NRA RIP

You are using nothing to back up your arguments. If you were indeed doing your reading you wouldn't have to ask embarrassing questions.

 

He has. You can't understand them.

 

Don't hold your breath for an answer.

 

And yet this supposed majority of the population cannot even detail precisely what they want these "more stringent background checks" to actually entail. They cannot even figure out just what they want in precise terms, nor can they explain how the current background checks are inadequate, simply because they do not understand the matter and are just saying whatever they think sounds good to them at the time.

 

Thank you for once again proving my point about your lack of understanding of the Militia Acts and the term "well regulated".

 

The work of Arthur Kellermann, who admitted in his supposed "study" that most of those who were killed with firearms, were individuals who were engaged in illegal activity at the time, such as dealing in illicit narcotic substances or other related behaviors.

 

The militia acts have been read over quite thoroughly, and there is absolutely nothing within them to be found that would suggest they were intended to regulate or restrict legal and private firearms ownership in any degree.

 

Thank you for yet again proving my point about your lack of understanding of the Militia Acts and the term "well regulated".

 

Let us see.

According to the militia acts, anyone under the age of eighteen and exempt from militia service due to their age, even children, could legally own any type of firearm they wished, or any number of firearms they wished, with the only restriction being how much they could afford to spend. If one wished to own a cannon, there was no restriction in place to prevent the ownership of a cannon, or even a dozen cannons, so long as one could afford it. No restrictions other than cost.

Anyone over the age of forty five and exempt from militia service due to their age, could legally own any type of firearm they wished, or any number of firearms they wished, with the only restriction being how much they could afford to spend. If one wished to own a cannon, there was no restriction in place to prevent the ownership of a cannon, or even a dozen cannons, so long as one could afford it. No restrictions other than cost. They did not even have to serve in the militia prior for that ownership to be legal.

Women were exempt from militia service due to their gender, could not be compelled to serve under any circumstances, and yet they could legally own any firearms they wished, with the only restriction being the cost and what could be afforded.

Those who were of eligible age furnished their own equipment, kept it unlocked within their homes so it could be grabbed immediately rather than being stored in a government armory, and once their militia service was concluded, they retained ownership and possession of their equipment rather than surrendering it to government.

There was no minimum acceptable caliber for use, there was no maximum acceptable caliber for use, the only stipulation was that each man must provide suitable ammunition for the bore of their particular firearm, and there was no limit on how much ammunition each individual carried with them, other than the fact that it must be enough for a minimum of eight continuous minutes of uninterrupted fire.

Even if a particular individual legally owned fifty firearms, they only needed to provide one for militia service, training, and duties, meaning they did not need to demonstrate experience and skill with every firearm they might have owned.

So pray tell, exactly what is being missed on the part of myself in this regard? What aspect of the militia act is being missed, that qualifies it as being a firearm-related restriction that was intended to limit what private individuals could and could not legally do with their privately owned firearms?

 

My post was based on logic. You apparently can't show where my logic is wrong.

 

Suicides, indeed. Gunsters shoot themselves as well as others at an astronomical rate in the US.

Meanwhile fat cat funders of the scam are mad about having been fleeced and hope to starve it until they get rid of Fancy Pants LaP:

https://helpsavethenra.com/

 

That’s hilarious. How is your reading coming along ???

 

Your disingenuous agenda demonstrates that you cannot differentiate between the FACTS available in the Militia Acts and your own confirmation bias that DISTORTS what is actually there.

But that is NOT my problem.

Have a nice day!

 

IOW's you are UNABLE to provide a single shred of credible substantiation for your baseless ASSUMPTIONS.

Got it!

 

You start out with a relatively low percent and then there are a large number of reasons why that it will even be less than that. You have absolutely no proof that it will work at all.

 

Keeping guns OUT of the hands of the mentally unbalanced "won't work" when we already have AMPLE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for the MASS SLAUGHTER that is currently occurring because your nefarious NRA DEMANDS that they be allowed to possess lethal firearms?

Why not just deny gravity while you are about it?

 

Keeping guns out of the hands of mentally deranged will make a big difference. Doing it using prescriptions for medicine will not make a significant difference. Since that was your idea, prove otherwise.

 

Explain how else you are going to implement a means to keep guns OUT of the hands of the mentally unbalanced?

 

I told you how. You have to change the HIPAA laws.

 

IOW's you have NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the way of a feasible alternative.

Got it!

 

Then by all means. Demonstrate precisely what the militia act did to regulate and restrict firearms.

 

Neither do you.

 

Indefinitely confine everyone who is deemed to be "mentally unbalanced" so that they are removed from society, and thus rendered physically incapable of gaining access to a firearm due to the care facilities they are housed in.

 

More concentration camps? One Policy Conservatism?

 

Since you failed to comprehend it when you allegedly read it there is no point in wasting time trying to explain what is obvious to everyone else.