🔥 Popular | Latest

earthsong9405: All done with Urbosa’s redesign and the additional sketches for her role in my headcanon! <: As usual I didn’t change too much but I gave her a slightly different hairstyle, some tusks (as is natural for Gerudo in my headcanon), and a brand new outfit! She has such lovely colors to work with, I love her so much ;-;But I’m sure ya don’t wanna hear me babble about how enjoyable her design is. So, let’s go straight into the headcanon! <:————————--Urbosa is the current chief of the Gerudo and serves as the acting Champion for them as well. As a Champion in this timeline, she holds a key component in gaining access to Old Hyrule-”Champion” in this timeline doesn’t fully hold the same function as it once did in BotW. Instead of being chosen to pilot the Divine Beasts, a Champion are a handful of chosen warriors that serve as Hyrule’s best line of defense against any threat. Despite every group of peoples having their own form of governing, culture, and way of life, all of them are still united under the banner of Hyrule, and the Champions could be the physical representation of this tight alliance. A Champion may not necessarily have a lot of political power by themselves but what they represent and what they stand for still puts them in a high position in social status and therefore their word often holds significant weight. As not only the chief of Gerudo but also their Champion, Urbosa is in a position of having more power than what would typically be seen for a Chief. Thankfully though, she doesn’t abuse it and leads her people well: there’s a reason she’s so well respected and loved among not only the Gerudo, but across Hyrule as well.-As one of the original Champions, Urbosa retains many of her memories from her past life, including what ultimately led to her death-I’ve always liked the idea of Urbosa being a motherly figure to just about anyone she meets, but that also includes being an actual mother! Her kid in this headcanon is Riju <:-While Urbosa isn’t actually related to Ganondorf, he refers to her as his “aunt”. Of all the Gerudo in his life, Urbosa was a consistent presence, often visiting him and his parents at their secluded home in the middle of Korok Forest. She’d bring stories of adventure and gifts and even helped train him to be a skilled warrior, but as much as she loves the boy her visits held an alternative motive.-As a whole, no one really knows of Ganondorf’s past as being the vessel for the Demon King, but if anyone would have any idea about it it’d certainly be the Sheikah and the Gerudo. As per tradition in their culture, a newborn Gerudo must be brought forth to a shaman for examination to ensure their health and to fully proclaim their citizenship as a new member of the tribe. When Ganondorf was examined, the first thing the shaman noticed was the peculiar mark upon his chest: a birthmark in the shape of the wound that struck Demise down all those thousands of years ago. In seeing the mark the shaman took the baby away from his mother and brought it to the council and Urbosa to discuss what to do with it.The Gerudo are intimately familiar with the history surrounding the Demon King and how he stole one of their own, so the mark was very telling of what the child once was. And given the long stretch of peace Hyrule was experiencing it understandably buzzed some fear among the elder council. Many were afraid his birth meant an end to that peace, that the Demon King had somehow reincarnated once more and meant to bring hell back to Hyrule.So in response to all of this, the elders argued amongst each other about a solution. Many ruled the boy too dangerous to allow him to grow older and demanded he be… dealt with. Others deemed that too cruel, even for a damned child, and suggested they simply leave him somewhere far away: let nature decide if he lives or dies. But, as chief and Gerudo Champion of Hyrule, it ultimately came down to Urbosa’s choice. She held the babe her council hissed demon, stared at the birthmark that marked him as a vessel, heard the pleading sobs of the boy’s mother over the whispers of “we’ll make it quick, but we mustn’t let him live”, “he is dangerous, he will bring doom to us all” “end it now while he is weak”.Stared at the supposed demon child, who simply yawned in her grasp and blinked up at her with innocent, yellow eyes. She met the Demon King once: she had stared into that monster’s eyes while she fought it to her death in her past lifetime. She knows soulless eyes when she sees them… and this baby didn’t have those eyes.So Urbosa made her decision: the boy will not die. It was largely met with disbelief and anger: you will doom us all! they said. Despite Urbosa staying firm in her decision, it took her days of arguing with the council and the aid of a Sheikah Seer (who examined the child themselves and confirmed that he didn’t house the Demon King) to finally reach a compromise: the boy will live, but he can’t live among the Gerudo. He had to live with his mother in exile, and his growth had to be monitored as a precaution. The monitoring came in the form of Urbosa’s frequent visits.-Urbosa is close friends with Zelda’s parents and is also something of an “aunt” figure to Zelda as well; Zelda absolutely adores Urbosa and even sees her as more of a secondary mother figure than anything.————————————Aaaaaaaaand that’s all I have for Urbosa for now! If I think of anything else I’ll be sure to add more, and of course if ya have questions you’re more than free to ask them. <: Otherwise I hope you enjoy! ^.