Hrm. I like where this is going. Open up weapon ownership, reduce military funding - because we will be keeping records and weapon-possessors will be required to pony-up for federal conflicts.
Significant penalties for non-registration, as that obviously means they hate America and wish to see it undefended.
I’m not really seeing a downside.
Perhaps the Rude Pundit covers it in a more nuanced way for some of the pooh-poohers here in the comments?
I found in this strip an interesting perspective: that we are essentially sacrificing our fellow Americans on the altar of a constitutional amendment that may (or may not) be correctly interpreted. We could argue all day about the interpretation of the amendment, but that’s not really the point, even though you (tellingly) are hung up on that bit. It’s much more interesting to me that we as a nation seem to be saying that the lives of all the people lost to gun violence in this country are less important than one badly-formed sentence in the constitution.
You can call that low-information if you really want, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that lots of other people found it interesting or enlightening, both of which suggest that the label “low information” is more about you being annoyed by something that goes against your beliefs. And that’s being charitable. More likely, the strip made a point that stung you in ways that you are unwilling to acknowledge, even to yourself, and this “low information” bullshit is just a coping mechanism that helps you with your denial.
This comic is about as clever as the stuff re-posted on Facebook complaining about how people will get concerned about a lion being hunted, but won’t get upset about thousands of babies being killed every year. It doesn’t make me think–in a word, it’s boring.
The precedent for there being an individual right to bear arms is DC v. Heller, which is about seven years old now. Before that it wasn’t an issue that showed up much, and to the degree that it did the Supreme Court leaned towards it being a collective right.
The downside is that you replace your already warcrime-prone military with a group of people who explicitly endorse the possession of darker-than-norwegian-skin-pigment as a death penalty offence.
When Americans elect Republicans, it’s a given that some non-american people are going to be bombed and tortured. This also happens when Americans elect Democrats, albeit not as much.
The downside of crazy American politicians is mostly felt by non-Americans. Unfortunately
Are “the people” keeping and bearing Arms in order to participate in the Militia, or to protect themselves from it?
Is there any reason it can’t be both - i.e. common and personal defense?
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
Because only trained law enforcement officers, and the US military, can be trusted with firearms. They’re accountable!
FALSE FLAG OPERATION, BOLLING!!!
In the first-ish panel, the brother has blonde hair:
AND YET, in the second panel and ongoing panels, the (assumed) brother has brown hair:
Nothing to see here, folks! Hmmmmm…
From the perspective of this Brit, saying “there’s two hundred years of historical precedence behind it” just makes me think that you’re about one hundred years late changing that law.
“Not as good a satirist as David Low.” Faint Praise indeed.
Nope. But considering the licensing requirements for frying and selling a burger are higherhigher than posessing and operating a firearm, I don’t think a little more training and a little more service is that crazy.
Well, we’d still keep a standing military - they just would have to requisition all weapons. Just like canons weren’t operated by the landowners who possessed them.
That is one of my favorite movie lines.
In English for some reason it’s called a ‘nominative absolute’ (or it was when I went to school), but it was patterned on the Latin and gives a reason for what follows it. Apparently the Founding Fathers wanted ‘everyone’ (White males with property, anyway) to have weapons so that there would be a basis among ‘the people, armed’, for a militia. The plain meaning of the language is otherwise pretty unmistakable.
What’s particularly funny is that the point of Panel 6 wasn’t that the statement was true, it’s that it was powerful enough to enrage the gun nuts to the point of being unable to notice anything else that was important.
It’s pretty obvious why you don’t like it, and it’s not because it’s “low information” - it’s because making fun of you!
And you can’t even say it’s inaccurate, because your posts here have absolutely proved it. What delicious irony, that you post here to complain about something only to reinforce it’s relevance.
It’s pretty outstanding, isn’t it? Dr. Strangelove is just a great movie…
I’ve yet to see a Kubrick film I didn’t love, though I haven’t seen Eyes Wide Shut yet.
