One of my favorite discredited gun control arguments

I need some humor-what was the nature of the registration back then

was it to limit firearms ownership

was it intended to allow confiscation

or was it to make sure that if Joe Smith was called up to fight the Cherokee or French marauders, he would appear at the call up with a working firearm and sufficient powder and ball to be able to serve effectively. The wouldn't require a serial number. The other reasons would

 

Why do we have to go over the same thing over and over? Can't you just read posts again? I said there was no need for SNs for the type of registry they had. They wanted to keep track of the strength and inventory of the militia. Also, as mentioned before, those who refused to join the militia were disarmed.

The talk about confiscation etc are your words not mine. I am simply discussing from historical POV but you think its some kind of conspiracy or trap

 

so you concede that registration-as you called it-in early times had nothing to do with the government being privy to every arm a private citizen owned. Just only if they had one suitable for ad hoc military operations

 

There is nothing to concede. Everything in your mind is a conspiracy to take your guns, so you assumed the registration back then was about banning and confiscation, even thought no one said so. So, back then you were required to swear an oath, and join a militia and register your firearm. Its as simple as that.

 

Your posts constantly try to downplay that the Democrats are all about banning guns. Back then you merely had to prove you had a suitable firearm-the government didn't have a list of EVERY GUN YOU OWNED and couldn't prove a specific firearm belonged to you

 

I haven't said anything about Dems or what they want, but thanks for confirming what I just said. Everything to you is a conspiracy to take your guns.

 

this country is full of people who constantly want the "next common sense" restriction on our rights and the minute one is passed, they want the next "common sense" restriction. You might not want but pretending others don't think the way is erroneous

 

I haven't said anything about that. I am simply discussing the situation 250 yr ago, but in your mind that turns into a conspiracy to take your guns today,

 

and your posts constantly try to downplay how virulent and dishonest the anti gun movement is

 

No. Just because I am not obsessed with them doesn't mean I 'downplay' them. I have been listening to people like you for decades, and the gun rights just keep loosening, so the opposite of what you preach is happening.

 

the last congress passed a ban in the House. states like Illinois, NJ, California, CT and Maryland continue to pass unconstitutional crap.

 

I don't worry about things I don't need to worry about.

 

I am sure there are people in NJ, California, Maryland, NY and CT who felt the same way. I think in Rhode Island the demo scum just passed a law making it a felony to continue to pass a normal capacity magazine that someone bought legally a few years ago.

 

Yes, its likely they worry about their States less than you do, and you don't even live there.

 

I don't see you ever worrying about foreigners who constantly complain about our second amendment rights

 

Why would I? They can express their opinion without taking away my peace.

 

oh and we who criticize your position are harming your peace?

 

No. I just wonder why a post from the other side of the planet harms yours.

 

It doesn't just like pro rights posters challenging your arguments doesn't hurt you.

 

Ok, but you made it sound like it SHOULD hurt.

 

Projection?

 

No. You wondered why I don't worry about foreigners views about our gun rights, as if it was something I should worry about. I know you worry about it.

 

if you claim I worry about the comments of foreigners, then the charge is equally applicable to you for you worry about my posts. If responding to what someone posts on this board is a sign of worrying, then you have worried over 20,000 times

 

What was the point of this question: "I don't see you ever worrying about foreigners who constantly complain about our second amendment rights"

Doesn't that indicate you wonder why I don't worry about it like you do? If not, then I don't know what it means.

 

Let's agree this line of discussion is no longer worth either of our attention.