Gun lovers ever hear of the Dick Act?
Jan 8, 2013 10:52:34 #
Jan 8, 2013 11:04:27 #
Twardlow
Loc: Arkansas
ole sarg wrote:
If what you say is so, then why can't you own a machine gun?
Then how do you explain the Sullivan Act. The Dick Act is basically null and void.
This is another canard of the gun lobby and the gun nuts - most of whom are also chicken hawks.
Then how do you explain the Sullivan Act. The Dick Act is basically null and void.
This is another canard of the gun lobby and the gun nuts - most of whom are also chicken hawks.
Actually, you can own a machine gun--at least last time I checked.
You just pay (or paid, perhaps) $200 tax for it, per gun.
Jan 8, 2013 11:17:46 #
ole sarg wrote:
If what you say is so, then why can't you own a machine gun?
Then how do you explain the Sullivan Act. The Dick Act is basically null and void.
This is another canard of the gun lobby and the gun nuts - most of whom are also chicken hawks.
Then how do you explain the Sullivan Act. The Dick Act is basically null and void.
This is another canard of the gun lobby and the gun nuts - most of whom are also chicken hawks.
You can legally own a machine gun and a silencer in the USA.
Jan 8, 2013 11:34:55 #
Jan 8, 2013 11:36:07 #
Jan 8, 2013 11:37:28 #
Jan 8, 2013 11:48:13 #
lighthouse wrote:
See the heading at the top of the page Huey Driver.
It says MAIN PHOTOGRAPHY DISCUSSION.
There are different pages for having a rant.
It says MAIN PHOTOGRAPHY DISCUSSION.
There are different pages for having a rant.
Apparently you missed the major heading, non photography discussions
Jan 8, 2013 12:33:29 #
Huey Driver wrote:
I may be wrong but that permit fee is $200 annually not a one time thing?
It's a one time fee per item, not an annual fee.
Jan 8, 2013 14:12:22 #
ole sarg wrote:
If what you say is so, then why can't you own a machine gun?
Then how do you explain the Sullivan Act. The Dick Act is basically null and void.
This is another canard of the gun lobby and the gun nuts - most of whom are also chicken hawks.
Then how do you explain the Sullivan Act. The Dick Act is basically null and void.
This is another canard of the gun lobby and the gun nuts - most of whom are also chicken hawks.
Again, more misinformation,
You can own a machine gun, you just need special licenses from ATBF. How can one believe in what a persons says if the very first thing they say is false?
Jan 8, 2013 16:28:32 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
George H wrote:
Apparently you missed the major heading, non photography discussions
lighthouse wrote:
See the heading at the top of the page Huey Driver.
It says MAIN PHOTOGRAPHY DISCUSSION.
There are different pages for having a rant.
It says MAIN PHOTOGRAPHY DISCUSSION.
There are different pages for having a rant.
Apparently you missed the major heading, non photography discussions
Looks like it has been shifted by Admin.
Jan 8, 2013 16:40:06 #
Wonder what kind of lies our current president and his administration are going to come up with to try and discredit this? He doesn't seem to put any value in our constitution. Doesn't fit in with the dictatorship agenda that he wants.
Jan 8, 2013 16:43:28 #
Huey Driver wrote:
Sorry bout that. Punched the wrong button again
Yo Huey Driver no apology necessary - did you have both hands on the cycle stick? :lol: Have you heard the tune Gods Own Lunatics?
Dogman
Jan 8, 2013 17:13:10 #
ole sarg
Loc: south florida
The truth about the Dick Act and not written by some dick!
The Dick Act, 1903 affirmed the National Guard as the primary organized reserve force.
Between 1903 and the 1920's, legislation was enacted that strengthened the Army National Guard as a component of the national defense force. The Dick Act of 1903 replaced the 1792 Militia Act and affirmed the National Guard as the Army's primary organized reserve.
http://www.arng.army.mil/aboutus/history/Pages/ConstitutionalCharteroftheGuard.aspx
The Dick Act, 1903 affirmed the National Guard as the primary organized reserve force.
Between 1903 and the 1920's, legislation was enacted that strengthened the Army National Guard as a component of the national defense force. The Dick Act of 1903 replaced the 1792 Militia Act and affirmed the National Guard as the Army's primary organized reserve.
http://www.arng.army.mil/aboutus/history/Pages/ConstitutionalCharteroftheGuard.aspx
Jan 8, 2013 18:16:38 #
Timaloha
Loc: Cape Cod, MA USA
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
he Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" ) , which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service M16 rifles and the like may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendments ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."
~ Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia
Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision
he Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" ) , which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service M16 rifles and the like may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendments ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."
~ Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia
Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision
Jan 8, 2013 18:37:10 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.