Anonymous ID: fc95f5 Feb. 7, 2021, 12:12 p.m. No.12851669   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1699 >>1707 >>1790 >>1830

CURRENT BAKER

CURRENT BAKER

And Bakers in general

The Global "The Dick Act of 1902 - Gun control is forbidden" link contains false information.

 

I am asking you to remove the link from the Globals.

 

Yesterday I researched this issue and posted my findings and analysis here >>12842635 (PB) but erred by prematurely posting without including the source document. I did follow up immediately with a 2nd post here >>12842657 (PB) in which I posted the sauce.

 

The sauce is a color photocopy of the Act and commentary from the Library of Congress, which I am putting here: https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc0001.2012yapam90993/?sp=20

 

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. None of that language is found in 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 grossly false and misleading. The existing Global contains only a sliver of correct factual information and uses that to wrap around bullshit opinion, and is poorly sauced to boot.

 

I appreciate you hearing me out. I'm not attacking any Baker in asking this, I am simply asking you to look at the Act itself and determine that this Global is fake and shouldn't be there.

Anonymous ID: fc95f5 Feb. 7, 2021, 12:20 p.m. No.12851745   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>12851699

Appreciate your view. I don't think it was intentional, but it kinda works that way.

We're being hammered in the media with their "muh Qanon" crap and Q Research has done so much good for everyone; I don't want to see the board's credibility damaged when it's reputation is under increasing scrutiny. Will leave it to individuals to assess the what/why/how of the situation.

 

>>12851707

Thank you very much. I've tried several times; I think I've been too verbose in my previous attempts, maybe, and triggered TL;DR effect.

Anonymous ID: fc95f5 Feb. 7, 2021, 12:54 p.m. No.12852060   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>12851665

Hope other folks feel the same way I do.

I have the deepest respect for Q, Q+, our MI teams, families, the Mil in general (the ones that are good) and all the good guys out there.

That being said, I am not:

A Qanon

A Q follower

A Q adherent

 

I am a participating, anonymous, unpaid volunteer member of the image board labeled Q Research.

If anyone wants to call me anything other than Anon and asks my opinion of what that nomenclature should be, I would also be happy to be known as

Q Research Board Member

or just

Member of the Board

Because that's what it really is.

Screw the MSM and their narrative lies.