Have you seen this? (HR 11654)

[seniorgeek]

Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws.
The above is a very interesting read. However, there are many claims it its false and has been amended or updated by later bills.

[Rabbit]

I had to read the Dick Act of 1903 32 stat. 775 (aka the Militia Act of 1903) for my master's degree program on military leadership. At no point does it limit Congress's ability to regulate civilian ownership of firearms. Who ever started this Internet rumor would have had better luck with the militia act of 1792 that required every able bodied man to keep and maintain a musket and 20 or so rounds of ammo. However, it was replaced by the Dick act that renamed the organized militia's in to the National Guard and made it a reserve force of the US Army, and required the secretary of War to pay for the Guard's weapons, equipment, and training.

I think who ever started this rumor chose an obscure statute at large that can not be easily found by looking it up the United State Code making it hard to prove or disprove.

Text of the militia act can be found here if you are so inclined.
 
The statutes at large of the United States of America, from December, 1901, to March, 1903, Volume 32, Part 1 chapter 196

http://books.google.com/books?id=ICU3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA775
(It's near the bottom and the top of the next page.)

[poster formerly know as Silverbullet]

I had to read the Dick Act of 1903 32 stat. 775 (aka the Militia Act of 1903) for my master's degree program on military leadership. At no point does it limit Congress's ability to regulate civilian ownership of firearms. Who ever started this Internet rumor would have had better luck with the militia act of 1792 that required every able bodied man to keep and maintain a musket and 20 or so rounds of ammo. However, it was replaced by the Dick act that renamed the organized militia's in to the National Guard and made it a reserve force of the US Army, and required the secretary of War to pay for the Guard's weapons, equipment, and training.

I think who ever started this rumor chose an obscure statute at large that can not be easily found by looking it up the United State Code making it hard to prove or disprove.

Text of the militia act can be found here if you are so inclined.
 
The statutes at large of the United States of America, from December, 1901, to March, 1903, Volume 32, Part 1 chapter 196

http://books.google.com/books?id=ICU3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA775
(It's near the bottom and the top of the next page.)

It should not matter as the second amendment should keep congress from messing with our guns, but when have people like Obama and those who vote for his kind let something like the constitution get in their way.

[Rabbit]

Freedoms protected by the Constitution are not absolute. We have the right to free speech but we can not yell fire in a crowed theater. Because of the danger to the public by someone exercising their right in that manner. With regards to the second amendment there are laws the protect the public from imminent danger. Title 18 USC 922 (G) makes it illegal for someone convicted of a felony, a fugitive from justice, dishonorably discharged form the military, illegally in this country, or has been involuntary committed to a mental institution from possessing a firearm or ammunition. Allowing these individuals to posses a firearms presents a great risk to the public. Hence their right to bare arms has been stripped from them.

The problem is some organizations, political movements, and politicians in their zeal to protect the people from the dangers of firearms fail to make the connection that, criminals commit crimes. Guns don't tell people to rob a bank they do it as a result of bad life choices, poor impulse control, bad parenting and so on. So politicians runaround pushing for tougher gun laws like a ban on magazines holding more than ten round even though according the FBI average amount of shots fired by a criminal during the commission of a crime was 3 or 4.something, does that make sense to you? Gun laws have from time to time have gone to far i.e. the D.C. And the Chicago gun ban, both of which have been overturned to the Supreme Court. We can't treat all gun laws as an assault on our freedoms (2A) but we must be the first to raise the BS flag when they go to far.

Here is a funny clip that is quasi related, but I'm posting it because it funny.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=dtB-B3fXXVo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DdtB-B3fXXVo

[Condition 1]

Great posts Rabbit.

[poster formerly know as Silverbullet]

Freedoms protected by the Constitution are not absolute. We have the right to free speech but we can not yell fire in a crowed theater. Because of the danger to the public by someone exercising their right in that manner. With regards to the second amendment there are laws the protect the public from imminent danger. Title 18 USC 922 (G) makes it illegal for someone convicted of a felony, a fugitive from justice, dishonorably discharged form the military, illegally in this country, or has been involuntary committed to a mental institution from possessing a firearm or ammunition. Allowing these individuals to posses a firearms presents a great risk to the public. Hence their right to bare arms has been stripped from them.

The problem is some organizations, political movements, and politicians in their zeal to protect the people from the dangers of firearms fail to make the connection that, criminals commit crimes. Guns don't tell people to rob a bank they do it as a result of bad life choices, poor impulse control, bad parenting and so on. So politicians runaround pushing for tougher gun laws like a ban on magazines holding more than ten round even though according the FBI average amount of shots fired by a criminal during the commission of a crime was 3 or 4.something, does that make sense to you? Gun laws have from time to time have gone to far i.e. the D.C. And the Chicago gun ban, both of which have been overturned to the Supreme Court. We can't treat all gun laws as an assault on our freedoms (2A) but we must be the first to raise the BS flag when they go to far.

Here is a funny clip that is quasi related, but I'm posting it because it funny.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=dtB-B3fXXVo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DdtB-B3fXXVo

To clarify. I was speaking of the way they are currently messing with the second amendment like in places like NY and how they try in DE. I realize no freedom is absolute. I am sure our founders had much discussion on that as well.

Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is a great example as there is a clear danger because of the action of the person exercising the right to freedom of speech. Therefore its limited. In the case of the second amendment someone with a glock 17 on their  hip walking around say new yorkdoes nothing wrong just by possessing them and walking around ( stay with me I know its against the law). The person would have to use the gun in a criminal or wrong way to be on par with the fire in a crowded theatre.

Guns are regulated in a "what if" fashion. Politicians could care less if we have  a gun with a 17 round mag for protection because of the "people" their policies create. They figure "what if" someone takes the gun off him, or "what if" some guy comes up and says only people who think they are "bad a@@" walk around with guns.

See what we have done is allowed lawmakers to take our choice way because they are not concerned about what we do, but what could happen. I notice no politician who is anti-gun would support norplant as a requirement of LONG TERM public assistance because "what if" the kids live in a cycle of poverty and are far more likely to end up involved in crimes than someone not from a broken home on the dole.