Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Bass Fishing

DICK ACT of 1902... CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government

Uploaded on December 17, 2012

www.knowthelies.com/?q=node%2F3949

DICK ACT of 1902... CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government
Submitted by Jonathan on Sun, 03/29/2009 - 2:04pm.

second amendment2

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE **

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion).

These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada.

The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states.

Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states:

"The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose.

Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

The Honorable William Gordon

Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917

Top Rated
All Replies
from Bryan01 wrote 1 year 17 weeks ago

"The **** Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

-Someone doesn't have a clue about repealing an act of Congress or what a Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto law is.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 17 weeks ago

Brian..Have you recognized how many things, policies, have been implimented that disregard our constitution, and rules of law since Obama became President? You live in la-la land, and anyone else that thinks gun control legislation won't be enacted.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bryan01 wrote 1 year 17 weeks ago

Clinchknot I didn't say anything about Obama and his gun grabbing policies. I only commented on the text of the post written above - which is filled with nonsense - I have no doubt that Obama would ignore the second amendment and outlaw private ownership of guns if it was politically feasible. The second amendment is a part of the constitution and requires more than act of congress to override. A law passed by a previous congressional vote can be overridden by a simple majority of the current house and senate if signed by the president (thats how the constitution set it up). That also has nothing to do with bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. The post above is gibberish nonsense which hurts our cause by making it look foolish.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 17 weeks ago

I know that, but look at the GM deal. Constitutional law is strongly written as to what is done when a co. goes through BK..Obama came in, appointed his own judge and a new CEO, and both were his puppets, and he GAVE THE CO. to the UAW, and passed up the bondholders that were first in line to get compensated! Something like 20 billion dollars just given to the UAW. Incredible what this guy has gotten away with doing. I say Fast and Furious was Obama's scam to impliment gun control policy via international law circumventing the constitution, and 2nd Ammendment! He exercised Presidential privelege preventing the incriminating emails from surfacing, but an example of what this guy can get away with.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from PutnamValleyBoy wrote 1 year 17 weeks ago

ANY act of Congress may be repealed. It is unconstitutional for a particular Congress or legislature to bind the hands of a future Congress because the legislative power resides in the people.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 17 weeks ago

speaking of the GM loan, I see in today's paper another big step towards GM buying back all the Treasury owned stock has been announced. Total buy back in 12-15 months...there went the "Govt. take over" and "hand it over to the UAW" argument.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 99explorer wrote 1 year 17 weeks ago

I think the government will still hold about 19% of GM stock after the sale, which should bring about $5 billion to the Treasury.
Maybe that money will be added to the Social Security Trust Fund.
Ha! Ha!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 17 weeks ago

99,
That 19% still owned by the Treasury will be whats left after this years buy back.
The remaining 19% will be sold back in the aforementioned 12-15 months.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 16 weeks ago

Hoski...YOU see what you want to see, and that is a fact. GM pension plans are going under. GM is exempt from paying any federal taxes, and will be for sometime. That is how socialists operate picking, and choosing who they want to succeed, and why the private sector is SHRINKING while Obama expands to Govt sector. Anyone that isn't one of the "low information" folks know what happens there, and why we are headed off the cliff. You seem willing to be one of those "low information" folks. Get some good information from a reliable source that understands public holding investment companies, and they will tell you the real story on GM...the largest outsourcing of American jobs in the USA.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 16 weeks ago

Why does "the low level informed one" always respond about the poster, and not the info posted? Anyone figure that "low level" strategy from the "low level informed" poster yet?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Scott Caplan wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Remember when Field and Stream used to discuss hunting, fishing and sportsmanship?

"Don't believe what you read quoted on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 99explorer wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

"Don't believe anything quoted by Abraham Lincoln." - Stephan A. Douglas:-)

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 99explorer wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

"Don't believe anything quoted by Abraham Lincoln." - Stephan A. Douglas:-)

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Randy M. Griffin wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Most people do not know what the reason for the civil war was..Slavery was just a small issue. The fact of the matter was that Mr. Lincoln was taxing the life out of the people of the south. He had such high tariffs on goods brought into ports like New Orleans and others ports that the goods cost so much that most people could not buy them. The south was getting poorer and poorer. It seems that the Fed. government at that time was doing things sort of like they are doing now, except everyone is getting poorer and poorer wit Obama's taxes on almost everyone. But that is the true cause of the civil war, not slavery as most people think, according to our history books which are wrong about the cause...Just something to think about....

