Women? Free blacks?
Think about the reaction in the 1960’s when the Black Panthers decided to see if the 2nd Amendment means what you say it means.
14 Likes
I’m trying for some sort of cock-ring joke, but I got nuthin’.
1 Like
something about keeping it close to his baggins?
5 Likes
This is awesome. Parody is so much more effective than Yet More Dialectic.
1 Like
Yes, of course, just as he can vote in elections and run away from home without any interference from his parents, rights also guaranteed in the constitutional amendments.
But just in case this is a serious question:
Nothing says “take me seriously” more than a pink dildo. Also I have no doubt that some people would not be more safe simply because THEY carry a gun. I would strongly suggest that they don’t carry guns until they are sure they are going to be safer with one than without. I happen to know that I will be more safe with a gun than without. Why? Because I’m very well trained. I will also believe that politicians believe this nonsense when they stop hiring people with guns to protect them. One last thing. Each time I hear someone bring up that the first amendment only applies to Militias I just have to laugh. This ignorance has gotten so old that it’s not even shocking anymore. It’s seems that none of these people have ever bothered to read the statements by the people who actually wrote the constitution. They were very clear in regards to their intentions. The people’s rights to defend themselves were to be absolute when it comes to guns. We have the right to defend ourselves with guns, it’s also not a “Government” granted right. It’s a right that we have simply because we are human beings. The right to protect yourself is a universal right. You can take that the ability for the individual to protect themselves but you can’t take away the right. The same can be said of any “right”; they can be violated but no legislation will make them go away because they don’t come from government in the first place.
This is why I always carry a portable nuke. Just in case someone fucks with me.
6 Likes
Reading the contents on the Facebook event, it’s clear this has touched a nerve with many gun owners. Who totally do not see guns as their source of masculinity shut up shut up shut up!
It’s hilarious. Or it would be if America’s never ending crisis of masculinity wasnt so godamn violent. She’s got death threats.
10 Likes
Fascinating – I must test out that unqualified Constitutional freedom to bear arms wherever the hell I please the next time I’m passing through an American airport on my way to visit every Republican Senator and Congressman on Capitol Hill (and the Texas State Legislature) to convince them to come around to my positions on abortion, GLBT rights and gun control. Somehow, I doubt I’m going to get far.
2 Likes
Ahem:
4 Likes
Um…I’m pretty sure you’re the only one who thinks that’s in the First Amendment.
10 Likes
I have to admit, that were I to be a young man attending this university, I’d be totally intimidated by this. See that attractive woman in your class that you were contemplating trying to strike up a conversation wit? Oh, she owns a dildo several orders of magnitude larger than what I’m packing…
That’s what stuffing your drawers is for. Even a fake bulge can help a guy’s confidence.
Don’t forget to wrap it in foil!
5 Likes
It’s “well regulated” which translates more to well equipped than organized. But that doesn’t matter because the next part says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I mean it is right there in black and white - the right of the people. Just like every other right in he Bill of Rights applies to the people. Free speech is for everyone, not just news papers and media outlets.
Remember originally the US had an extremely small standing military. For the longest time the State Militias would be called up instead. The bulk of the arms making up that Militia was PRIVATE ARMS. Rich people would own cannons and use them when called to war. If you read militia laws from the late 1700s they were requiring you to have x amount of balls, y amount of power, boots, bed roll, x amount of food, etc. You were expected to be an asset and provide the bulk of your gear. What wasn’t required to join the militia was some sort of pre-training.
THAT was the point of the first part of the Amendment. The Militias WERE the bulk of the Army and in order for that Militia to be any sort of force to be reckoned with, it required there be a large pool of armed citizens to pull from.
Now - you can argue your opinion that it is out dated. Since we now have a very large Federal military and the state militias are now part of the National Guard and weapons are all provided by the government that such measures are not needed.
What you can’t argue is the original purpose and intent.
Gosh, I never heard any of that before…
I was wondering when you’d show up again. I mean, it is a thread on guns.
2 Likes
Sadly, that is not the case. There has been at least one other Boing Boing poster who also failed that test. Would you like to guess on which side of the fence that person stands?
I wonder if knowing which amendment would be a good first litmus for who can and cannot own a firearm? Obviously, at least two “gun nuts” would have been excluded.
I have doubts.
4 Likes
If you heard it before I guess it is just easy to ignore an inconvenient truth.
No, really, you have to bear in mind that English spelling wasn’t standardised at the time (and works to more than one standard even now): the right of the people to bare arms in a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed. This was actually an amplification of the First Amendment, allowing some of the farther-out non-conformists to participate in the national defence.
This has been consistently misinterpreted by all kinds of people, and, as a result, your country has been more thoroughly fucked up the arse than any amount of open-carry dildos could ever hope to achieve.
3 Likes
Because there is only one way to read the intent of the Founding Fathers? Oh wait, the Supreme Court has shown, time and again, that there is not. Leaving that aside, they can still regulate and order this right to bear arms however they see fit, as the ones who decide what the law means in the United States. Even if it was their intent, things change. They didn’t forsee an America with a school shooting a couple of times a month, with 300 million citizens, and with a standing army. This isn’t their country of farmers and plantation owners summoning up the militia to fight the English. We have a standing army and, as I recall, we haven’t been invaded in 200 years. Times change.
But we all get that you want your pew pew toys forever, no matter how many dead children our country has as a result.
3 Likes
