One Mans Opinion - 2/6/2013
By Dewaine Shoulders
 
Let me begin this by saying that I am very aware that there have been mass shootings all across these United States over the course of several years now. So before you call me a gun-loving POS, I believe that it's not the fault of the gun that children and adults have died in these shootings, but the fault of the lunatics that got their hands on the weapons. 
Remember: A gun cannot fire itself, thus guns cannot kill unless someone pulls the trigger. Hence, the shooter is the killer, not the gun!

The anti-gun left in our government are going after what they refer to as Assault Rifles. Technically, all guns can fall into that classification if used in an assault. If you follow the logic employed by the left, then automobiles, baseball bats, crow bars, pencils, paper clips, and other inanimate objects can also be referred to as assault weapons if used in an assault. There is no classification that I am aware of that states a rifle is an ASSAULT WEAPON just because of its looks. According to the logic many on the left use, a butane lighter could be classified an Assault Lighter because it can light more times than a single match.
But this isn't about assault weapons, this about the right to own them that I speak. 

A quick show of hands: How many of you have ever heard of The Dick Act?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

A brief history lesson is in order - Anyone who has served in the National Guard may already know this law already.

Senator Charles W. F. Dick, who was a Major General in the Ohio National Guard, was the chair of the Committee on the Militia. He sponsored legislation (back in the 57th Congress) on June 28^th, 1902, which was passed in January of 1903. Under the legislation, the organized militia of the States gave federal status to the militia, and required it to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend 24 drills and five days annual training a year. Also, for the first time, it provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased federal funding which the legislation made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards. The Dick Act, aka the Efficiency of Militia Bill - HR 11654, was initiated by then Secretary of War, Elihu Root, just after the Spanish-American War (1898). To explain it, after the war demonstrated weaknesses in the militia, and the entirety of the U.S. Military, the formation of the National Guard began with this act. It also keeps state governors from using National Guard forces as their own private armies.

Here's some of the highlights:
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard. Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) cannot be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.” (That was changed in 1908).
Further, The Militia Act of 1903 was used by the Executive Branch during the civil rights demonstrations during the 1960s. George Wallace, among other southern Democrat governors, tried to use National Guard to block civil rights and desegregation initiatives. In these particular cases, whenever a governor called up the National Guard for use in blocking federal directives, the President promptly mobilized the Guard into the Army Reserve, placing the Guard commanders under federal authority, and subject to court martial should they not carry out executive directives. (Anyone remember those days?).

Now, can you tell me how many times have you seen the Constitution overlooked lately? How many times has it been flat-out ignored? Therefore, the Dick Act can be overturned, or simply ignored by Congress; just like any other law they choose to ignore. Slavery was abolished, yet we still have it today, it's just called Welfare or Entitlement Programs now.

To give you some idea of what it is that I'm going on about, here's some of the stuff I have read on social media about the Dick Act:  
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) cannot be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States." The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

This was posted on social media, and contains at least one error that is obvious...The October 4. 1917 part. The bill was changed in 1908, so Woodrow Wilson did have the means to make the National Guard go to war outside the US. George Bush and BHO both have sent the National Guard overseas during the War on Terror, or whatever the politically Correct terminology is now. They cannot be impeached for that. So, I'm sorry for being a downer here, but from what I have seen, the Dick Act--- other than the catchy name for a bunch of the politicians in DC--- doesn't mean Dick!

Now, honestly, when you have as many Marxists, pseudo-fascists, Maoist, and Socialist running things in Washington, do you really believe that they can't or won't go around federal laws, or the Constitution, to do as they please?

Now, concerning ex post facto law stated above: An "ex post facto" law retroactively criminalizes conduct which was not criminal when done.

I'll explain it this way: Let's say you bought a gun last year, last week, or even yesterday. Tomorrow, the slimy politicians in DC decide to abolish the 2nd Amendment. That ex post facto law now means you are a criminal for buying that gun, even though it was legally purchased. The government can do this legally, and we all know that the Democrats, and RINO Republicans will somehow manage to make it a criminal offense to own a gun if and when they decide to overturn the 2nd Amendment. How many of those politicians have you voted for? How many of them deserve your vote again? You and I know that many of them talk about being pro 2nd Amendment, and NRA friendly, but let's see how many of them cave to political pressure from the Community Organizer-in-Chief or the anti-gun left.

When the politicians do abolish the 2nd Amendment, or the UN mandates it, (and our spineless jellyfish leaders say, "well gosh darn it, we have to follow UN law,") only the military, the police (maybe), and the criminals will own guns. And we all know that criminals WILL NOT turn their guns in, because they are CRIMINALS!

Remember the old bumper sticker? "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!" 

Someone asked me the other day, "Dewaine, do you see the day coming that guns will be outlawed?" I replied, "You damned skippy I do, and sooner than anyone thinks!"

All it will take is a bunch of Twitter-obsessed celebrities and leftist loonfish to make the anti-gun socialists in DC do the "right thing to protect our children" and it will be done. And the Dick Act, nor anything else will stop that wheel from rolling.

There are those people on both sides of the political aisle that say people do not need assault rifles. Well, using that logic, do we need cars, big screen TV's, laptop computers, cell phones, or a subscription to the Desert of the Month Club? Just because we don't need something isn't a valid case for not wanting to own something. Myself, I'd love a tractor-trailer load of gold bars. Do I need it? Sure I do, but that need is negated by the fact that I cannot afford to buy it. But, legally, I can buy what they refer to as an assault weapon. If I could afford one, then hell yes, I'd own it! Do I need it? Probably not, but it's my right to be able to own it, or any other weapon to protect myself and my family. For that alone, I should have the right and opportunity to purchase it if I can afford it. Since I can't, the point is moot.

Further, if the left says I don't need to own an assault rifle, then some woman doesn't need an abortion, or free contraceptives paid for by our tax dollars. Show me in the Constitution where my tax dollars are supposed to go to someone who wants to have sex and kill unborn babies! I'll wait if you need to check.

But I digress, it's not up to the government to decide whether I need something, it's the governments place to insure I can own that weapon if I so desire. If they decide otherwise, then they are not following the Constitution. The first Amendment allows for free speech, but it says nothing about the Internet, TV, Radio, or Twitter. So, does that make those things unconstitutional? NO! So, just because our forefathers did not have AK-47's doesn't mean that we cannot have them. In fact, I bet they would have loved the opportunity to use them against the British back in the Revolutionary War. That war would have been short and decisive if they did have them!

So, until the socialists running the show in DC decide to overturn the 2nd Amendment, you can still buy guns and ammo--- and I suggest you do so early and often. Also, you need to keep your eyes and ears open, and your powder dry. And please, stop believing everything you read on Facebook, or any other social media. There is fear-mongering and false hope abounding, but unless you happen to know the Constitution, you don't know Dick!

But that's just my opinion, I could be right!