Discussion pertaining to the militia act of 1792

dishonesty is the main stock in trade for the Anti Gun movement

 

Behind the mind of every Democrat is the urge to regulate you, to craft more laws and to take more charge of your life. This accounts for their craven desire to heavily regulate you and your neighbors.

 

Factually incorrect. Three rounds a minute was the firearm being loaded and discharged as fast as was physically possible at the time, during a time period when firearms had very few moving parts, and all actions had to be performed in a manual manner. As firearms technology advanced and moving parts were introduced, the actions became more complex, and allowed for a great many rounds of ammunition to be discharged in the same period of time.

The founding fathers were well aware of this, as repeating firearms were quite well known during the time period in question. But regardless, the militia act still mandates each individual carry enough ammunition to allow for eight continuous minutes of uninterrupted fire.

 

The word is mandated not allowed.
It is a minimum mandate not a maximum allowable limit.
Learning to read would be a helpful skill

 

Reedin iz fundymintil.

There is nowhere in that document that says a militiaman may exceed that limit

 

Meaning the founding fathers were mandating that each individual who made up the militia possess, at the bare minimum, a sufficient quantity of ammunition to be able to shoot and potentially kill twenty four enemy combatants, as fast as physically possible, in eight continuous minutes of uninterrupted fire.

 

I find it ironic that governments want to force guns out of the hands of private citizens, except when they need them to fight, then they force guns into the hands of private citizens.

This isn't just in the United States, and it's not just in distant history.

(Kind of off-topic but this irony doesn't just apply to guns. As just one example, in some times and places in history governments have made it illegal if women get abortions (Romania), while other governments have made it illegal if women do not get abortions (China) )

 

As witnessed here, every day.

 

I know. They won't even let me have a working tank with ammo!

 

Working tanks are legal to own in the U.S., as long as the artillery has been rendered non-operational.
I believe it may require a special license to drive on public roads.

Anyway, your post is a very low quality post and seems like a cheap way to deflect and try to change the topic.

 

Tanks are not even standard issue equipment to begin with.

 

Gee. There's a surprise.

 

You are free to have a firearm as long as it has been rendered non-operational. Fair is fair. LOL

 

Keep looking in this direction people and the real enemy will come in another door, take everything you have, and walk out without you even knowing before it's too late.

 

Pray tell, what is even being stated on the part of yourself?

 

I wouldn't expect you to have a clue.

 

But it certainly put no restriction on arms as this ridiculously uninformed poster seems to think

 

NSS
The law mandated a minimum only.
There is no restriction

 

You are free to wish

 

Hard to believe that someone can't understand that "not less than" is a lower limit, not an upper limit.

 

Then there is no actual point to be had on the part of yourself.

 

We had a period in the US Army that if the soldier came down with VD, he was punished at courts martial.

 

Retards and liars everywhere

 

Yes because if we're invaded or need to fight back we need to make sure we can only fire every 20 seconds.

I'm sure the aggressor will also abide by the 20 second rule.

 

Where are these retards finding the word "limit"?