I understand you hate guns ...but what about archery?

I bet not. I'm betting its more along the lines of 'we can kill animals for food, but no one should enjoy it.'

Maybe I'm wrong, but I asked the same question and didn't get an answer, thus: my speculation.

 

https://www.constitution.org/1-Activism/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

In modern terms the Militia Acts established BOTH state and Federal REGISTRIES of all guns, owners and ammunition on hand.

Corrupt Clarence made that requirement the Law of the Land in the Bruen decision by DEMANDING that all gun legislation MUST abide by historical precedent WRT guns.

Militias were comprised of CITIZENS who supplied their OWN personal guns and ammunition. The REGISTRIES were required by the Law of the Land and had to be COLLATED and forwarded to the Commander-in-Chief at least once each year.

I have little doubt there will be a great deal of teeth gnashing and attempts to SUBVERT what Corrupt Clarence enacted into the Law of the Land but he OPENED this door WIDE so it is only a matter of time before GenZ latch onto it and use it EFFECTIVELY.

Then again SANITY might return to the nation and We the People will realize that ENABLING crazy people and criminals to have ACCESS to guns is a really DUMB idea so perhaps we should put in place some means to PREVENT them from obtaining them in the first place.

As far as putting someone in jail for life for NOT using their gun safe that ONLY applies if a CHILD is killed or INJURED by the UNSECURED gun. My apologies if I wasn't clear on that point.

On the issue of gun buy backs I have no problem paying the going market rate for them. If that is what is needed then paying OVER the market price might be even better if that results in MORE guns being removed from circulation.

Using DRACONIAN punishments for FAILURES to abide by gun regulations makes sense when you realize the HARM caused by the current LAXITY that enables guns to end up in wrong hands. Once gun owners learn that Chuck is now serving a life term because he left his Glock out and a neighbor's kid shot someone, other gun owners are going to take securing their own guns seriously because they do NOT want to end being cell mates with Chuck.

 

"the HARM caused by the current LAXITY" (of drug laws) was the justification used to administer the war on drugs. It made the harm a lot worse. Same will happen with guns and for the same reasons- namely you can't reduce demand with laws, people will get what they want one way or another, and often they arent too concerned about becoming a criminal to do it, if that's the only option. The war on drugs is clear proof of that.

Reporting on the situation of arms and ammunition looks to me to be to ensure the militia is adequately supplied (which, btw, was the common meaning of the word 'regulate' in that time), not so the govt could keep track of potential troublemakers. But either way, the regulations imposed on the militia included not only supply, but also training and organization. I've been saying for years we should get back to that. Are you also suggesting we should have a Civil Defense program where citizens are trained in (among other things) the safety and use of firearms, or are you suggesting we ONLY go back to the original intent just for the purposes of keeping tabs on only the people exercising their right to bear arms?

Anecdotally, I was in a volunteer Civil Defense group a while back (you might call it a militia). We petitioned our Governor (the head of the chain of command for the militia) for direction in training, organization, etc. We recieved no reply. So if you have a problem with how well (or not) the militia is self regulating, I don't think its fair to blame the militia itself. Its heads of command are apparently uninterested in having anything to do with it. I suspect they remain silent because the only orders they WANT to give are the only orders they may not lawfully give- disarm and disband.

 

Do you need to mischaracterize the other side to be right, or do you just keep forgetting? The left thinks guns are dangerous. They want fewer of them because they want fewer people to get shot. It's fine to debate the facts without mischaracterizing the other side but come on. I mean, isn't it annoying when people on the left claim rightists just want to oppress women in banning abortion? Of course it's not about that.

 

I'm not miscaracterizing a damn thing. Liberals do not want kids to be taught gun safety or even archery in school.

Really is no valid argument as to why children should not be taught basic gun safety

 

I'm in favor of both guns and archery . . . but should the government really be funding archery education?

 

I'm sure that the $800 a year that the archery program might cost at a middle school is not a huge deal.

The Biden administration is withholding federal funds from schools that have the audacity to have a program where kids learn to shoot sticks with pointy tips

 

No more or less than it should be funding football or art or playing instruments. In fact It'd be best if govt didn't fund education at all. Its not working out very well doing it that way... but archery is a sport just as much as all the other extracurricular activities no one seems to have a problem funding... which leads me to believe this just boils down to more 'weapons = bad!' nonsense.

 

I tell you people it's cultural warfare that motivates this crap

 

Well, ya, clearly, but there's an awful lot of folks out there who still think its just about public safety. Crap like this, going after archery, hopefully will raise some eyebrows and suspicions.

 

Nowhere am I saying that people CANNOT have as many guns as they like, the 2A protects that right and I uphold it FULLY meaning the government of We the People can REGULATE that right.

We agree that prohibition of guns is not feasible and it NOT even on the table, it is a nonstarter, not going to happen.