^: earthsong9405: All done with Urbosa’s redesign and the additional sketches for her role in my headcanon! <: As usual I didn’t change too much but I gave her a slightly different hairstyle, some tusks (as is natural for Gerudo in my headcanon), and a brand new outfit! She has such lovely colors to work with, I love her so much ;-;But I’m sure ya don’t wanna hear me babble about how enjoyable her design is. So, let’s go straight into the headcanon! <:————————--Urbosa is the current chief of the Gerudo and serves as the acting Champion for them as well. As a Champion in this timeline, she holds a key component in gaining access to Old Hyrule-”Champion” in this timeline doesn’t fully hold the same function as it once did in BotW. Instead of being chosen to pilot the Divine Beasts, a Champion are a handful of chosen warriors that serve as Hyrule’s best line of defense against any threat. Despite every group of peoples having their own form of governing, culture, and way of life, all of them are still united under the banner of Hyrule, and the Champions could be the physical representation of this tight alliance. A Champion may not necessarily have a lot of political power by themselves but what they represent and what they stand for still puts them in a high position in social status and therefore their word often holds significant weight. As not only the chief of Gerudo but also their Champion, Urbosa is in a position of having more power than what would typically be seen for a Chief. Thankfully though, she doesn’t abuse it and leads her people well: there’s a reason she’s so well respected and loved among not only the Gerudo, but across Hyrule as well.-As one of the original Champions, Urbosa retains many of her memories from her past life, including what ultimately led to her death-I’ve always liked the idea of Urbosa being a motherly figure to just about anyone she meets, but that also includes being an actual mother! Her kid in this headcanon is Riju <:-While Urbosa isn’t actually related to Ganondorf, he refers to her as his “aunt”. Of all the Gerudo in his life, Urbosa was a consistent presence, often visiting him and his parents at their secluded home in the middle of Korok Forest. She’d bring stories of adventure and gifts and even helped train him to be a skilled warrior, but as much as she loves the boy her visits held an alternative motive.-As a whole, no one really knows of Ganondorf’s past as being the vessel for the Demon King, but if anyone would have any idea about it it’d certainly be the Sheikah and the Gerudo. As per tradition in their culture, a newborn Gerudo must be brought forth to a shaman for examination to ensure their health and to fully proclaim their citizenship as a new member of the tribe. When Ganondorf was examined, the first thing the shaman noticed was the peculiar mark upon his chest: a birthmark in the shape of the wound that struck Demise down all those thousands of years ago. In seeing the mark the shaman took the baby away from his mother and brought it to the council and Urbosa to discuss what to do with it.The Gerudo are intimately familiar with the history surrounding the Demon King and how he stole one of their own, so the mark was very telling of what the child once was. And given the long stretch of peace Hyrule was experiencing it understandably buzzed some fear among the elder council. Many were afraid his birth meant an end to that peace, that the Demon King had somehow reincarnated once more and meant to bring hell back to Hyrule.So in response to all of this, the elders argued amongst each other about a solution. Many ruled the boy too dangerous to allow him to grow older and demanded he be… dealt with. Others deemed that too cruel, even for a damned child, and suggested they simply leave him somewhere far away: let nature decide if he lives or dies. But, as chief and Gerudo Champion of Hyrule, it ultimately came down to Urbosa’s choice. She held the babe her council hissed demon, stared at the birthmark that marked him as a vessel, heard the pleading sobs of the boy’s mother over the whispers of “we’ll make it quick, but we mustn’t let him live”, “he is dangerous, he will bring doom to us all” “end it now while he is weak”.Stared at the supposed demon child, who simply yawned in her grasp and blinked up at her with innocent, yellow eyes. She met the Demon King once: she had stared into that monster’s eyes while she fought it to her death in her past lifetime. She knows soulless eyes when she sees them… and this baby didn’t have those eyes.So Urbosa made her decision: the boy will not die. It was largely met with disbelief and anger: you will doom us all! they said. Despite Urbosa staying firm in her decision, it took her days of arguing with the council and the aid of a Sheikah Seer (who examined the child themselves and confirmed that he didn’t house the Demon King) to finally reach a compromise: the boy will live, but he can’t live among the Gerudo. He had to live with his mother in exile, and his growth had to be monitored as a precaution. The monitoring came in the form of Urbosa’s frequent visits.-Urbosa is close friends with Zelda’s parents and is also something of an “aunt” figure to Zelda as well; Zelda absolutely adores Urbosa and even sees her as more of a secondary mother figure than anything.————————————Aaaaaaaaand that’s all I have for Urbosa for now! If I think of anything else I’ll be sure to add more, and of course if ya have questions you’re more than free to ask them. <: Otherwise I hope you enjoy! ^.^

earthsong9405: All done with Urbosa’s redesign and the additional sketches for her role in my headcanon! <: As usual I didn’t change too...