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

what a crock of S**t.
Any examples of those taxes Randy? Either Lincoln's or Obama's will suffice.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Bryan, the Militia Act of 1903 (a.k.a. the D*ck Act) is not gibberish. But it also has nothing to do with gun legislation. That part is gibberish. What it did was effectively give the 2nd Amendment no legitimate purpose to continue in existence. The militia (a.k.a. National Guard) was no longer run out of the household. It officially became supplied by and an arm of the federal government. How ironic that some fools would throw this act up as a shield for the 2nd Amendment.

Clay, I have said it before, you need to read for yourself what's in the act, not what some crackpot radical says is in it. You're embarrassing yourself.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Honk
That "Act" calls for a "uniformed" (regular) military, an "organized" (Nat'l Guard) and and "unorganized" militia (able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45). The Gov't isn't "required" to arm the "unorganized" militia, though it can if it wishes, ergo, the "right" to keep and bear arms.
Just one more reason for the AR platform rifles and hi-cap mags!
At this point, it appears the "current" Gov't administration is bent on disarming and disbanding the "unorganized" militia.
What most folks don't realize is that the "unorganized" militia is larger than the "uniformed" (regular) militia and the "organized" (Nat'l Guard) militia, COMBINED!??!

Think before you honk, Honk!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rocaphilla wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

You sound like Alex Jones with his "defence against a tyrannical government" conspiracy theory crock of sh*t. Congratulations. You're a crackpot.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

An "unorganized militia"? Speaking from a US veteran's perspective, I find that concept more than a little frightening. Who in their right mind would want the defense of the country to fall into the hands of a bunch of people with gawd knows what for weaponry, with little or no military experience, and, more importantly, no sense of military discipline? Sounds like a recipe for national self-destruction rather than self-preservation. The situation in China after the collapse of the Qing Dynasty during the Japanese invasion comes to mind. All kinds of peasant-based "national patriots" supplied with modern guns running amok and killing each other as much or more than the invaders. Canadian troops continue to be killed in Afghanistan fighting that country's "unorganized militia." Be careful about leaning too heavily on the "unorganized militia" as justification for right to bear arms. In the present world context, the threat of a disorganized militia would actually seem to be an excellent argument for disarming the citizenry!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

It was an "unorganized" militia with "gawd knows what" for weaponry that sent British troops scurrying back to England. Remember, the "American" colonists were considered a group of unorganized "rebels. But guess what? Within the ranks of those "rebels" were men who had military experience who were willing to come forward and help, thus lending enough "organization" to overthrow the British!
Neato! Huh, Honk?
Just that more justification for AR (and your MSR!) platform rifles!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

P.S. Honk,
seriously, I know you think you're bringing an intelligent argument! ....but you're not! You're just embarassing yourself!

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Gees, last time I checked the calendar it was 21st century not the 18th. As you know, it was not MY idea to call AR platform rifles MSRs, as WAM and others have clarified but you seem to ignore. It's the marketers for the companies making those things who have decided to redesign their image, not me. As you also know, I think it's silly to call them Modern Sporting Rifles. When did shooting zombies, junkies, pushers, or movie patrons become a sport?

C'mon, get real! In this day and age AR platform rifles aren't going to chase any potential foreign military invaders out of the country. The disorganized militia just as well arm themselves with paintball guns if the US gets invaded by a foreign army. No matter what kind of weapons they could load up with at their local gun shops, America's neighborhood gunsafe warriors would still be totally outclassed by even the Lithuanian army.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I'm sorry, Honk!
Apparently you've been educated beyond your intelligence!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

So Honkster, what are the Canadian Rangers? I know a bunch of those 303 carrying guys in the Yukon.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from wp wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

A little off topic, but I would like to urge all of you to write your representatives and discourage any anti-2nd amendment actions. And I mean ANY. There are always heated debates when this topic comes up, but what we need now is a little solidarity. As gun owners we are facing an onslaught of legislation not to mention idiotic behavior like publishing gun permit holder's names and addresses. Most of us on here are passionate enough about our rights to take the time to send a few emails, but for those who are not, Ruger has streamlined the process on their website.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from 007 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Do NOT limit your correspondence to writing, email, call, write, then follow up with another call. The phone # for the capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121. Keep their phones ringing!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

That there's funny...a guy thinking he's re-living the movie Red Dawn complaining about someone else NOT being intelligent...as if he's protecting the nation with his 270 against a well trained invading military force.

