If you were part of an organization which prides itself on being the greatest
open-source information gathering and analysis group in the world, wouldn't you
be embarrassed to find a glaring error in some information you published as factual?
That is the situation we have with the Globals
Specifically "The Dick Act of 1902 - Gun control is forbidden" link
Yesterday I had the opportunity to research this issue, which turned out to be not a particularly challenging task. I posted my findings and analysis here >>12842635 (PB) but erred by prematurely posting without including the source document. Upon quickly realizing my error, I included the sauce in a linked post, found here >>12842657 (PB)
I enclose a link to the sauce again, here: https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc0001.2012yapam90993/?sp=20
Let me simply summarize. The Dick Act does NOT forbid gun control. It does NOT allow for "unorganized militia" to buy and own whatever weapons and ammo they want to, in whatever quantities.
In no way, shape, manner or form is any such language a part of the Dick Act. The ONLY thing that this Global gets right is, it sets out there is the Regular Army, the organized militia in the form of the National Guard, and the Enrolled Militia which is every able-bodied American male (and aliens intending to become US citizens) between the ages of 18-45 years. That, quite literally, is the only part of this Global that is correct.
The rest of it is some non-lawyer, non-realist pseudo-sovereign citizen chop-logic bullshit.
I would greatly appreciate it if ANYONE would take a look at this and tell me where I am wrong. Show me the specific language in the Act. Explain to me how it is derived, and how by either express language or operation with other laws ANYTHING other than what I just set out actually happens to be true and correct.
And if no one can show me, by other laws or case law that these statements are true, then how about someone please ask this to be removed.
If you cite to me "because the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution says so," I would really LOVE for you to show exactly how that is the case, when the Dick Act contains no such supposedly enabling language.
The existing Global contains the merest sliver of correct factual information and uses that to wrap around bullshit opinion, and is poorly sauced to boot. Imho, we should aim to do better than this.
And yes, the fact that it took me such a long time is a personal failure of my own, to which I take responsibility and apologize to the rest of the anons for not acting with greater promptness.
I appreciate you hearing me out.