Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RLC-Action] Fw: DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN)!!!!!

Expand Messages
  • John Conway
    It has not yet been repealed. It has not been addressed inn a public way because then we would all find out about this one. It would expose the gun and ammo
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 17, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      It has not yet been repealed.  It has not been addressed inn a public way because then we would all find out about this one.  It would expose the gun and ammo grab in a different light.  When you have a problem, you approach it from every angle possible.

      John Conway


      From: David Johnson <david@...>
      To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: citizenconway1010@...
      Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 3:06:45 PM
      Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Fw: DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN)!!!!!

      > DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED

      Any act can be repealed. In fact, we've even had Amendments to the
      Constitution repealed! All it takes is a vote of congress, the senate, and
      presidential signature.

      The gub'ment can simply ignore its own laws, as history demonstrates.
      Waving pieces of parchment is a futile defense of liberty. While the
      courts are enamored of legalistic procedure and formalism, they are a part
      of government and on the government's side, not ours. We're only going to
      get our liberty back by getting good and honorable men into government,
      and remaining vigilant so that they remain good and honorable. That means
      we must focus on the voters and the local parties.

      --
      David

    • David Johnson
      ... Using the Dick Act to combat gun control could be a very good tactic in fighting the gun control crowd. But don t imbue it with magical powers, such as
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 17, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        > It has not yet been repealed. It has not been addressed inn a public way
        > because then we would all find out about this one. It would expose the
        > gun and ammo grab in a different light. When you have a problem, you
        > approach it from every angle possible.
        >
        > John Conway

        Using the Dick Act to combat gun control could be a very good tactic in
        fighting the gun control crowd. But don't imbue it with magical powers,
        such as being inviolable. You claimed not that it hasn't yet been
        repealed, but rather that it "CAN'T BE REPEALED". Like it or not, the
        government can repeal any rule it wants to. Or pass new laws to counter
        it. Or simply to ignore it.

        Government does not play by the rules.

        David
      • DGHarrison
        I d still like to know if the definition of militia could be used to disarm me because I m over 45 years old. If the Dick Act can be construed to limit gun
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 17, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I'd still like to know if the definition of "militia" could be used to
          disarm me because I'm over 45 years old. If the Dick Act can be
          construed to limit gun ownership to those militia members between the
          ages of 18 and 45, then I don't really want to see it pulled out and
          paraded around. Anyone care to address this point?

          Doug Harrison
          Minnesota
          >> It has not yet been repealed. It has not been addressed inn a public way
          >> because then we would all find out about this one. It would expose the
          >> gun and ammo grab in a different light. When you have a problem, you
          >> approach it from every angle possible.
          >>
          >> John Conway



          --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
        • John Conway
          This one is for you DG. If you have right to protect, you cant do that without weapons. An Act of War, 2009 Assault weapons ban by Obama? The Constitution of
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 17, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            This one is for you DG.  If you have right to protect, you cant do that without weapons.


            An Act of War, 2009

            Assault weapons ban by Obama?

             

                The Constitution of the United States of America contains a list of rights retained by the people.  We were not granted these rights by the “Founding Fathers.”  If we had been, it would be the “Bill of Privileges.”  You see, there is a big difference between a right and a privilege.  A privilege granted to you by another, can be taken away.  A right on the other hand cannot be taken away by another.  You are granted these rights as a result of being born into the human condition.  In other words these are granted to you by your creator.  Our rights are inalienable, which means that you can’t even give them away.

                This act of war concerns an attack on one of our rights.  An attack on your rights is an attack on you personally.  This concerns a grab by the government we set up to serve the States coming into our sovereign (freedom from outside influence) States to disarm the citizenry of the type of weapons we need to defend ourselves from the tyranny of the very entity disarming us.

                James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights.  Understand that we are not granted even one right by this Bill, These are rights we already had, he just wrote them down for us to present to this government.  Here is what this act told the government.  Go ahead and play government, but keep your greasy hands off of our rights.

                We have grown so complacent that we have even let one of government’s agencies define what “we” meant when we told them what our rights are.  The supreme (small case “s” in the Constitution) Court rule on the meaning of our second Amendment.  We don’t need no stinking supreme anything to tell us what we meant! 

                  All you need do is define the words we gave them and remind them that we are serious about not letting anyone or anything curtail one of our rights.  Let them know that this is one place that we draw a line in the sand.  Ladies and gentlemen, your second Amendment:

            “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

                 Because the Militia was done away with in 1903 when it became a reserve force for the Federal Army, we’ll concern ourselves with the part after the comma.  Here are the definitions we have taken from “Webster’s 1828 Dictionary,” which are the definitions in place when we signed this contract.


            Right: 2. “That to which one has a just claim. Specifically: (a) That which one has a natural claim to exact.”  There is the right I was talking about.

            People: 2. “The vulgar; the mass of illiterate persons.”  That’s me!

            Keep: 1. “To hold; to retain in one''s power or possession; not to lose or part with;”

                        Bear: 6. “To possess or carry, as a mark of authority or distinction; to wear; as, to bear a sword, badge, or name.”  To display on the person.   

            Arms: 1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.  This isn’t butter knives and BB guns.

                        Infringed: 2. “To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.”  LAW!  You are the enforcer of this law!