Save
Save
snill0: Interesting article just came out about the player rosters for OWL 2019 Important thing to note is that they’re pushing the minimum rosters to 8 players, obviously expansion teams should be coming into the season with more than that based off how this inaugural season went (players facing burnout, mayhem’s 6 roster performance, etc). Also, players are able to negotiate contract lengths, this is super important to giving players more power since we don’t have a union yet and after finding out about the Mayhem players’ contracts+salary vs contenders players (long story short they’re rumored to be payed less than their contenders roster who are apparently the inactive spitfire players because they’re locked for potentially 2 yrs) it shows there’s some poor management going on. Free agency could be spicy too depending on how many people get cut after their inaugural season performance. As much as I hate to admit it there’s obviously some players that have fallen off, but some still have the potential and under a new team with capable players I think we can see some make a comeback. As many have said, these players are OWL caliber in terms of mechanics but it’s about the teamplay and whether their style works well. 2 Way players is another thing I’m eye’ing because letting people who are OWL level play in contenders (or vice versa) could throw some big curveballs in terms of strategies. I’m also wondering if it’s going to be used often, maybe as a way to get those benched players still playing competitive matches once in awhile. : Overwatch League Key Dates Aug. 1, 2018: Signing window opens for teams to negotiate extensions with current players or to sign players from their affiliated Contenders team. Teams may also begin making player trades Sept. 9, 2018: Inaugural-season agreements officially end. Any players not under contract become free agents. Sept. 9-0ct. 7, 2018: Exclusive window for Overwatch League expansion teams to sign free agents. Oct. 8, 2018: Free-agent signing window opens for all teams. All teams must have a minimum of eight players under contract by Dec. 1,2018. Teams may sign or trade players until a final deadline during the 2019 season that will be announced at a later date. Players who turn 18 prior to the season deadline are eligible to sign Overwatch League contracts for the 2019 season. While the date has yet to be finalized, players born before May 1, 2001, will be eligible. Beginning with the 2019 season, the term of player agreements will no longer be fixed at one year with an additional one-year option. Players and teams may negotiate contracts for up to three years, with a maximum of one year as an option in addition to one or two guaranteed years All contracts must be submitted to the League Office for review and approval. Two-Way Players For the 2019 Overwatch League season, teams and players may negotiate the right to designate the player as eligible to compete in Contenders on an affiliated team. Any player on the roster may agree to be eligible for Contenders play, but a maximum of four players may be designated as "two-way" players during each Overwatch League stage, and those players must be identified and submitted to the League Office prior to each stage. Two way players are eligible to compete in Contenders, subject o the ollowing ules Regardless of where they play, two-way players count toward the Overwatch League roster limit of 12 and must earn the same salary and benefits. Two-way players also will count towards the eight-player Contenders roster limit for weeks in which their Contenders team designates them as eligible to compete. Two-way players lose their Contenders eligibility if they appear in more than two Overwatch League matches in a stage. A maximum of two designated two-way players may compete in any single Contenders match. No player will be eligible to appear in both Contenders and Overwatch League matches in the same week. snill0: Interesting article just came out about the player rosters for OWL 2019 Important thing to note is that they’re pushing the minimum rosters to 8 players, obviously expansion teams should be coming into the season with more than that based off how this inaugural season went (players facing burnout, mayhem’s 6 roster performance, etc). Also, players are able to negotiate contract lengths, this is super important to giving players more power since we don’t have a union yet and after finding out about the Mayhem players’ contracts+salary vs contenders players (long story short they’re rumored to be payed less than their contenders roster who are apparently the inactive spitfire players because they’re locked for potentially 2 yrs) it shows there’s some poor management going on. Free agency could be spicy too depending on how many people get cut after their inaugural season performance. As much as I hate to admit it there’s obviously some players that have fallen off, but some still have the potential and under a new team with capable players I think we can see some make a comeback. As many have said, these players are OWL caliber in terms of mechanics but it’s about the teamplay and whether their style works well. 2 Way players is another thing I’m eye’ing because letting people who are OWL level play in contenders (or vice versa) could throw some big curveballs in terms of strategies. I’m also wondering if it’s going to be used often, maybe as a way to get those benched players still playing competitive matches once in awhile.

snill0: Interesting article just came out about the player rosters for OWL 2019 Important thing to note is that they’re pushing the minim...

