women.

 

Conclusions: The US population continues to contain at least one firearm for every adult, and ownership is becoming increasingly concentrated. Long guns are the most prevalent type of gun in the US but handgun ownership is widespread. Ownership demographic patterns support findings of previous studies.

:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would assert that from the foundation of the right as an anglo-saxon duty, the citizenry had the right to carry weapons of a personal nature, while the government had ownership of larger weapons. Think cannons and the like. That is different than "the same weapons the military has." By today's standards, that means the government has control over anything of a crew served nature. Light, medium and heavy machine guns are technically "crew served," and would be the province of the government, as well as anything larger. Semi-automatic assault type rifles clearly are not, and should fall under the protection of the Second Amendment. RPGs, anti-tank weapons and the like also tend to fall under the government ownership because of their need for more than one person to effectively carry ammunition and the fact that they are explosive devices. At least, that is my humble opinion.

 

Oh, I missed the St. Valentine's Day Massacre question on a coin flip. I drew a blank, but knew it was that or the depression era gangsters.

 

Think of the power of Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal. To whom are those granted? Private citizens. Usually owners of merchant vessels. To take on ships at sea, they needed cannon, which implies private ownership of cannon. Otherwise you have Congress granting letters of marque to the Navy, which doesn't make sense. And going into the Civil War there were a fair number of privately raised batteries that were brought into the army on both sides.

 

And, from someone closer to the debate than any of us were. Tench Coxe wrote:

 

The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. [82] 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 birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the foederal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people
taken from http://davekopel.org/2a/LawRev/hk-coxe.htm

 

He doesn't differentiate between personal and crew served.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would assert that from the foundation of the right as an anglo-saxon duty, the citizenry had the right to carry weapons of a personal nature, while the government had ownership of larger weapons. Think cannons and the like. That is different than "the same weapons the military has." By today's standards, that means the government has control over anything of a crew served nature. Light, medium and heavy machine guns are technically "crew served," and would be the province of the government, as well as anything larger. Semi-automatic assault type rifles clearly are not, and should fall under the protection of the Second Amendment. RPGs, anti-tank weapons and the like also tend to fall under the government ownership because of their need for more than one person to effectively carry ammunition and the fact that they are explosive devices. At least, that is my humble opinion.

 

Oh, I missed the St. Valentine's Day Massacre question on a coin flip. I drew a blank, but knew it was that or the depression era gangsters.

 

I thought there were cannons in a lot of towns and villages under the control of the local Militia. Also I believe there were cannons on Privateer vessels in the 1700's. Therefore cannons were available to those that could afford them.

 

The 2nd ammendment was intended as a defense against a rogue government. For that to be the case today a locallity would have to have the right to fighter jets, battle ships and nukes. Not practical on any level, but within my understanding of the intent of the 2nd ammendment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a bone to pick with question #2. The CORRECT ORIGINAL writing of the Second Amendment is "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."

 

ONE COMMA in the entire thing. The additional commas only serve to cloud the full and original meaning and have allowed (encouraged) many to put their own spin of the meaning. confusing the issue.

 

Reda it aloud both ways and you'll see the difference in the power of the original version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11/12

 

Missed #10 - I don't support the 'probably not' answer....but...whatever...stupid test with some lame choices for answers...:lol:

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a bone to pick with question #2. The CORRECT ORIGINAL writing of the Second Amendment is "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."

 

ONE COMMA in the entire thing. The additional commas only serve to cloud the full and original meaning and have allowed (encouraged) many to put their own spin of the meaning. confusing the issue.

 

Reda it aloud both ways and you'll see the difference in the power of the original version.

 

Our ancestors used commas with a prodigality we find daunting and excessive, that was how they wrote. Every clause, it seems, deserved, and got, it's own comma.

 

The parchment copy in the national archives, which is not a "certified copy" has several commas. The "certified copies" have a single comma. But, it really doesn't matter. The militia clause is not describing or defining the right. What right is protected? The right to keep and bear arms. To whom does the right belong? The people. Nothing describing the right or to whom it belongs refers back to the introductory clause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11/12

 

Missed #10 - I don't support the 'probably not' answer....but...whatever...stupid test with some lame choices for answers...:lol:

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

 

To me the 4th choice, given the state of the debate now, is the most reasonable of the choices given. And, really, what is the difference between "Probably not" and "Can't say for sure" (or whatever it says)? The correct answer should be, "It sure as hell does."

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the 4th choice, given the state of the debate now, is the most reasonable of the choices given. And, really, what is the difference between "Probably not" and "Can't say for sure" (or whatever it says)? The correct answer should be, "It sure as hell does."

 

Choice 4 is what I choose - but I agree with ya with the 'sure as hell does' ;)

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Choice 4 is what I choose - but I agree with ya with the 'sure as hell does' ;)

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

 

I almost picked that, but then remembered how Scalia phrased some of his dicta in Heller.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe somebody mentioned this already - I didn't read the entire thread.

 

#6 is wrong. There is nothing about "crossing state lines" in NFA34. If there was I would not have to have mine registered, as I have taken none of my machineguns out of state.

