Question by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Question

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Monday, April 15, 2013 11:11
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 649
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, April 15, 2013 7:32 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I bumped across a quizz on CNN, "How much do you know about the Second Amendment" ( http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/1104/How-much-do-you-know-ab
out-the-Second-Amendment-A-quiz/Topic-of-Second-Amendment) and took it out of curiosity. I got all but four, but one question struck me.

I don't know how to hide text, so don't read further if you want to take the quiz yourself and don't want to know the answers, but please do return to address my question, I'd be interested in the responses.

The question was: "8. 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?"

The answer: "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."

That doesn't make sense to me, in two ways. For one, if it's a gun, it can kill; how could it not be useful in battle? But more importantly, IF their criteria is that it lacks any reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia, it would seem they are taking the "well-regulated militia" part seriously. Yet that goes against pretty much every argument in favor of people having guns for their own protection, sport, etc., etc., that gun proponents make--in other words, the "well-regulated militia" seems to have been eviscerated from the debate about gun ownership by gun proponents, yet the Supreme Court is HIGHLIGHTING it as essentially the ONLY excuse for owning a gun! How can that be?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 15, 2013 9:59 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

The question was: "8. 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?"

The answer: "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."

I think the key is the date: 1939.

I agree with the court on that one; the only use of a sawed-off double barreled shotgun is as a weapon for a crime. They were reaching for any reason to keep that weapon illegal-- the courts could do that in 1939. They regulated many weapons in those days. Today the NRA would fight for the right of those gun owners. And I suspect that the court and its position has evolved since those days.

Meanwhile, I'm so dumb-- I got question 1 Right, but I can't figure out how to navigate thru the rest of the quiz. Can't seem to find a "NEXT" or "FORWARD" button.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 15, 2013 11:11 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Next button should show up right where you clicked your answer..."Next" gives you the answer and then you have to click "next" AGAIN to go on to the next questions.

Thank you; all that made sense. It DOESN'T make sense when you put it in context with the "arguments" about the Second Amendment, but I understand why. And I would say our Supreme Court has DEvolved, on that question and many others, if I were offering my opinion... ;o)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE