{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/3/2013 2:19:14 AM
34
Turns out any and all Gun Control is Illegal.
Well at least according to the [url=http://www.webenews.com/dick_act_of_1902.htm]Dick Act of 1902[/url].
It states that all gun control measures are a violation of the 2A and that this provision can never be repealed.
Also states that it is unconstitutional for the President to call a National Guard unit out of their own state boarders.
It created three branches of Militia. National Guard, Organized and Unorganized. All of Which are separate.
The Militia is considered any able bodied man from 18 to 45.
So that's it. Gun control is illegal, we are all the US militia, and the President can never call us to serve out of our state boarders. All from an Act over a hundred years old.
One thing I would change, it would be every able bodied man and woman from 18 to 45. We stand United or don't stand at all.
-
Im betting outside state borders actually means outside the US.
-
The Dick Act of 1902? lol
-
It's not going to stop politicians from trying to pass useless legislation on magazines that hold more than ten rounds or rifles that "look scary" to them. There were more murders with knives than with rifles (of any kind, including "assault weapons") last year. Most crimes are committed with illegally-obtained, small caliber handguns. If anyone truly thinks banning, or even making strict regulations, on AR-15s and similar rifles will do anything to curb violence, they're either delusional or lying.
-
Edited by Ichthyosaur: 2/4/2013 5:07:32 PMCololololonstitution
-
5 RepliesNot to mention the last four words of the amendment are "shall not be infringed"
-
31 RepliesAll guncontrol should be illegal. The government has no authority over my owning my own personal property. As far as I care, everyone should be allowed to own any guns they want. Any weapons they want also. That includes tanks, grenades, RPGs etc, You may say that no one could possibly need those things. Well guess what kiddo it's none of your darned business if they need to have a gun. Its their natural right so they can have it.
-
Edited by Bucket of Tears: 2/4/2013 12:50:58 AMITT: People making comparisons they dont understand. No one had a right to own slaves, if you are going to make a comparison to that being a right that didnt work so well. Slaves all had the same rights as anyone else. All rights exist for everyone at any time. Its the job of the government to [i]secure[/i] them. These rights exist, but need to be [i]secured[/i]. EDIT: So many people in this thread who dont understand why the second amendment exists.
-
11 RepliesEdited by Arky: 2/3/2013 5:29:57 PMThey need to end the war on drugs, cut military spending, and start focusing on the U.S. instead of any other countries. Countries that hate us, and want us gone, our really only like that because we keep occupying them for Democracy.
-
4 RepliesWell, if the militia is only people from 18 to 45, then nobody older than 45 should be legally allowed to have guns, as per the 2nd Amendment, which grants that citizens have the right to own firearms in order to maintain a militia. Not really an opinion held by anyone, but the way the 2nd Amendment was written designates firearm use and ownership for a militia, which is not the way we use the 2nd Amendment today. This bill is from 110 years ago, and likewise can't really be used verbatim. It, as well as the language used the early amendments, is simply outdated. Any current changing of the laws around these subjects is simply a way to bring these old bills into the current time and situation. Thought I'd put that out there. I don't think people should be prevented from having (reasonable) guns, unless they fail a criminal background check or have a history of psychological issues.
-
2 RepliesEdited by Cam: 2/3/2013 10:24:17 PMOf course no one should be against background checks, but fearing guns is irrational. Gun control only hinders responsible citizens from having guns which is why a lot of time regulations make everything worse, in some cases even gun crime. People need to quit this foolish belief that guns correlate with violence, it doesn't. A large presence of citizens capable of defending freedoms and rights are a deterrent to violence, which is why there are plenty of cases where heavy amounts of guns decreases violence. Britain is actually more violent than America.
-
ITT: Two brick walls yelling at each other.
-
11 RepliesI really dislike the fact that laws and amendments created centuries ago are still governing us. It's like saying a road from the 1800s is fit for 2013 traffic.
-
so it's illegal to not be allowed a nuclear missile silo in your front garden? talk about unreasonable.
-
if law abiding citizens had their guns taken away only criminals would be left with them. for a period of time. criminals find it so easy to illegally acquire guns because the black market thrives in the US. why? because hundreds of thousands of guns and ammunition are manufactured and sold in the US each day. gun saturation. the more of something there is, the more people it will reach. put a stop to the manufacture of firearms and the black market will wither, from a tsunami to a trickle. but this would take a little time to happen, so it's a risk. oh and if you really feel the need to have a militia, do it properly like switzerland does.
-
Who cares about laws. Ban them anyway
-
well that's dumb
-
6 RepliesHow the hell is this good news? Why should people have unlimited access to firearms? We don't need people owning tanks, rocket launchers, etc.
-
3 Replieslol dick
-
My view on guns is that everyone leaves me alone, and I won't use one. Bother me, and I just might feel inclined.
-
Edited by OaklandPaintbalr: 2/3/2013 7:14:44 AM[quote]The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; [u]to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws[/u] which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights[/quote] Um, what? No it wouldnt. Ex post facto means that, when you make something illegal, you cant punish someone for doing that before it became illegal. (For example, if fapping became illegal today, it would be ex post facto to prosecute you for fapping last week before it was illegal.) I am pro-2nd amendment and even I dont see how repealing this would be ex post facto. Repealing this would merely change classifications of what the unorganized militia is... Sorry OP, but I think this is a load of bull.
-
6 RepliesEdited by Mad Max: 2/3/2013 6:20:29 AMWhere's the actual text of the bill? [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d094:H.R.11654:]I can't even see it on LoC[/url]
-
12 RepliesI don't understand why the US is afraid to change their amendments.
-
15 RepliesThe United States may very well be one of the most developed countries in the world, but jeeez their views on guns are so backwards.
-
4 RepliesSo the Gun Control Act of 1968 is unlawful?
-
1 ReplyEdited by jetmann113: 2/3/2013 5:36:37 AMMy dad researched this and it turns out this is bogus. http://www.loc.gov/index.html Try searching for hr11654 dick act of 1902, I don't see anything about a dick act.
-
1 Reply[quote]President can never call us to serve out of our state boarders.[/quote] So people in the military who are supposed to be deployed overseas can just be like "nah, bro"?