OHH, you're trying to reason with a moron who once posted his fantasy of sitting in shooting towers along the southern border "plinking" at human beings as if he was sitting at the town dump shooting rats.
You're smarter than that.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

007,
Good advice. I was once informed that an actual hand written letter complete with signature received at one's representative's office carries much more weight.
Calm, clear language. No threats about over throwing a tyrannical govt are helpful.
45 cents for a stamp would be a good investment.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Thank You wp and 007 for the reminder.

I was talking to a congressional aid once who said letters take a long time to make it past anthrax screening but faxes get the same treatment, they get filed somewhere, it's a piece of paper. Emails can be too easily deleated.

I keep both senators and my congresman's phone numbers on my phone memory. I call them to politely leave my opinion on a number of issues and when they vote the way I like or otherwise do stuff I like I thank them too. I also thank them specifically when I see them in person at events.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Oh, and Randy, the Morrill Tariff didn't become law until AFTER the southern states left the Union. Don't pin that one on Lincoln. Nothing wrong with "revisionist history" ... as long as the revisions aren't made up of thin air.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Sorry, I was cut off there. James Buchanan actually signed the tariff into law as one of his last acts in office before Lincoln took over. The new protective tariffs weren't initiated until after the Civil War started.

Prior to the Morrill Tarriff becoming law on March 2, 1861, US tariffs were among the lowest in the world. The people in New Orleans had nothing to complain about!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from coosabass2012 wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Interesting... what about us able-bodied guys over 45?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from armedliberal wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Sorry able bodied older folks you are nearly fodder, not militia. What a dickact. Sounds like socialism to me, nothing but wards of the state, mandatory militia.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Reply

from wp wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

A little off topic, but I would like to urge all of you to write your representatives and discourage any anti-2nd amendment actions. And I mean ANY. There are always heated debates when this topic comes up, but what we need now is a little solidarity. As gun owners we are facing an onslaught of legislation not to mention idiotic behavior like publishing gun permit holder's names and addresses. Most of us on here are passionate enough about our rights to take the time to send a few emails, but for those who are not, Ruger has streamlined the process on their website.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bryan01 wrote 1 year 17 weeks ago

"The **** Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

-Someone doesn't have a clue about repealing an act of Congress or what a Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto law is.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bryan01 wrote 1 year 17 weeks ago

Clinchknot I didn't say anything about Obama and his gun grabbing policies. I only commented on the text of the post written above - which is filled with nonsense - I have no doubt that Obama would ignore the second amendment and outlaw private ownership of guns if it was politically feasible. The second amendment is a part of the constitution and requires more than act of congress to override. A law passed by a previous congressional vote can be overridden by a simple majority of the current house and senate if signed by the president (thats how the constitution set it up). That also has nothing to do with bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. The post above is gibberish nonsense which hurts our cause by making it look foolish.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

what a crock of S**t.
Any examples of those taxes Randy? Either Lincoln's or Obama's will suffice.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from PutnamValleyBoy wrote 1 year 17 weeks ago

ANY act of Congress may be repealed. It is unconstitutional for a particular Congress or legislature to bind the hands of a future Congress because the legislative power resides in the people.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 99explorer wrote 1 year 17 weeks ago

I think the government will still hold about 19% of GM stock after the sale, which should bring about $5 billion to the Treasury.
Maybe that money will be added to the Social Security Trust Fund.
Ha! Ha!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Bryan, the Militia Act of 1903 (a.k.a. the D*ck Act) is not gibberish. But it also has nothing to do with gun legislation. That part is gibberish. What it did was effectively give the 2nd Amendment no legitimate purpose to continue in existence. The militia (a.k.a. National Guard) was no longer run out of the household. It officially became supplied by and an arm of the federal government. How ironic that some fools would throw this act up as a shield for the 2nd Amendment.