Save
<p><a href="http://schweizerqualit.at/post/169647951974/theheartbrokenlibertarian" class="tumblr_blog">schweizerqualitaet</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://theheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com/post/169639890186/inkedandproudinfidel-proudliberal11-lets" class="tumblr_blog">theheartbrokenlibertarian</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://inkedandproudinfidel.tumblr.com/post/169567922822/proudliberal11-lets-regulate-the-unregulated" class="tumblr_blog">inkedandproudinfidel</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://proudliberal11.tumblr.com/post/169279939060/lets-regulate-the-unregulated-populace" class="tumblr_blog">proudliberal11</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Let’s regulate the unregulated populace!</p></blockquote> <p>No they shouldn’t…</p> <p>All those above broke many laws in what they did including the possession of those firearms and it did nothing to save lives. Stop being ignorant…</p> </blockquote> <p>OH MY GOSH. THIS SHIT AGAIN?</p> <p>Okay, I’m bringing this back. Sorry to alla yall who’ve had to sit through this before. But for fuuuuuuuuuuuck’s saaaaaaaaaake people!</p> <p><br/></p> <p><b>Where does the Second Amendment say “musket”? Show me where it says musket. In fact, show me where it even says <i>GUNS</i>. Show me where it puts ANY limits on what <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/arms"><i>arms</i></a> we can keep and bear. Show me the words.</b></p> <p><b>You cannot; they are not there.</b></p> <p><a class="tumblelog" href="https://tmblr.co/mcpMWUpnSYWxH6sA7gfOiUg">@proudliberal11</a> If what you posted is really what you believe - and I do <i>honestly </i>mean this in the nicest possible way - then you are not qualified to speak on the subject of the Second Amendment with any modicum of authority. You can have your own feelings and opinions, <i>of course</i>, but you clearly do not have the <i>facts</i>, and you do not understand the law, its adoption, the reasons behind it, or its intent. If you just want guns gone or want new laws, then simply petition the government to begin the process of repealing the Second Amendment and/or amending the Constitution (good luck with that, though), but <i>please </i>don’t try to change or erase history!</p> <p><b>There is NO DEBATE on the meaning or intent of the Second Amendment.</b> That was settled and made clear <i>a long time ago</i>, and it has nothing to do with what you think a “militia” is, for one thing, and nothing to do with “muskets” either, for that matter. </p> <p>The Founding Fathers didn’t just shit out the Constitution and the Bill of Rights overnight or off the top of their heads. They didn’t forget about it until the night before it was due. These things were discussed and debated and researched and proven over the course of <b><i>several </i></b><i><b>months</b></i>, and <a href="https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/billofrights.html">those discussions and debates were thoroughly documented</a>. This drafting would have been equivalent to the 9/11 news coverage of the day! It was a BIG DEAL, even then; they knew they were building history. People were watching, recording, discussing everywhere. It’s ALL written down.</p> <p>The Framers were <i>extremely clear</i> about exactly what they intended, solid evidence of which you can find by studying <a href="http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm">contemporary literature</a> and documentation <a href="https://wallbuilders.com/founders-second-amendment/">surrounding the authoring</a> of the Second Amendment. Letters, speeches, publications, etc., <a href="http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm">written by and to the framers</a>, as well as the public, - which <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Feducation.blogs.archives.gov%2F2016%2F05%2F10%2Fteaching-the-second-amendment%2F&amp;sa=D&amp;sntz=1&amp;usg=AFQjCNH7ovpuftRdhqKahPIpnnED_tmYGA">clearly spell out</a> the full intent of the law, <a href="http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/19adec.pdf">explain the law</a> in simple terms, and give insight into popular and official <a href="https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers">opinion about the law</a> - are still freely available today. I’ve linked a handful, but it’s very easy to find this information, and I encourage - nay, <i>beg </i>- you to seek it out. </p> <p>Here are just a few examples, though, in case you don’t feel like researching something so extremely important:</p> <blockquote> <p><b>—–&gt; “I ask who are the <i>militia</i>? They consist now of <i>the whole people</i>, except a few public officers.”</b><br/>- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 </p> <p><b>“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, <i><u>composed of the body of the people</u></i>, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”</b><br/>- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789 <br/></p> <p><b> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”</b><br/>- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 <br/></p> <p><b>“To preserve liberty, it is essential that <u><i>the whole body of the people</i> always possess <i>arms</i></u>, and be taught alike, <i>especially when young</i>, how to use them.” </b><br/>- Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration, A Framer of the Second Amendment in the First Congress<br/></p> <p><b>“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that <i>their people</i> preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”</b><br/>- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787 <br/></p> <p><b>[On our military superiority over a tyrannical enemy] …This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; <i>every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy</i>.