Happy Birthday to The Dick Act of 1902, the controversial law that just turned 100 years old and is in essence one of the greatest arguments for the rights of military style firearms for a civilian population.
The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as the Dick Act, was initiated by United States Secretary of War Elihu Root following the Spanish–American War of 1898, after the war demonstrated weaknesses in the militia, and in the entire U.S. military. The act formulated the concept of the National Guard and also ensured that all state military forces were simultaneously dual reservists under the authority of the Army Reserve. This last measure was to prevent state governors from using National Guard forces as “private armies”, in many ways as had been done in the American Civil War and to ensure that the President could, at any time, mobilize state military forces into the federal armed forces.
U.S. Senator Charles W. F. Dick, a Major General in the Ohio National Guard and the chair of the Committee on the Militia, sponsored the 1903 Act towards the end of the 57th U.S. Congress. Under this legislation, passed January 21, 1903, the organized militia of the States were given federal status to the militia, and required 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, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased Federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards.
The Dick Act of 1902 has been extensively quoted of late as gun grabbing politicians like Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, and Mayor Bloomberg have attempted to use the tragedy of mass shootings to advance their private anti-gun positions. However, contrary to the belief of many Second Amendment defenders, The Dick Act of 1902 is subject to repeal or being ignored altogether. After all, many laws that are on the books currently are openly ignored by government for its own convenience. For instance, the Tenth Amendment is especially ignored and manipulated by politicians under the “commerce clause.” Thieves do not care about laws, so it should go without saying that criminals who run government don’t give much notion to The Dick Act of 1902. They will find a way to circumvent it at any turn, because they are functioning as “enemies of the state” as it as the state “should be.”
The definition of how the “state” should be is outlined in The Federalist Papers, and Anti-Federalist Papers, both books among my greatest personal literary treasures. When I speak of how America should be, I take those arguments as the original text and source of my foundation beliefs. Modern politicians are of less quality than those who participated in those arguments, and are less valid as a result. Their modern opinions hold no value for me. They routinely ignore the Constitution, or seek to manipulate the wording at every turn. So I do the same toward them—I seek to rid myself of their manipulative influence—and corrosive nature. As an American I have no intention of being pulled collectively into their degraded philosophy of centralized power.
This brings us back to the intention of The Dick Act of 1902. The intention behind the Act was to make all of America able to defend itself against all future armies, no matter what the economic conditions for the nation might be under any circumstance. The assumption was that at some point in the future, as was evident during the Spanish-American War that America may not be able to properly support a military, and that may well be the case with a debt of $17 trillion and a collapsed dollar which appears unavoidable at this point in time. As much as politicians deny the possibility, at the current spending and inflation rate, America is only about 5 years away from such a devastating fiscal collapse. When and if that happens, America’s borders will be very vulnerable to invasion from hostile regimes, such as Venezuela, Central America, Mexico, the Russia, China, and North Korea—all have elements of their governments who are licking their chops at America’s evident decline. The Dick Act of 1902 values a last layer of defense in America if the government is unable to support an organized military under federal dollars. The citizens of our nation should be equally able to have arms that can fill the void of declined military support due to poor economic circumstances. In 1902, the military had been gradually scaled back in the years after the Civil War to pay off the massive debts that had been incurred, and it is very possible that the future of America will go through the same ordeal. A strong military is not always possible, but is only a direct result of a powerful country with a strong economy. A strong economy is a fading light in present day America, so in the future, the defense of our country will fall on the citizen’s militia—which will have to function separately from a paid National Guard. Military reliability may not be reliable in the future so everything that is available to military personnel needs to be available to the back yard patriot—and that includes rocket launchers and machine guns of all calibers—for the defense of our nation in the power void left by a bankrupt military.
Modern politicians are in denial that their policies will fail, and they wish to believe that their way of governance will always prevail. They want to see that Americans have trust in their military, and the defense of the nation. But reality says something else. We can’t even trust our government schools to not abuse children, how can the government be trusted with every aspect of security for our nation? After all, didn’t 9/11 happen because lots of people didn’t do their jobs? People who believe such things are ridiculous, and impractical. It is nice to have a military, and it is nice to have a National Guard, but it is the ability to assemble a militia on call, for neighbors to organize against a domestic threat, even if that threat is an internal collapse of government, which is the last best hope dedicated to preserving the Constitution under catastrophic social failure. The private citizen army with the ability to assemble with arms purchased not by tax payers for government ends, but by their own desires for freedom with their own money is the key to real, “decentralized” freedom. Those types of people are the last line of defense that keeps America free, and requires citizens to have the ability to purchase all arms of all types in all the quantities that they can afford for the preservation of the nation.
Diane Feinstein along with her gun grabbing friends assumes that life will always be just as it is right now. They trust foolishly the premise set by the United Nations that the world’s tyrannical enemies can all be subdued by peaceful measures and words on paper. Gun-grabbers believe, as naively as their idol Woodrow Wilson believed, that the world would be better off if only academics ran everything. Yet they are as foolish as their fellow tyrants like Hitler who believed the world would be alright if only he eliminated all the Jews, or Stalin if all resisters to communism could be “purged” from politics, they all believe that centralized management is the key to a country’s success. To the gun-grabbers everything would be peaceful if only the most violent in our society were contained away and separated from the rest of the society, and guns were kept from their hands. All tyrants have the same childish notions.
Reality says otherwise–that those who are safest are those best able to defend themselves without large organizations of bureaucratic entities to act on their behalf. What separates America from everyone else is the instantaneous ability to form a militia as the third line of defense, as outlined in The Dick Act of 1902. The elements that make America different from every place else in the world are seen in the kinds of minds that shaped such laws in the first place. The reliance is not on a government solution to safety, but on the local level to react quickly, and decisively, and to overcome any enemy with mass, because such an element cannot be strategically planned for by an invading army. And foreign armies do plan an invasion of American soil, even if those plans are only a fantasy at present. They just don’t act on it because in America invasion would be impossible to achieve because there is not centralization—which is the only way to secure an area and convert it over to the invader’s way of thinking. In that spirit American enemies root for the gun-grabbers to succeed and hope to steal away the rights of Americans to arm themselves under a banner of peace. Only then can they hope to occupy America. Strategically, they are already half way there. If the military falls due to pour funding, and the politicians use every emotional crises to steal away Americans ability to purchase guns and ammunition then defeat of our continent is a forgone conclusion from all the European nations who have a bone to pick that started with the American Revolution. For those who think such thoughts are too far in the past do not know the minds of most Europeans—especially those in academia who shape the thoughts of world society. Yes, there is a plan, and the only thing that keeps it from happening is the spirit of America that is reflected in The Dick Act of 1902. It may be only 100 years old, but it is more relevant today than it was then, and for much more sinister, global tactical maneuvers.