             

                This is exactly what we meant when we submitted these rights to this government.  Our rights are ‘our’ laws that they can not break as expressed by ‘infringed.’   We are the governing authority here, not the transients that may occupy our government at any one time in history.  They are transients, our Constitution is not.  Do you see the word “regulate” anywhere as the supreme Court just ruled?  We never said that!

                We have to let these transient parties and their politicians understand that they are temporary, and not our permanent government.  They have to obey our Constitution.  They don’t get to make it up here.

             

            Citizen Conway




            From: DGHarrison <DGHarrison@...>
            To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 6:46:34 PM
            Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Fw: DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN)!!!!!

            I'd still like to know if the definition of "militia" could be used to
            disarm me because I'm over 45 years old. If the Dick Act can be
            construed to limit gun ownership to those militia members between the
            ages of 18 and 45, then I don't really want to see it pulled out and
            paraded around. Anyone care to address this point?

            Doug Harrison
            Minnesota

            >> It has not yet been repealed. It has not been addressed inn a public way
            >> because then we would all find out about this one. It would expose the
            >> gun and ammo grab in a different light. When you have a problem, you
            >> approach it from every angle possible.
            >>
            >> John Conway

            --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily .net/mkt- freepromo. html ---


          • DGHarrison
            Thanks, John. I read that recently. But I guess my major concern remains what the Left would do with anything paraded about that defines an age bracket for a
            Message 5 of 5 , Mar 17, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks, John. I read that recently. But I guess my major concern remains what the Left would do with anything paraded about that defines an age bracket for a militia, and having people saying that we, the militia, have a right to carry weapons, but not if you're too young or too old. I'm pretty sure those on the Left would shove that right in our faces, whether valid or not. So, I'm questioning the wisdom of using an argument that could backfire. It is good to just bring out the good old Second Amendment and not give those jerks on the Left anything to use against us.

              Doug
              This one is for you DG.  If you have right to protect, you cant do that without weapons.


              An Act of War, 2009

              Assault weapons ban by Obama?

               

                  The Constitution of the United States of America contains a list of rights retained by the people.  We were not granted these rights by the “Founding Fathers.”  If we had been, it would be the “Bill of Privileges.”  You see, there is a big difference between a right and a privilege.  A privilege granted to you by another, can be taken away.  A right on the other hand cannot be taken away by another.  You are granted these rights as a result of being born into the human condition.  In other words these are granted to you by your creator.  Our rights are inalienable, which means that you can’t even give them away.

                  This act of war concerns an attack on one of our rights.  An attack on your rights is an attack on you personally.  This concerns a grab by the government we set up to serve the States coming into our sovereign (freedom from outside influence) States to disarm the citizenry of the type of weapons we need to defend ourselves from the tyranny of the very entity disarming us.

                  James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights.  Understand that we are not granted even one right by this Bill, These are rights we already had, he just wrote them down for us to present to this government.  Here is what this act told the government.  Go ahead and play government, but keep your greasy hands off of our rights.

                  We have grown so complacent that we have even let one of government’s agencies define what “we” meant when we told them what our rights are.  The supreme (small case “s” in the Constitution) Court rule on the meaning of our second Amendment.  We don’t need no stinking supreme anything to tell us what we meant! 

                    All you need do is define the words we gave them and remind them that we are serious about not letting anyone or anything curtail one of our rights.  Let them know that this is one place that we draw a line in the sand.  Ladies and gentlemen, your second Amendment:

              “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

                   Because the Militia was done away with in 1903 when it became a reserve force for the Federal Army, we’ll concern ourselves with the part after the comma.  Here are the definitions we have taken from “Webster’s 1828 Dictionary,” which are the definitions in place when we signed this contract.


              Right: 2. “That to which one has a just claim. Specifically: (a) That which one has a natural claim to exact.”  There is the right I was talking about.

              People: 2. “The vulgar; the mass of illiterate persons.”  That’s me!

              Keep: 1. “To hold; to retain in one''s power or possession; not to lose or part with;”

                          Bear: 6. “To possess or carry, as a mark of authority or distinction; to wear; as, to bear a sword, badge, or name.”  To display on the person.   

              Arms: 1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.  This isn’t butter knives and BB guns.

                          Infringed: 2. “To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.”  LAW!  You are the enforcer of this law!

               

                  This is exactly what we meant when we submitted these rights to this government.  Our rights are ‘our’ laws that they can not break as expressed by ‘infringed.’   We are the governing authority here, not the transients that may occupy our government at any one time in history.  They are transients, our Constitution is not.  Do you see the word “regulate” anywhere as the supreme Court just ruled?  We never said that!

                  We have to let these transient parties and their politicians understand that they are temporary, and not our permanent government.  They have to obey our Constitution.  They don’t get to make it up here.

               

              Citizen Conway




              From: DGHarrison <DGHarrison@...>
              To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 6:46:34 PM
              Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Fw: DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN)!!!!!

              I'd still like to know if the definition of "militia" could be used to
              disarm me because I'm over 45 years old. If the Dick Act can be
              construed to limit gun ownership to those militia members between the
              ages of 18 and 45, then I don't really want to see it pulled out and
              paraded around. Anyone care to address this point?

              Doug Harrison
              Minnesota
              >> It has not yet been repealed. It has not been addressed inn a public way
              >> because then we would all find out about this one. It would expose the
              >> gun and ammo grab in a different light. When you have a problem, you
              >> approach it from every angle possible.
              >>
              >> John Conway

              --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily .net/mkt- freepromo. html ---




              --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! ---

            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.