We agree that some type of training is essential when it comes to guns. If you want a gun you need to PASS a National Level Firearms Safety Course with a score of at least 80%. No pass, no gun. The course itself can be run by the states in whatever manner they deem necessary. Law enforcement, national guard, private training facilities, civil defense, whatever works. That ensures that everyone who owns a gun is aware of the safety and laws regarding their use before they become a registered gun owner.

The problem is that militias have earned themselves a bad reputation to the point where it becomes a political career liability to have funded a militia. If anyone in the militia commits a crime the funding will be linked back to that governor. The media won't be kind.

 

If fedgov is going to require training, fedgov will need to provide the resources for training, or at least the funds for it, in substantial quality to ensure no one is stuck unable to exercise their constitutional right due to a lack of access to the training. If fedgov (ie, the SC) were to simply allow states to require (or not) a training certification for firearm ownership, THEN the provision of resources for said training would be on the states. Likely the SC would not allow such a requirement given that some states WOULD limit access to the training, by either having very few classes or making the classes very expensive, or both, as a means to limit legal access to firearms to only the chosen, privileged few. I'm not opposed to firearms training. I am opposed to it as a requirement being able to be used as a proxy for reduced and privileged access. If you want to require it, it has to be in a way that anyone who needs it can get timely and affordable access to it. And it should require no more skills or knowledge than any Police department requires to carry a sidearm, and that will be setting the bar pretty low... police unions have watered down requirements to almost nothing in some of the more bureaucratized departments.

Personally I would like to see firearms safety (as part of a GENERAL safety) course taught in Junior High or Hich School curriculum. Guns, household chemicals, common tools... anything people are likely to encounter in their life, we could have a basic safety class on how to handle them safely. Don't mix certain cleaners or you create chlorine gas. Cheap electric chainsaws can still kick down and slice your femoral artery. Drywall/sheetrock dust shouldn't be inhaled. Paint fumes can cause brain damage and cancer. Keep your finger of the trigger unless you intend to fire. All things one would think kids should be taught as they transition to adulthood.

 

No problem with the government funding the training because that would be CHEAPER than the current GOP/NRA gun fustercluck. Savings from MEDICAL costs to treat the injured alone would MORE than cover the cost of training.

No problem with INCLUDING other safety training courses in schools, including the safe handling of guns, however National Level Firearms Safety Course would STILL be a prerequisite for OWNERSHIP of a gun. Similar to driver's ed versus having to PASS your driving licence TEST at the DMV. Schools can teach you to drive but you STILL need a LICENSE to drive on public roads. Same thing with guns. The concept of gun safety classes INCLUDED in an overall SAFETY curriculum makes a lot of sense for the Insurance industry. They could fund them out of the SAVINGS they see in FEWER claims.

 

what part of unconstitutional do you not understand.

 

Take that up with CORRUPT Clarence, he INTRODUCED the Militia Acts which make Gun Registries CONSTITUTIONAL under Bruen.

 

you still ignore reality on this issue. those registries did not require citizens to register all their guns. It was designed to make sure someone who was eligible for militia service had a sufficient weapon to serve. those too old to serve did not have to register their one suitable weapon. That you cannot understand the difference is telling. Insulting Clarence Thomas is hilarious as well. What decision has he made can you cite that shows corruption?

 

I went hunting in Kenya in 1976. We paid a bunch for license fees, and even more to the professional hunter and his staff. Kenya banned hunting later on for a while and saw lots of game animals decimated from poaching. Everything we shot we ate-we didn't shoot any of the cats, elephants etc, just Gazelle, wildebeest and wart hogs. In some areas, some of those animals are considered pests by farmers. when there is no legal hunting, the farmers snare or poison these creatures. My father shot an elephant about 50 years ago. It was a rogue elephant that was causing major problems in a Masai tribal area. The government would have had a game warden shoot the elephant if a hunter had not bought a license to do so. People who whine about trophy hunting tend to be clueless about reality in countries like Kenya or Botswana or Tanzania

 

Of course they do-they use tragedies where ignorant kids find guns and do something stupid, to advance their nefarious gun banning agenda. By the time my son was 8 he knew how to check semi auto pistols, revolvers rifles and shotguns to make sure they were unloaded. Same with lever action, pump and bolt action rifles and pump and break open shotguns. He also knew well that merely pulling the magazine out of a semi auto rifle or pistol did not mean the weapon was yet safe. Dozens of times we would go to the range and I would hand him a firearm and he without fail would check it to make sure it was clear.

 

Thank YOU for CONFIRMING that the Militia Acts WERE gun registries.

Are you SERIOUSLY going to DEFEND a POS like CORRUPT Clarence just because you LIKE his DUPLICITOUS Bruen decision?

HILARIOUS!