“</b><br/>- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778 <br/></p> <p><b>“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”</b><br/>- George Mason, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788</p> <p><b>“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; <i><u>because the whole body of the people are armed</u></i>, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”</b><br/>- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787</p> </blockquote> <p>That could not be more clear. This “militia” is us. It’s you and me and everyone reading this and everyone else. <b>THE MILITIA IS THE PEOPLE, THE CITIZENS, YOU AND ME.</b></p> <p>If nothing else, please do take a look at <a href="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html"><b>THIS DOCUMENT</b></a>. It lays out the history and the clear reasoning behind the Founding Fathers’ drafting of the Second Amendment. It is thoroughly sourced, and it is detailed.</p> <p>As you can see, looking at what is here, juxtaposed with what we have in place today, we have already strayed extremely far from the original intent of the document as well as from the letter of its law - we have already infringed our God-given (and merely government-<i>protected</i>) inalienable rights to hell and back - and we the people are NOT happy to give away another inch, no matter how “mean” you <i>feel</i> icky-o guns may be.</p> <p>And as for the document itself:<br/><br/></p> <h2><b>Let me break the Second Amendment down for you.</b></h2> <p><i>BUT FIRST!</i> Before I get into that, you <i>must u</i>nderstand that <i><b>language is fluid</b></i> and that it changes over the years, that the definitions of words change and adapt all the time. For example, the word “great” used to exclusively mean very large, the word “terrible” used to exclusively mean awe-inspiringly, the word “sick” used to exclusively mean ill, the word “woman” used to exclusively mean adult person born with a vagina, and so on. Therefore, you must look at the words and phrasing from the point of view of 1791, the <i>time it was written</i>, and you can’t apply our current use of language to it, and you must keep that in mind as you read older texts. And just because <i>language changes</i>, that does NOT mean the original intent of words changes, too. Quite the contrary.</p> <blockquote><p><b>“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to <i>the time when the Constitution was adopted</i>, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, <i>or invented against it</i>, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”</b><br/>- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823 <br/></p></blockquote> <p>ALSO:</p> <blockquote><p> <b>Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. <br/></b>– James Madison, on the creation of the Constitution<br/></p></blockquote> <p>So ok, sit tight, here we go.</p> <h2><b>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.</b></h2> <blockquote><p><b>A <i>WELL REGULATED</i></b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Fcons%2Fwellregu.htm&amp;t=ODBlNzBjMmRjNjk4OGI5MmVkZjU3YjYzODk0N2YxYjEzYzY4YTRmNSxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> hooked up; well outfitted; well provided for; has lots of all the latest and greatest things; well-armed<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT </i>MEAN:</b> heavily legislated; under intense governmental scrutiny; subject to lots of laws and ordinances</p> <blockquote><p><b>MILITIA</b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Fmil%2Fcs_milit.htm&amp;t=ZjA3NGRjMzQ2YThkZjE2YzE3NWFkMWFiNmYwOGY3ZmQ2Zjg0MTVjMyxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> the populace; a general, unofficial body of those citizens physically able to engage themselves in combat; those of us who have guns; a self organized and self managed group of people gathered for the purposes of defense<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT </i>MEAN:</b> official, government-sanctioned, -approved, and -run military installment that is slightly less formal than the Armed Forces; a junior or local sub-branch of the federal Armed Forces</p> <blockquote><p><b>BEING NECESSARY TO</b></p></blockquote> <p><b>MEANS:</b> is the reason why; is required for; also, the wording here, and the preceding comma, replaces using “because this…” at the beginning of the sentence as we would use it today - it’s just rearranged<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT </i>MEAN:</b> if it becomes needed; only when needed; in times of threat but not otherwise</p> <blockquote><p><b>THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE</b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Flrev%2Frkba_wayment.htm&amp;t=MGUxYjczZTRmOTZmMTE2NmE5NDA2MGQ3MWNlZTdkZWU4NjJiOGNiMyxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> the defense of freedoms; the protection of rights and freedoms; maintaining sovereignty; protection from takeover (foreign or domestic)<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> keeping us safe from any danger whatsoever; the protection of individuals from individuals</p> <blockquote><p><b>THE <i>RIGHT</i></b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Fbillofr_.htm&amp;t=Njc3NjE5YWJhYTc0M2E2YWVlZjNmNTc0MzQ0NjYzOWJmMWI0ODEyZCxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> full personal entitlement; the freedom; the free ability; the personal decision whether or not to; the God-given, free and clear, dependent only upon existing, choice<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> sometimes, depending upon some people’s opinion, the ability to; the ability to, dependent upon whether or not one is allowed</p> <blockquote><p><b>OF <i>THE PEOPLE</i></b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.1215.org%2Flawnotes%2Flawnotes%2Fpvc.htm&amp;t=MGYzNWJjNjczNWM0MWFjNWQ2YWQ1MjVjMGVlNmE5NjI0ZmE2MGU4ZixGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> all legal inhabitants; all citizens of legal age of majority/responsibility<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> some citizens, if they meet certain criteria; those citizens who have certain abilities or characteristics; only those citizens who qualify; citizens who meet certain restrictions or requirements; all citizens except those who do not meet certain qualifications</p> <blockquote><p><b>TO <i>KEEP AND