What the Second Amendment really confers

image 120

As reader Scott Reilly noted in a comment on the previous post, you can buy this as a tee-shirt.

34 Comments

  1. gbjames
    Posted December 23, 2012 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    He should take those off. His right is to “bare arms”.

    • gbjames
      Posted December 23, 2012 at 10:23 am | Permalink

      sub

    • Dominic
      Posted December 23, 2012 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

      I have always said that. Well done James!

  2. guilherme21msa
    Posted December 23, 2012 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    Wrong. those are not the actual arms of a bear, they are fake. This man does not have the constitutional right to carry those around.

    • starskeptic
      Posted December 23, 2012 at 10:46 am | Permalink

      “bear” arms used as a verb; “he beared his arms up real good – they was nice and furry”

      • guilherme21msa
        Posted December 23, 2012 at 11:39 am | Permalink

        but then the second A gives people the right to turn their own arms into the actual arms of a bear. Shapeshifters will be proud.

        • starskeptic
          Posted December 23, 2012 at 11:51 am | Permalink

          Arms turned into the arms of a bear wouldn’t be “actual arms of a bear” – they’d be “beared” arms. And of course, knowing how the constitution is apparently based on the Bible – shapeshifters would be right out…

    • Dominic
      Posted December 23, 2012 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

      The ‘constitutional right to’ or ‘the constitution to’?!

  3. Ougaseon
    Posted December 23, 2012 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    You forgot that the right to bear arms is only half of the amendment!

  4. starskeptic
    Posted December 23, 2012 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    Isn’t a group of bears referred to as a “militia”? As in “we had to cut our fishing trip short due to the militia of bears that moved in”. Or is that only in Texas?

    • Dominic
      Posted December 23, 2012 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

      How different are Ursus americanus eremicus & Ursus americanus amblyceps? Are they just examples of splitters because I would suppose these populations are not discrete?

      [looks at Wikipedia] Hang on – the populations seem – now – somewhat isolated from each other, but there are very few in Texas, which explains a lot. The more arms, the fewer bears.

      • Dominic
        Posted December 23, 2012 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

        I mean splitters v clumpers, species wise. Jerry, I have not read your sdpecies book – are you a splitter or a clumper or is that too unsophisticated a view? Or am I just off topic…?

      • starskeptic
        Posted December 23, 2012 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

        Which is why we should be arming those bears…

  5. starskeptic
    Posted December 23, 2012 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    “Militia and I were the hit of the party – our bear arms won for best costume.”

  6. Jon Moles
    Posted December 23, 2012 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    Family Guy discussed this a while back: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RablPaIREkk

    • starskeptic
      Posted December 23, 2012 at 11:16 am | Permalink

      According to that history lesson, guilherme21msa’s comment is right on: fake bear arms indeed! Certainly not as the founders intended…

  7. Gordon Hill
    Posted December 23, 2012 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    Looks like he’s bearing bear arms on his bare arms… Is that double or triple redundancy?

    • starskeptic
      Posted December 23, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

      Not sure about the redundancy, but you may well have hit upon an alternate definition for “militia”…

      • Gordon Hill
        Posted December 23, 2012 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

        Oh… at first I thought you wrote minutiae … ;-)

        • starskeptic
          Posted December 23, 2012 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

          I’m getting credit for being smarter than I actually was…

          • Gordon Hill
            Posted December 23, 2012 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

            An event worth enjoying… ;-)

            • starskeptic
              Posted December 23, 2012 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

              lol – indeed…

  8. Posted December 23, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    Is this related to the right to eat bear claws?

    • Gordon Hill
      Posted December 23, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

      …only prune, not almond… ;-)

    • Dominic
      Posted December 23, 2012 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

      … or the right to eat Santa Claus? Do those bear feet have the correct number of toes or dioes it vary by species? Come to think of it, which species of bear do you Americans have the right to arms…er… of… or from…?

  9. marcusa1971
    Posted December 23, 2012 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    Those are not real bear “arms.” I think the authors of the constitution, in their forsight, actually meant that the people had the right to surgically graft bear forlegs (“arms”) to their shoulders, when medical science had advanced that far. As I understand it, that was every man’s dream in the 18th century.

    • starskeptic
      Posted December 24, 2012 at 12:20 am | Permalink

      Truly, these would be bear arms as opposed to the beared arms discussed previously; even more importantly to remember in context is that militias were not allowed to have forelegs – thus making the aforementioned surgical procedure not only desirable but mandatory in achieving domestic tranquility.

  10. marycanada FCD
    Posted December 23, 2012 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    LMAO!

  11. Posted December 23, 2012 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    I always understood the 2nd amendment needs to be understood in its historical context. The authors of the constitution found during the long, hot summer that they perspired excessively, and the fashions at the time dictated that long-sleeves were mandatory.

    After much staining of ink, it was resolved to remove their coats, and in a demonstration of defiance to tyrannical fashion sheriffs, rolled up their sleeves, and wrote that they have “the right to bare arms.”

    Notes:
    1) I believe the original framers of the 1st amendment did have a clause stating that all puns (punes?) must be told as a shaggy dog story.

    2) The word “Nerf” is missing between “bare” and “arms”. If that one word was added, the arguments would make more sense. After all, if it was the original right was to bare Nerf arms, and this was overturned and Nerf were banned, then surely; “If Nerf guns are made illegal, then only criminals would carry Nerf guns.”

    • starskeptic
      Posted December 24, 2012 at 12:09 am | Permalink

      I like this analysis – it would be perfect if you could work “militia” and “Nerf” together in some way. Or maybe it just needs more cowbell…

  12. Posted December 24, 2012 at 7:11 am | Permalink

    Funny!

    The following is not so funny. Americans are still confused about the ‘Right to Bier Arms’…

    http://mg.co.za/article/2012-12-24-pro-gun-rights-us-petition-to-deport-piers-morgan

    Go Piers!

  13. gravelinspector
    Posted December 24, 2012 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    Bear feet – likely attached to arms and legs – as a relatively good justification for possession of weapons in certain, quite limited, circumstances.

  14. Posted December 25, 2012 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    Wonderful….now Bigfoot will never be seen…

  15. jmt
    Posted December 31, 2012 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

    I’ve always thought that is was “the right to arm bears”


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29,605 other followers

%d bloggers like this: