RE: The Dick Bill

ProvokingThought did a blog here which I, being banned, had to log out to read, which claimed there was some house bill that did some radical stuff with the military, dissolved all gun control laws and so on.  Before reading further I looked it up in the congressional archives, and apparently either it never existed or it never passed or came to a vote so there’s no record of it.  Just FYI.

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to RE: The Dick Bill

  1. Make shit up and beleive it…thus it is true is very annoying.

  2. amygwen says:

    It’s actual name is the Militia Act of 1903. It’s pet name is the Dick Act. You would have to follow the amendments of 1908. You would also have to follow further amendments in ’12, ’16, ’18 and ’20.Regardless, I found a nearly word for word entry to whats-his-name as the top hit to my search statement. Can me say plagiarism.More info: http://www.angelfire.com/retro/voices/page2.html#1902 column one. Wikipedia also has more info and links.

  3. DarthPatriot says:

    It has a great deal to do with the state militias receiving federal funding.  As well as the militias are set to follow certain standards in order to continue receiving funds.  You simply wouldn’t find it as 1902 because nothing came of it until like amygwen said “1903”.  I don’t know if this string of acts can really be used for citing defense of the 2nd amendment considering it was pretty much the cause of state militias to conforming to the National Government.  Sounds more like another power grab by the Federal Government to me.  Its pretty damn important history, I wish more people cared about history *sigh*.  In its defense though, the militias did need to be a lot stronger(better equipment, trainer, numbers), but I don’t see the benefit of making it beholden to the Federal Government.  Kinda defeats the purpose, perhaps the effort would have been better funneled to just improving the already existing Army.  But thats a big debate for another day.  But FYI, it wasn’t just bullshit he was making up.  He had just made the mistake of copying the article from another blogger who probably copied it from another and so on – yet the original had its information off a bit.  I still don’t see it as an attack on gun control, if anything, its a power grab. 

  4. agnophilo says:

    @amygwen – I didn’t search the library of congress for “dick act”.  I looked up the house resolution number and title and got no results.@DarthPatriot – Which state’s militia would get the nukes, spy satellites etc?  A strong central government is good for some things, bad for others.

  5. DarthPatriot says:

    @agnophilo – I’m pretty sure the militias would not have the nukes, and such a thing would be left to the military that was already controlled largely by the Federal Government.  Could you imagine leaving the nukes in the hands of a more pacifist state?  Shitty idea.  So, I don’t think I really disagree with you there.  But I do believe maintaining a state militia makes sense though.  Various branches of the military should be able to focus completely on say either defense or offense.  

  6. agnophilo says:

    @DarthPatriot – Don’t we already have that, I thought it was called the police, swat etc.

  7. Justin_DeBin says:

    @tendollar4ways – you forgot to say it’s Nidanesk. LMAO!@agnophilo – PT is a really radical Xangan himself.

  8. @Justin_DeBin – Naw…shoulda said JDBesque.

  9. agnophilo says:

    @Justin_DeBin – He banned me, lol.  He’s not exactly open.

  10. firetyger says:

    Considering he put it in quotations, I thought it was rather obvious he didn’t write it.  He is not one to plagiarize.As for it not existing…I googled it and there are plenty of articles about it.

  11. agnophilo says:

    @firetyger – None of them in the congressional record.And I wasn’t accusing him of plagiarism or of authoring the original thing, at least I wasn’t meaning to.  I just wanted to let anyone who might’ve read it know it’s dubious.

  12. agnophilo says:

    @firetyger – And I couldn’t say as much on his blog, being banned and all.

  13. firetyger says:

    @agnophilo – I should have been more clear that the first part of my comment was directed towards a couple of people who commented above me.  Sorry about that.It is my understanding that The Dick Act is it’s informal name.  It’s in the congressional record under the more formal (Militia Act) title.

  14. DarthPatriot says:

    @agnophilo – Well, I’m sure policemen are trained well, but the idea behind a militia is to protect from threats both foreign and domestic, not enforce law.  The original idea was that guys like you and me would have some degree of training so if things happened back home, we could take care of it.  The National Guard does a good job.  What peeves me off is when Bush began sending these guys over to Iraq.  wtf?  I think what Dick did was bull shit.  Having the “militia” as it were to be at the beck and call of the Federal Government merely enables stupidity on the part of…well, stupid politicians.  @firetyger – I saw like tons of these articles throughout the net.  Whoever the original poster was seemed to make mistakes.  I don’t think I was saying he was plagiarism, let me look up there.  Nah, copy does not entail plagiarism, its a function you  perform on the keyboard.  The problem with whoever authored this is that they said 1902, and came up with some strange information.  It didn’t pass at first, at least until 1903.  Many of the people across the net cite this as being anti-gun control.  I don’t see how though, maybe I need a law degree to do this?  lol

  15. amygwen says:

    He’s still and idiot.

  16. I guess you didn’t happen to notice that the online archives for bills only goes back to 1973 and the congressional record online only goes back to 1989, whereas the citation provided clearly references a page number in the congressional record from 1917.  The internet is a wonderful communication tool, and it’s even good for a starting point for research, but just because something isn’t on the internet doesn’t mean it isn’t true.  

  17. agnophilo says:

    @radicalramblings – I did a pulse explaining that I was wrong about this already.

  18. @agnophilo – So why not update your entry?

  19. agnophilo says:

    @radicalramblings – Because I’ve stopped getting hits on it so no one will ever see it unless I timestamp it which does the same thing as a pulse.

  20. @agnophilo – Well, I saw your entry – not your pulse.  I can’t be the only one.

  21. agnophilo says:

    @radicalramblings – Someone has the same chances of missing a pulse that they do of missing a blog timestamp update. 

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s