BEAR</i></b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.oxforddictionaries.com%2Fdefinition%2Farms&amp;t=NmU0NWU3MTE2ODQxYjFjOGVhNmY3Mjg3NmYzMTc1NDRiYTc4YjcyMSxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> to participate in any actions associated with; to possess and carry and use in any manner; to have; to acquire; to carry on their person or in their conveyance<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> to simply have and carry; to own but have stored elsewhere; to be issued as and when, according to circumstances; to have a limited number of; to own but leave administration of to others; to have but with restrictions</p> <blockquote><p><b><i>ARMS</i></b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guncite.com%2Fgc2ndmea.html&amp;t=NTU2MTExYWRkOGMwMWFlYzczNjNkYWQxOGNmMmZhZDBkZTQ5MjUyYixGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> weapons or armament of any kind; offensive or defensive weapons; ordnance; guns, missiles, swords, knives, cannon, explosives; ammunition for weapons; any instrument intended for defense or offense against any person or thing; any item necessary to operate or maintain the above<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> certain kinds of weapons; some but not all defensive implements</p> <blockquote><p><b>SHALL NOT BE</b></p></blockquote> <p><b>MEANS:</b> must never, ever, under any circumstances, be, <i>no matter what</i><br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> should not be; will hopefully not be; can only be under some conditions; can be, if legally restricted; is allowed to be if new laws are created</p> <blockquote><p><b>INFRINGED</b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefreedictionary.com%2Finfringed&amp;t=NDU0MDA2NjU4MzUwYmQ4MzczZjJkNTEzNDM2ZTUwZTBlYzUzOGQ5ZSxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> taken away; restricted in any way; put conditions or requirements upon; diminished; changed or updated; made new laws about; limited in any way; re-legislated; detracted from; invalidated<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> taken away, <i>unless </i>lots of people think it should be; changed, <i>unless </i>opinions change; updated, <i>if</i> people think that’s what they want<br/></p> <p>THEREFORE, were the second amendment written today, it would read:<br/></p> <h2><b>Because a <i>thoroughly hooked up</i> and <i>well-armed</i> <i><u>population</u> </i>is the only way our nation will ever be able to remain free and sovereign, and the only way we will ever keep our precious rights and liberties, <i>every single citizen of this country</i> is freely allowed to <i>possess </i>any <i>firearm or weapon </i>and to <i>use </i>said weapon in any way, and nobody is allowed to ever change, <b>restrict, or limit </b>laws about, or prevent any citizen from owning, keeping, or using <i>any kind of firearm or weapon</i>, even if people <i>think</i> that’s what they want.</b></h2> <p>Just to reiterate the parts that people most often misunderstand:</p> <p><b><i>Well-regulated</i> DOES NOT MEAN strictly governed</b>. It means well <i>outfitted</i>, hooked the fuck up.</p> <p><b><i>Militia </i>DOES NOT MEAN official, state sanctioned, junior or local branch of the federal armed forces</b>. It means citizens with guns, and that’s it. In fact, the Framers did not want a federal- (or state-) run standing military; they saw that as a threat to liberty. It’s very clear that what they meant was THE PEOPLE.</p> <p><b><i>Keep and bear</i> DOES NOT MEAN simply possess and carry</b>. It means participate in any and all associated activities.</p> <p><i><b>Arms </b></i><b>DOES NOT MEAN</b> guns, or certain guns, or guns with certain features. It means <i>weapons</i>, of any kind.</p> <p>Just look these things up, <i>please</i>, or follow the links provided.</p> <p><b>–&gt;</b> And <i>COME ON</i>. Use just a little common sense. If the Second Amendment were written exclusively to arm the military, or police, or officially government sanctioned militias, then WHY would it very explicitly say <b>the right of <i><u>THE PEOPLE</u></i> to keep and bear arms</b>…? Why would these educated, intelligent, careful, and conscientious men make such a stupid contradiction in one of the most important documents they’d ever written? That’s simply ridiculous! They didn’t make any mistakes, and we haven’t been somehow blindly running the country wrong for 230 years. It’s written correctly, and the meaning of it is quite clear if you just read past the first few words. </p> <blockquote><p>The right of <i><b>THE PEOPLE</b></i> to keep and bear <b>arms</b> shall not be infringed.</p></blockquote> <p>That’s unmistakable. Really.<br/><br/></p> <h2><b>AND AS FOR THE <i>ARMS</i> THEMSELVES..</b></h2> <p><b><i>Nowhere </i>does the Second Amendment (written in 1791) say <i>anything </i>about muskets, nor even <i>guns</i>, nor does it mention or even insinuate <i>any</i> limitation on what arms a person can keep and bear.</b></p> <p>Even further, in case you somehow actually didn’t know this, there were basically fully automatic machine guns BEFORE the Second Amendment was written, and <i>yes indeed</i>, these were known and accounted for when the document was drafted.</p> <p><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper-box">Pepper-box revolver</a> from 1790 or earlier</b><br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="440"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/32125f9701fe79560a11c06e34c082c6/tumblr_inline_oyyuzsEla71tnietr_500.jpg" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="440"/></figure><p><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun">Puckle gun</a>, invented in 1718 (complete with relevant text)</b><br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="392" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/47df142ced1c43b4e6f86e8d11595433/tumblr_inline_ozbyg7l6UX1suj1m1_500.png" data-orig-height="392" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock">Belton flintlock rifle</a>, 1777 </b><br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="310" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/8509f4782b2214c8fce1d957d98c1243/tumblr_inline_oyyuzs6rzo1tnietr_500.jpg" data-orig-height="310" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle">Girandoni air rifle</a>, 1779 </b><br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="173" data-orig-width="300"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/5e95ac5b5241961bbd16e3ee1fface9c/tumblr_inline_oyyuzsE6yV1tnietr_400.jpg" data-orig-height="173" data-orig-width="300"/></figure><p>(Thank you <a>@guns-and-freedom</a>​ for this list.)</p> <p>And that’s only a few of the <i>guns</i>. I haven’t even mentioned all the other kinds of <i><b>ARMS</b></i> that were available <a href="http://www.americanrevolution.org/artillery.php">before the Second Amendment was written</a>, those <b><i>ARMS</i></b> upon which no restriction shall ever be put, according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights:</p> <p><b>MORTARS</b></p> <p>Mortars are projectile launching arms that have been in use since the <b>1400s</b>.</p> <p>By 1775, there were nine different Land Service and four Sea Service Mortars in the British inventory alone.<br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="346" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/0199ff1c14b01cdb4b9015bbf4b0d335/tumblr_inline_ozbzkpmB9O1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="346" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="221" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bea14ef96990869cc3a10d2464758a9a/tumblr_inline_ozbzl945Cd1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="221" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>This <a href="http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/gallery1/clash5_e.shtml">French mortar</a> formed part of the defenses of Louisbourg during the British siege of <b>1758</b>. Made of cast iron, it could propel a 60-kilogram (132lb) shell up to four kilometers (2.5mi):</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="283" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/82d4f4a856c85867297a7a84ec060abc/tumblr_inline_ozbznl8zhM1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="283" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>That’s just a few examples.</p> <p><b>CANNON</b></p> <p>There are so many cannon, and their history is so rich and deep, that it’s impossible for me to get into it here. You know what a cannon is. Everybody does… so did the Founding Fathers.</p> <p>Cannon were built for offense and for defense, for battle and for siege, for land and for sea. They can be mounted on ships, they can be wheeled on wagons or purpose built conveyances, and they can even (but not often) be hand held. <br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="257" data-orig-width="344"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/fdcac6069eedd9d058acf1fc14cd21bc/tumblr_inline_ozbzwuANvw1suj1m1_400.jpg" data-orig-height="257" data-orig-width="344"/></figure><p>These things are old as dirt. Historians are pretty sure the first one was invented in China in the <b>1100s</b>, and they became standardized and common in Europe as far back as the Middle Ages, though probably much earlier.</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="333" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/6444d2089242cc8c73b1a48c95985fe1/tumblr_inline_ozc0iacKej1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="333" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>This incredible fort, built in <b>1593</b>, was designed specifically to defend against cannon:<br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="371" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/fe6a18995e8b28ea5492e2877744b659/tumblr_inline_ozc0ozfzgF1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="371" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b>HOWITZERS</b><br/></p> <p>Speaking of cannon, let’s not forget the Howitzer, which also dates back to the <b>1400s</b> and was used commonly as early as the <b>1600s</b>. It’s somewhere between the weapon commonly referred to as “gun” and a cannon, as it has a shorter barrel, smaller propellant charge, and higher trajectory than the cannon.</p> <p>This beautiful 24lb Howitzer entered service in <b>1790</b>:</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="357" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ebc2f8c84f50a167d652a29cb9a77bd3/tumblr_inline_ozc3qol80G1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="357" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>British and American Howitzers from the Revolutionary War, ca <b>1770s</b>:</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="385" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/f6fa6e415a99e20eb4874d0a7b656a62/tumblr_inline_ozc3t0itsX1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="385" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b>BOWS and ARROWS</b><br/></p> <p>Bows, as you surely know, are single-operator, hand held projectile weapons which have been extremely common pretty much <i>forever</i>. They’re basically the bolt-action rifles of the last <i>few thousand years</i>.</p> <p>The bow and arrow dates back to <b>prehistoric times</b>, and the crossbow dates back to <b>6th century BC</b> in China. Modern, fancy bows are relatively complicated compared to historical bows, but the archers that wielded them were deadly accurate. Until (and even well after) the advent and widespread use of the firearm, bows and arrows - and archers - were absolutely formidable. They’re pretty much the closest thing we can compare in historical battle to the modern gun, in popularity, accuracy, and believe it or not, versatility.<br/></p> <p>Arrows can be loosed more than one at a time. Arrows can be made to explode on impact. Arrows can be loosed on fire. Arrowheads vary widely and have been purpose built for nearly unlimited uses for millennia.</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="358" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4850d694a016ec830f520d08126d614c/tumblr_inline_ozc44sxQUf1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="358" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>Arrows can be loosed in rapid succession, quite accurately, and a good archer can loose arrows effectively semi-automatically<b>**</b> with just a modified grip.