Clay, I have said it before, you need to read for yourself what's in the act, not what some crackpot radical says is in it. You're embarrassing yourself.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rocaphilla wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

You sound like Alex Jones with his "defence against a tyrannical government" conspiracy theory crock of sh*t. Congratulations. You're a crackpot.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Oh, and Randy, the Morrill Tariff didn't become law until AFTER the southern states left the Union. Don't pin that one on Lincoln. Nothing wrong with "revisionist history" ... as long as the revisions aren't made up of thin air.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Sorry, I was cut off there. James Buchanan actually signed the tariff into law as one of his last acts in office before Lincoln took over. The new protective tariffs weren't initiated until after the Civil War started.

Prior to the Morrill Tarriff becoming law on March 2, 1861, US tariffs were among the lowest in the world. The people in New Orleans had nothing to complain about!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 17 weeks ago

speaking of the GM loan, I see in today's paper another big step towards GM buying back all the Treasury owned stock has been announced. Total buy back in 12-15 months...there went the "Govt. take over" and "hand it over to the UAW" argument.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 17 weeks ago

99,
That 19% still owned by the Treasury will be whats left after this years buy back.
The remaining 19% will be sold back in the aforementioned 12-15 months.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 16 weeks ago

Hoski...YOU see what you want to see, and that is a fact. GM pension plans are going under. GM is exempt from paying any federal taxes, and will be for sometime. That is how socialists operate picking, and choosing who they want to succeed, and why the private sector is SHRINKING while Obama expands to Govt sector. Anyone that isn't one of the "low information" folks know what happens there, and why we are headed off the cliff. You seem willing to be one of those "low information" folks. Get some good information from a reliable source that understands public holding investment companies, and they will tell you the real story on GM...the largest outsourcing of American jobs in the USA.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Scott Caplan wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Remember when Field and Stream used to discuss hunting, fishing and sportsmanship?

"Don't believe what you read quoted on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 99explorer wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

"Don't believe anything quoted by Abraham Lincoln." - Stephan A. Douglas:-)

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 99explorer wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

"Don't believe anything quoted by Abraham Lincoln." - Stephan A. Douglas:-)

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Randy M. Griffin wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Most people do not know what the reason for the civil war was..Slavery was just a small issue. The fact of the matter was that Mr. Lincoln was taxing the life out of the people of the south. He had such high tariffs on goods brought into ports like New Orleans and others ports that the goods cost so much that most people could not buy them. The south was getting poorer and poorer. It seems that the Fed. government at that time was doing things sort of like they are doing now, except everyone is getting poorer and poorer wit Obama's taxes on almost everyone. But that is the true cause of the civil war, not slavery as most people think, according to our history books which are wrong about the cause...Just something to think about....

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

It was an "unorganized" militia with "gawd knows what" for weaponry that sent British troops scurrying back to England. Remember, the "American" colonists were considered a group of unorganized "rebels. But guess what? Within the ranks of those "rebels" were men who had military experience who were willing to come forward and help, thus lending enough "organization" to overthrow the British!
Neato! Huh, Honk?
Just that more justification for AR (and your MSR!) platform rifles!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Gees, last time I checked the calendar it was 21st century not the 18th. As you know, it was not MY idea to call AR platform rifles MSRs, as WAM and others have clarified but you seem to ignore. It's the marketers for the companies making those things who have decided to redesign their image, not me. As you also know, I think it's silly to call them Modern Sporting Rifles. When did shooting zombies, junkies, pushers, or movie patrons become a sport?

