The second of the Militia Acts of 1792 (The Uniform Militia Act) required citizens to provide their own gunsLol no. That part specifically allows the government to call upon the very same militias the government is training using the regulations congress set.
How exactly would random people defend our country back then when it’s an area that’s not near them? How would government know to call upon them? How exactly would they win any battles if they all aren’t trained exactly the same?
Just using basic logic and basic reading skills and comprehension should put to bed any notion that random individuals would protect this nation from a foreign or domestic attack.
The people that complain loudest about their constitutional rights have mostly never read them. (or don't understand them)I'm a little clueless on this but why would the founding fathers even mention militia's if gun ownership is an individual right?
1A is clear is says CONGRESS will not abridge the right. Yet people claim their 1A rights are being taken with other people complain about their speech which is NOT what 1A says.
I'm a little clueless on this but why would the founding fathers even mention militia's if gun ownership is an individual right?
1A is clear is says CONGRESS will not abridge the right. Yet people claim their 1A rights are being taken with other people complain about their speech which is NOT what 1A says.
The second of the Militia Acts of 1792 (The Uniform Militia Act) required citizens to provide their own guns
The Militia Acts of 1792 and Presidential Emergency Powers – Statutes and Stories
www.statutesandstories.com
Yeah but those other countries don't have between 14 and 250 years (depending on your interpretation of before/after DC v Heller) of cultural belief that self defense with reasonable modern weaponry was an inherent right.This is what is annoying about the gun nutters in the USA.
Pretty much every thing they are arguing against saying it won't work, etc, you can reply with "but in the other countries it works just fine" and they pretty much have nothing else to say other than "BUT MUH 2A FREEDUMBS!"
So where they don't have gun nutters, they don't have gun problems.Yeah but those other countries don't have between 14 and 250 years (depending on your interpretation of before/after DC v Heller) of cultural belief that self defense with reasonable modern weaponry was an inherent right.
Basically yes. And the country with gun nutters has a bunch of citizens that don't feel protected by their govt, so they must protect themselves... by buying more guns. It's a very American problem.So where they don't have gun nutters, they don't have gun problems.
Gotcha.
Imagine letting ten year olds take bullets for you.
The second of the Militia Acts of 1792 (The Uniform Militia Act) required citizens to provide their own guns
The Militia Acts of 1792 and Presidential Emergency Powers – Statutes and Stories
www.statutesandstories.com
And? If they are part of a well regulated militia, then they can. Are you part of a well regulated miiltia? Is anyone in this thread part of one?
The person involved in decision making should be permanently be bared from law enforcement for life!
The performance of the Uvalde police department cannot be more clear as an example of exactly why the traditional NRA/gun nutters talking points are out of touch with reality and it simply doesn't matter. They. Don't. Care. They are incapable, physically, of seeing it any other way.Not to beat a dead horse...there's 20 dead 10 year olds to use instead...
buuuuuuuuuuuut.......
If you are that terrified for your own safety maybe that says something about the efficacy of the weapons being sold?
They have placed their faith in Lord Gun Jesus.The performance of the Uvalde police department cannot be more clear as an example of exactly why the traditional NRA/gun nutters talking points are out of touch with reality and it simply doesn't matter. They. Don't. Care. They are incapable, physically, of seeing it any other way.
Expect it. Police are afraid, need better armaments/armor to protect against rabid 18yo liberals.Next talking point from the NRA/GOP will be "we need to increase defense spending so we can deploy a squad of Seal Team Six to every school in America".
Expect it. Police are afraid, need better armaments/armor to protect against rabid 18yo liberals.
Expect it. Police are afraid, need better armaments/armor to protect against rabid 18yo liberals.
I need a lot more practice with logic and reason?You need a lot more practice with logic and reason. Access to guns does not make people go crazy more frequently. It makes it easy to carry out mass shootings when people go crazy.
Thanks for posting this. Let's talk about raising age limits and such, and your examples about teen drinking, sex, etc. That has been the solution for the American society for decades, for alcohol, tobacco, etc., Blame it on the age. Yet many other countries do not put such strict restrictions on age like we do in the US. Many don't have the problems we have here in the US. If it's truly connected to brain development/age, why do many other countries not have this problem? Or do their children develope faster than the US? That demonstrated it's a society issue, not age issue.You keep beating this dead horse of discipline and decline of our youth which is just a myopic and frankly shit view. Teenage drinking continues to decline year after year. Sexual activity is declining year after year. Teen smoking is down year over year. Driving ages are getting pushed up even though teen driving deaths are down(you could argue that is working). By most statistical evidence kids are fucking puritans compared to the generations ahead of them.
We are failing *AS A SOCIETY* around failure. That's not unique to kids. Look at our adult response to school shoots. Covid deaths for the wealthiest country in the world. Lack of healthcare for the wealthiest country in the world. Homelessness. College costs. Those aren't discipline problems. I'll let you work through the why's on your own there.
Because alcohol in moderation isn't the problem. We have it exactly backwards. Alcohol should be 18, guns should be 25.I need a lot more practice with logic and reason?
I was going to stay away, but mass shootings are being done by people of all age groups over 16 years of age. It is rightfully so to blame it on guns for all age groups. The problem is, when it comes to 18 year olds, people are trying to blame it on brain development, that they can't reason effectively. That is bullshit argument.
Thanks for posting this. Let's talk about raising age limits and such, and your examples about teen drinking, sex, etc. That has been the solution for the American society for decades, for alcohol, tobacco, etc., Blame it on the age. Yet many other countries do not put such strict restrictions on age like we do in the US when it comes to alcohol and sich. they don't have the problems we have here in the US. If it's truly connected to brain development/age, why do other countries not have this problem? Or do their children develope faster than the US? That demonstrated it's a problem with our society, not age.