The dick Act of 1902?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by WARFAB, Jun 27, 2013.

  1. WARFAB

    WARFAB New Member

    57
    0
    0

  2. Lessdragon

    Lessdragon New Member

    120
    0
    0
    You should look for the article about snooping snopes, I think you'll get it if you Google "Snopes gets snopes"
     
  3. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    19
    38
    snopes is not a valid source of information. its a left wing liberal run site with a political agenda. the myth is "snopes tells the truth about things..."

    its like using the national enquirer as a source.
     
  4. WARFAB

    WARFAB New Member

    57
    0
    0
    Interesting. I'm not a lawyer, but my reading of the articles on the Dick act and the snopes article "refuting" it's claim, I think I can see a little bias. Snopes claims that the Dick act does nothing to declare everyone has a personal right to firearms. But, the Dick act does appear to define "militia" more broadly than many gun control advocates would like. It's not any kind of a slam dunk, but it seems a valid rebuttal to anyone who claims the second amendment only applies to people in an organized fighting force.

    Any idea why I can't copy and paste from Snopes?
     
  5. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    2
    0
    As a legislatively enacted law, it can be repealed or supersceded by subsequent legislation just as a SCOTUS decision is valid only until the SCOTUS rules on the topic again.
     
  6. Dearhunter

    Dearhunter Supporting Member Supporter

    1,915
    20
    38
    Snopes to the truth, is like botulism is to canned soup!!
     
  7. Chainfire

    Chainfire Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,407
    679
    113
    Here is a few laws that are still on the books in my home state. They are not enforced, and nobody really whines about it:

    **Women may be fined for falling asleep under a hair dryer, as

    can the salon owner.

    **A special law prohibits unmarried women from parachuting

    on Sunday or they risk arrest, fine, and/or jailing.

    **If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee

    has to be paid just as it would for a vehicle.

    **It is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a

    swimsuit.

    **Men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown.

    Get the point?
     
  8. texaswoodworker

    texaswoodworker New Member

    10,198
    0
    0
    We get the point. The point is you could care less about rights. Why else would you constantly belittle any law that would protect rights, and praise laws that do the exact opposite?
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2013
  9. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,213
    275
    83
    This persistent myth has been around the internet about four times. Some people have nothing better to do than make up trash and pass it on as the truth.

    The Dick Act was revised by The Army Acts. Little, if any, of the original act is applicable today.

    http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2013/01/dick_act_mythma.php
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2013
  10. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,633
    830
    113
    The Dick Act was somewhat of a joke from the beginning and never had any real legal standing.

    No session of congress can pass a law that cannot be repealed by simple majority. That would require a constitutional amendment..
     
  11. Mason609

    Mason609 Active Member

    1,850
    0
    36
    Wait...

    When was this an actual issue?
     
  12. Chainfire

    Chainfire Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,407
    679
    113
    What I care about is exposing the ridiculous to the light.

    And, it is possible that you could be right, for the first time. I could actually despise individual rights and freedom and would prefer enslavement and tyranny. Then, again, you could be wrong, couldn't you?
     
  13. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,633
    830
    113

    Why do you feel it is necessary to launch personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you ??


    He isn't belittling anything that protects anyone's rights. He just pointed out that there are stupid unenforceable laws still on the books. and nonsense like the Dick act.
     
  14. texaswoodworker

    texaswoodworker New Member

    10,198
    0
    0
    From the way you vote, and the way you respond to laws that violate the Constitution, I would say that would be the truth.

    How was that a personal attack? I didn't resort to name calling, and I didn't actually insult him. I pointed out something that was more than obvious to MOST people on this forum. You can't really call pointing out the truth a personal insult.

    So, protecting the 2nd Amendment is nonsense?
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2013
  15. dan01

    dan01 New Member

    138
    0
    0
    Texaswoodworker, I think I don't like you.
     
  16. texaswoodworker

    texaswoodworker New Member

    10,198
    0
    0
    1) I really don't care if you like me or not. (seriously, I don't recall ever even seeing you before)

    2) Go read some of Chain's old posts, and you will see exactly what I mean.
     
  17. vincent

    vincent New Member

    4,123
    0
    0
    Y'all need to back up off of Tex...

    He's one who actually has the balls to say what he means and makes no apologies for his opinions, I respect the hell out of that...

    Some of you probably need to re-read the forum rules, especially the part about having a 'thick skin'...get over yourselves...
     
  18. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,633
    830
    113
     
  19. texaswoodworker

    texaswoodworker New Member

    10,198
    0
    0


    I wasn't attacking him. I was attacking his argument, using all of his old arguments. :)

    as Vincent said, grow a thick skin.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2013