DIY Chatroom Home Improvement Forum

DIY Chatroom Home Improvement Forum (http://www.diychatroom.com/)
-   Off Topic (http://www.diychatroom.com/f39/)
-   -   The Dick Act of 1902 (http://www.diychatroom.com/f39/dick-act-1902-a-169988/)

rusty baker 01-24-2013 09:33 AM

The Dick Act of 1902
 
"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. 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."

http://www.webenews.com/dick_act_of_1902.htm

joed 01-24-2013 12:14 PM

So no woman, no male over 45 and no disabled men has the right to own a gun. That would be a start.

rusty baker 01-24-2013 06:20 PM

‎1994 assault weaons ban
"any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher."

All cosmetic, nothing to do with function

oh'mike 01-24-2013 07:33 PM

Rusty--you wouldn't want a crippled ,over 45 year old woman armed with something cosmetic would you?

rusty baker 01-24-2013 10:12 PM

My sister is 70 and has a concealed carry permit. I don't own a gun but would fight for the right of others to own one.

joed 01-25-2013 07:32 AM

I don't dispute anyone's right to own a gun. I just don't see the need for assault rifles and high capacity magazines. If you can't hit you game with one or two shots then go back to the range do some more target shooting to get better.

rusty baker 01-25-2013 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joed (Post 1101575)
I don't dispute anyone's right to own a gun. I just don't see the need for assault rifles and high capacity magazines. If you can't hit you game with one or two shots then go back to the range do some more target shooting to get better.

Assault rifles (automatics) have been illegal to own for many years. The assault weapons (a term invented by a politician) in the 1994 ban were designated by appearance only. It had nothing to do with function.
The rifles in the 1994 ban were all semi-automatic and except for appearance, are identical to the old wooden stock semi-auto 22 cal rabbit rifle used for many years.
The main problem that I have with a ban is that the people writing the laws, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

rusty baker 01-25-2013 08:07 AM

Making guns illegal would be about as effective as the laws making meth and cocaine illegal. How is that working out?

rusty baker 01-25-2013 08:11 AM

1 Attachment(s)
I stole this from a gun site, but it shows how stupidly the ban was written. The upper one would be legal, the lower one illegal according to the 1994 ban. And the new proposed ban.

gma2rjc 01-25-2013 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joed (Post 1101575)
I don't dispute anyone's right to own a gun. I just don't see the need for assault rifles and high capacity magazines. If you can't hit you game with one or two shots then go back to the range do some more target shooting to get better.

The thing is, it's not only about how good your aim is, it's about being able to defend yourself until the threat is over.

If you are limited to the amount of ammunition you can have or how many shots you can fire off repeatedly, you can't defend yourself against someone who doesn't obey the law and has an advantage over you, the law abiding citizen.

I agree with you rusty, I don't own a gun, but would fight for the right of others to own one.

rusty baker 01-25-2013 09:55 AM

I respect everyone's opinion. I think both sides should be informed that the original 1994 law was poorly written and so is the new version. No matter which side you are on, I would think that is something you would want to know. If you believe in gun control, get the law improved. If you don't, work to defeat it.

DangerMouse 01-25-2013 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rusty baker (Post 1101684)
If you believe in gun control

... control the criminals, not the law abiding.

DM

oh'mike 01-25-2013 11:23 AM

Let's keep this respectful of others------please-----

paintdrying 01-25-2013 11:40 AM

I live in a rough area of Cleveland, Ohio. This is an extremely violent place. It only appears to be getting worst. Much worse. I am known in the neighborhood as a guy with a lot of tools, and is always willing to make some work for someone, i also pay cash, even before the work is started. From a tactical point of view please explain to me how I can protect my family from three armed people that wish to rob me. To start the police do not even answer 911 calls. I am not kidding, not even someone there to answer the phone. So the police no, run and hide, no, too exposed to injury and harm to family. Well let me tell you, you would need an assault rifle to protect your home. Law enforcement agrees with me on this issue. My second point is that the US government is fallen to tyranny, our assault weapons keep us a free nation.

rossfingal 01-25-2013 12:14 PM

The US government has fallen to tyranny?!?
Hmmm?!?
What tyranny is that?!?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:01 PM.


Copyright 2003-2014 Escalate Media LP. All Rights Reserved