 

So the correct answer to #6 is None Of The Above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of the power of Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal. To whom are those granted? Private citizens. Usually owners of merchant vessels. To take on ships at sea, they needed cannon, which implies private ownership of cannon. Otherwise you have Congress granting letters of marque to the Navy, which doesn't make sense. And going into the Civil War there were a fair number of privately raised batteries that were brought into the army on both sides.

 

I understand where you are coming from, but look at the historical context. Our right as we know it comes from the old Anglo duty of the yeomanry to be proficient with the longbow in support of the crown. As time progressed and there the Catholic / Protestant conflict took place, that duty to maintain a weapon became a right for those trusted to do so. This is the basis for the militia, the yeoman with his weapon that he keeps in his home. At the same time, the crown possessed the crew served weapons of the day, the theoretically more powerful and much more expensive ones, the knights and men-at-arms, as well as siege weapons. We didn't see cannons being wheeled out of homes at Lexington, Concord or King's Mountain, we saw citizens armed with their own weapons coming forth to fight what was considered the best army in the world.

 

You bring up an interesting point with the subject of merchant vessels and letters of marque, as well as the private batteries bought and paid for by private parties during the Civil War. I would respond by saying the first is a different animal entirely, not contemplated by the Second Amendment. During the time, the Navy was small and certainly not powerful. The Merchant vessels were both in need of protection and, when armed, capable of bringing capitol to the nation. Privateers helped England and the U.S. to develop as powers. However, to assert that the Second Amendment contemplated such stretches any understanding of it that I have read, to include Coxe.

 

As for the Civil War, I would point out that the Second Amendment would be a minimum, a basis of sorts, below which we cannot travel. Anything beyond that, while not necessarily contemplated by it, would be possible, law allowing. Again, during the Civil War, we saw unique circumstances which promoted such things during a conflict.

 

And, from someone closer to the debate than any of us were. Tench Coxe wrote:

 

He doesn't differentiate between personal and crew served.

 

I have never read it asserted elsewhere that such was intended by the Second Amendment, and indeed, if we look further into the essay you link to, we find Coxe writing the following:

 

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people, duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which shall be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. (emphasis mine)

 

I am unaware of anyone at the time suggesting the citizen-soldier maintain any more than rifle or musket, pistol and perhaps sword as "personal weapons." I am still comfortable asserting that the citizen of today has the right to maintain as a personal weapon those that soldiers are trained with as individual weapons for the military. I will re-read Joyce Lee Malcolm's book on the subject, and as time allows do some further research, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking at the whole package, letters of marque - which implies private ownership of crew served ordnance, the 2nd, the 10th, the historical context. Heck, throw in the Miller decision which implies that if it can be shown to have applications to a well ordered militia, citizens can have it. (paraphrasing there)

 

As for the cannon in the Revolution ... we stole most of what we used from the Brits. Very few were in the hands of the colonials.

 

I understand where you are coming from, but look at the historical context. Our right as we know it comes from the old Anglo duty of the yeomanry to be proficient with the longbow in support of the crown. As time progressed and there the Catholic / Protestant conflict took place, that duty to maintain a weapon became a right for those trusted to do so. This is the basis for the militia, the yeoman with his weapon that he keeps in his home. At the same time, the crown possessed the crew served weapons of the day, the theoretically more powerful and much more expensive ones, the knights and men-at-arms, as well as siege weapons. We didn't see cannons being wheeled out of homes at Lexington, Concord or King's Mountain, we saw citizens armed with their own weapons coming forth to fight what was considered the best army in the world.

 

You bring up an interesting point with the subject of merchant vessels and letters of marque, as well as the private batteries bought and paid for by private parties during the Civil War. I would respond by saying the first is a different animal entirely, not contemplated by the Second Amendment. During the time, the Navy was small and certainly not powerful. The Merchant vessels were both in need of protection and, when armed, capable of bringing capitol to the nation. Privateers helped England and the U.S. to develop as powers. However, to assert that the Second Amendment contemplated such stretches any understanding of it that I have read, to include Coxe.

 

As for the Civil War, I would point out that the Second Amendment would be a minimum, a basis of sorts, below which we cannot travel. Anything beyond that, while not necessarily contemplated by it, would be possible, law allowing. Again, during the Civil War, we saw unique circumstances which promoted such things during a conflict.

 

 

 

I have never read it asserted elsewhere that such was intended by the Second Amendment, and indeed, if we look further into the essay you link to, we find Coxe writing the following:

 

 

 

I am unaware of anyone at the time suggesting the citizen-soldier maintain any more than rifle or musket, pistol and perhaps sword as "personal weapons." I am still comfortable asserting that the citizen of today has the right to maintain as a personal weapon those that soldiers are trained with as individual weapons for the military. I will re-read Joyce Lee Malcolm's book on the subject, and as time allows do some further research, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still comfortable asserting that the citizen of today has the right to maintain as a personal weapon those that soldiers are trained with as individual weapons for the military.