C'mon, get real! In this day and age AR platform rifles aren't going to chase any potential foreign military invaders out of the country. The disorganized militia just as well arm themselves with paintball guns if the US gets invaded by a foreign army. No matter what kind of weapons they could load up with at their local gun shops, America's neighborhood gunsafe warriors would still be totally outclassed by even the Lithuanian army.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

I'm sorry, Honk!
Apparently you've been educated beyond your intelligence!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

So Honkster, what are the Canadian Rangers? I know a bunch of those 303 carrying guys in the Yukon.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 007 wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Do NOT limit your correspondence to writing, email, call, write, then follow up with another call. The phone # for the capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121. Keep their phones ringing!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

That there's funny...a guy thinking he's re-living the movie Red Dawn complaining about someone else NOT being intelligent...as if he's protecting the nation with his 270 against a well trained invading military force.

OHH, you're trying to reason with a moron who once posted his fantasy of sitting in shooting towers along the southern border "plinking" at human beings as if he was sitting at the town dump shooting rats.
You're smarter than that.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

007,
Good advice. I was once informed that an actual hand written letter complete with signature received at one's representative's office carries much more weight.
Calm, clear language. No threats about over throwing a tyrannical govt are helpful.
45 cents for a stamp would be a good investment.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Thank You wp and 007 for the reminder.

I was talking to a congressional aid once who said letters take a long time to make it past anthrax screening but faxes get the same treatment, they get filed somewhere, it's a piece of paper. Emails can be too easily deleated.

I keep both senators and my congresman's phone numbers on my phone memory. I call them to politely leave my opinion on a number of issues and when they vote the way I like or otherwise do stuff I like I thank them too. I also thank them specifically when I see them in person at events.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from coosabass2012 wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Interesting... what about us able-bodied guys over 45?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from armedliberal wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Sorry able bodied older folks you are nearly fodder, not militia. What a dickact. Sounds like socialism to me, nothing but wards of the state, mandatory militia.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 17 weeks ago

I know that, but look at the GM deal. Constitutional law is strongly written as to what is done when a co. goes through BK..Obama came in, appointed his own judge and a new CEO, and both were his puppets, and he GAVE THE CO. to the UAW, and passed up the bondholders that were first in line to get compensated! Something like 20 billion dollars just given to the UAW. Incredible what this guy has gotten away with doing. I say Fast and Furious was Obama's scam to impliment gun control policy via international law circumventing the constitution, and 2nd Ammendment! He exercised Presidential privelege preventing the incriminating emails from surfacing, but an example of what this guy can get away with.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 16 weeks ago

Why does "the low level informed one" always respond about the poster, and not the info posted? Anyone figure that "low level" strategy from the "low level informed" poster yet?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

Honk
That "Act" calls for a "uniformed" (regular) military, an "organized" (Nat'l Guard) and and "unorganized" militia (able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45). The Gov't isn't "required" to arm the "unorganized" militia, though it can if it wishes, ergo, the "right" to keep and bear arms.
Just one more reason for the AR platform rifles and hi-cap mags!
At this point, it appears the "current" Gov't administration is bent on disarming and disbanding the "unorganized" militia.
What most folks don't realize is that the "unorganized" militia is larger than the "uniformed" (regular) militia and the "organized" (Nat'l Guard) militia, COMBINED!??!

Think before you honk, Honk!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

An "unorganized militia"? Speaking from a US veteran's perspective, I find that concept more than a little frightening. Who in their right mind would want the defense of the country to fall into the hands of a bunch of people with gawd knows what for weaponry, with little or no military experience, and, more importantly, no sense of military discipline? Sounds like a recipe for national self-destruction rather than self-preservation. The situation in China after the collapse of the Qing Dynasty during the Japanese invasion comes to mind. All kinds of peasant-based "national patriots" supplied with modern guns running amok and killing each other as much or more than the invaders. Canadian troops continue to be killed in Afghanistan fighting that country's "unorganized militia." Be careful about leaning too heavily on the "unorganized militia" as justification for right to bear arms. In the present world context, the threat of a disorganized militia would actually seem to be an excellent argument for disarming the citizenry!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 17 weeks ago

Brian..Have you recognized how many things, policies, have been implimented that disregard our constitution, and rules of law since Obama became President? You live in la-la land, and anyone else that thinks gun control legislation won't be enacted.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 13 weeks ago

P.S. Honk,
seriously, I know you think you're bringing an intelligent argument! ....but you're not! You're just embarassing yourself!

-2 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Reply