Discussion pertaining to the militia act of 1792

And yet it was the founding fathers who mandated, even back during the colonial era, that every individual eligible for militia service, must bring and possess enough ammunition to allow for at least eight minutes of continuous, uninterrupted fire. Therefore there is no legitimate point in trying to argue how the founding fathers could not have envisioned such developments in firearms such as the AR-15 and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition that can be immediately changed out and reloaded.

 

If you don't know what that is there is no point in explaining it to you.

 

Another load of bovine excrement because the US government did NOTHING of the sort.

 

Maybe he means your personal responsibility to not infringe on other peoples rights, but he's just a little confused

 

Your utterly fallacious nonsense debunks itself.

The FF's ONLY required that each member of the militia had a minimum quantity of LOOSE ammunition.

The BOGUS attempt to conflate loose ammunition with a magazine by based upon nothing but a fantasy of the gun obsessed to justify their firearm fetish.

 

And it doesn't matter anyway.
The act mandated service and minimum requirements. That is all.

I don't remember the militia men being granted permission to wear socks or brush their teeth. Wonder if that was forbidden?

 

I didn't see a list pertaining to socks or teeth brushing. I did see a list regarding firearms and it looked complete

 

You didnt see a list of any other restrictions either.
Happy fantasy.

 

I saw a complete list

 

So what's that, 5, 6 rounds, maybe? You can have a five round magazine then.

 

The anti-gun left refuses to understand this.

 

so you are put in a difficult position

If you claim that you push for crap like magazine limits or "assault weapons bans" as crime control, anyone who understands the issues will laugh at such ignorance

if you claim those things you want are for crime control when you are motivated by something else-they we can claim you are proffering dishonest reasons

Either way your position is untenable

 

Then show the current militia of the united states. Show that it actually exists in the modern world.

 

Did magazines for firearms exist at the time?

 

It was twenty four rounds of ammunition. Enough for each militia individual to shoot and potentially kill twenty four enemy combatants.

 

More correctly, it was the infantryman's basic combat load.
Today, that is somewhere north of 6x30rd magazines, plus one in the gun.

 

Meaning what the device in question is, is not known even on the part of yourself.

 

" that every individual eligible for militia service must bring and possess enough ammunition to allow for at least eight minutes of continuous, uninterrupted fire."

Let me see you shoot 24 rounds through a musket in 8 minutes using the same equipment they had. That's a round every 20 seconds. Possible, but not likely.

We''ll allow you a three round clip in a bolt action rifle as a militiaman today.

 

And you believe that?

 

1

Name every restriction .
1,2,3 go.

Did you see a restriction to operating a motor vehicle?

 

You mean you'll require a minimum capacity.
You're welcome

 

No, I mean we'll allow you a three round clip in a bolt action rifle as a militiaman today.

 

You'll dream

 

or, we can just go right on owning 30+ round magazines, and semi auto rifles, whether you like that or not.

 

No, I think we'll only allow real soldiers to have 30 round magazines, and keep the pretend soldiers down to 3 round clips.