The M249 and the M4/M16 with M203 are individual weapons. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The M249 and the M4/M16 with M203 are individual weapons. ;)

 

The M249, or "SAW" is intended to be fired by a single gunner, often in a suppressive mode, and can typically be used similarly to an M240B. It can be mounted on a vehicle, and it is the boxed ammunition that allows it to be fired by one person. For that matter, an M240B, M2 or Mk 19 can be fired when mounted with ammo in a proper container to feed. But let one person carry a full combat load for any of them! :blink:

 

The M203 is pretty close to what one would call and individual weapon, however, I try to look at things from a common sense approach. While I was familiarized with one in Basic, and have qualified with them since, they weren't what we spent the majority of our time zeroing, doing washer drills with, taking apart, cleaning, reassembling and firing for record with in basic. That was the M16, the A1 variant when I was in Basic. There again, the person carrying the M203 even has a name other than rifleman, he is a grenadier.

 

At the risk of being too political, I am not for lessening our rights to make friends with the left, I realize that will never happen. Regardless of how much we give, they will want more until we are armless and at their mercy. I do try to use common sense in my approach to things, in order to keep the middle on my side. To me, that means not looking for loopholes (yes, I really am a lawyer), and trying to put myself in the shoes of Jefferson, Madison and the rest if they were alive today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking at the whole package, letters of marque - which implies private ownership of crew served ordnance, the 2nd, the 10th, the historical context. Heck, throw in the Miller decision which implies that if it can be shown to have applications to a well ordered militia, citizens can have it. (paraphrasing there)

 

You are right, letters of marque do just that, but I still believe it is a subject outside the scope of the Second Amendment. If you haven't read "To Keep and Bear Arms: Origins of an Anglo-American Right," I recommend it. It is a bit dry, very scholarly, but fascinating reading.

 

As for the cannon in the Revolution ... we stole most of what we used from the Brits. Very few were in the hands of the colonials.

 

Ticonderoga, anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The M249, or "SAW" is intended to be fired by a single gunner, often in a suppressive mode, and can typically be used similarly to an M240B. It can be mounted on a vehicle, and it is the boxed ammunition that allows it to be fired by one person. For that matter, an M240B, M2 or Mk 19 can be fired when mounted with ammo in a proper container to feed. But let one person carry a full combat load for any of them! :blink:

Not to wander too far off topic, but we had guys carrying and using SAW's as their individual weapon in OIF and OIF II. These were the original M249's without the short barrel and collapsible stock. But, they did only carry 400 rounds; the rest were left in the HMMWV. These were separate and distinct from the crew-served M249's which were mounted on the vehicles, served by a "crew" of one.

 

I don't know if this is an army thing or something unique to our battalion, but we still maintain separate "individual" and "crew-served" SAW's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right, letters of marque do just that, but I still believe it is a subject outside the scope of the Second Amendment. If you haven't read "To Keep and Bear Arms: Origins of an Anglo-American Right," I recommend it. It is a bit dry, very scholarly, but fascinating reading.

 

Where I see the 2nd as supporting it. Need to dig into the Preamble to the BoR:

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 insure the beneficent ends of its institution
in other words emphasizing what the government may not do. Nowhere in the whole package do I see anything that specifically excludes artillery. I have to think that if the founders had meant to exclude it, they would have put it in writing.

 

 

 

Ticonderoga, anyone?

 

No thanks, I have plenty of pencils.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to wander too far off topic, but we had guys carrying and using SAW's as their individual weapon in OIF and OIF II. These were the original M249's without the short barrel and collapsible stock. But, they did only carry 400 rounds; the rest were left in the HMMWV. These were separate and distinct from the crew-served M249's which were mounted on the vehicles, served by a "crew" of one.

 

I don't know if this is an army thing or something unique to our battalion, but we still maintain separate "individual" and "crew-served" SAW's.

 

I have a friend who at 6'5" and 245 pounds used a SAW as his individual weapon as a fire team leader. Not too unusual. If I recall correctly, ammo was split among various team members.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where I see the 2nd as supporting it. Need to dig into the Preamble to the BoR: in other words emphasizing what the government may not do. Nowhere in the whole package do I see anything that specifically excludes artillery. I have to think that if the founders had meant to exclude it, they would have put it in writing.

 

I think we are in agreement on our belief that any vagueness should be construed as limiting the government, not allowing for the expansion of government. I am not sure the founders would have contemplated it as being necessary. In all of my readings I have never seen the equivalent of "hey, what should we say about cannons?" We agree that our right to keep and bear arms is rather extensive. I am just a little more conservative in my expansiveness, for all of the sense that statement makes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe somebody mentioned this already - I didn't read the entire thread.

 

#6 is wrong. There is nothing about "crossing state lines" in NFA34. If there was I would not have to have mine registered, as I have taken none of my machineguns out of state.

 

So the correct answer to #6 is None Of The Above.

 

Alpo is correct!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed that question also, as I answered "impossible to tell".

 

+1. I really do think its impossible to tell at this point. Probably not -- I think applies at the state level as some states ban class 3 and others do not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to not sound like I should wear a tin foil hat here.. lol... I think the right to bear arms was because of our fight with England, we wanted to have our own coutnry.. The idea was to make sure America was a free nation and the people could fight against those who wanted to take our rights like England did.. We did not want a defenseless nation ... Okay Open season on Deja.. lol

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.