</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="333" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/3391db20fa82d59ee94454edd0f82e85/tumblr_inline_ozc23e4yso1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="333" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>A good archer can loose arrows nearly as fast as any semi-automatic<b>**</b> firearm, and just as accurately too. <br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-embed tmblr-full" data-provider="youtube" data-orig-width="540" data-orig-height="304" data-url="https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBEG-ly9tQGk"><iframe width="540" height="304" id="youtube_iframe" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BEG-ly9tQGk?feature=oembed&amp;enablejsapi=1&amp;origin=https://safe.txmblr.com&amp;wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></figure><p>(But this guy really has <i>nothing </i>on a trained, professional medieval or ancient military archer.) <br/></p> <p><b>CROSSBOWS</b></p> <p>Crossbows are extremely old, as well, and extremely commonplace throughout history. They’re basically the AR-15s of the last <i>few thousand years</i>.</p> <p>The Chinese outpaced Europeans in this department, as they did in explosives (which I’m not even getting into here!), and had crossbow technology as early as the <b>6th century BC</b>. That’s B.C. - where you count backwards. Europeans have been using them since <i>at least</i> the Battle of Hastings in 1066, and probably much earlier.</p> <p>Crossbows are so fast, can be used so rapidly, and are so accurate and deadly that some armies wanted them outlawed because they were such a terrifying advantage on the field, and they were indeed <a href="http://militaryhistorynow.com/2012/05/23/the-crossbow-a-medieval-wmd/">banned from Christian-on-Christian</a> battle by the Pope in 1096. But that didn’t last long.</p> <p>Crossbow bolts vary <i>nearly </i>as widely as arrows, and can do many of the things arrowheads can do (such as cause explosions on impact, etc.), and they can be loosed <i>extremely</i> quickly and <i>very </i>accurately via a crossbow. <br/></p> <p>Here is a DaVinci giant crossbow, as in Leonardo DaVinci, <b>1488-1489</b>:</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="368" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/9adbfc103b34f7af1fb3adbf3cb8e925/tumblr_inline_ozc1zx3Pkx1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="368" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b>And crossbows even come in semi-automatic**!</b> Here is a hand held semi-automatic<b>**</b> crossbow that can shoot 10 bolts in 15 seconds. It is from the <b><i>4th century BC</i>:</b></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="163" data-orig-width="417"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/1e2737d81fd3c6e0474bd87c05773da4/tumblr_inline_ozc28wnJaP1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="163" data-orig-width="417"/></figure><p>This bronze crossbow lower was <i><b><u>mass produced</u></b></i> as early as the <b>4th century BC</b>:</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="324" data-orig-width="432"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ecef8516b2f697a7ca6d1df36697d965/tumblr_inline_ozc3z9FENS1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="324" data-orig-width="432"/></figure><p><b><br/></b></p> <p><b>—–&gt; **</b>BY THE WAY - <i><b>semi-automatic</b></i> means CAN ONLY FIRE ONE BULLET AT A TIME, <b>one single bullet per pull of the trigger</b>. It <i>does NOT mean</i> a Rambo-style, constant spray, belt fed, machine gun. That Rambo type of gun is NOT semi-automatic, as the news would love for you to believe; that is <i>FULLY automatic</i>. Anything that is <i>FULLY AUTOMATIC - </i>which means you can hold down the trigger and just spray - IS ILLEGAL ALREADY and has been for decades. <i>FAR</i> too many people have no clue what those words mean. <b>&lt;—–</b><br/></p> <p><br/></p> <p>Anyway. The above listed weapons are only the <i>projectile </i><b><i>ARMS</i> </b>that were readily available and widely known well before the Second Amendment was written. I’m not even going to get into melee weapons like swords, axes, hammers, polearms, pikes, maces, caltrops, spears, halberds…….. I’m just not going to start. Nor am I going to get into shit like war ships and armored vehicles and <b>explosives</b> and things like that. But those things are all <b><i>arms</i></b> as well. Every single weapon mentioned here - and <i>any </i>other type of weapon on earth - as well as any <i>ammunition </i>for any of those weapons, is an <i><b>arm</b> </i>and is included in the Second Amendment’s use of the word <i><b>arms</b></i>.<br/></p> <p><b><i>ALL OF THE ABOVE</i> ARE  *A R M S*  THAT WERE WIDELY AVAILABLE AND WELL KNOWN TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS.</b></p> <p>And remember, the Second Amendment says <i><b>arms</b></i>, not guns, not muskets, not flintlocks, not anything specific at all. Just arms.</p> <p>The Founding Fathers knew about all of these <i>arms</i>. They understood the evolution and history of warfare and weaponry. They were familiar with all of the weapons, including firearms, of their day. And I would confidently go out on a limb and say that - given how well they predicted the future of government growth, and the willingness of the people to buy politicians’ lines - they understood and expected firearms and weapons technology to advance in much the same way as it has (which is to say… it actually hasn’t really changed all that much). And speaking of the Founding Fathers’ foresight…</p> <h2><b>THE PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, <i>WAR!</i></b></h2> <p>One of the MAIN reasons for the Second Amendment existing is that the founding fathers didn’t trust the government OR the people. They NEVER intended for there to be a federally-run standing army; they wanted The People to always be ready and able to defend ourselves - from <i>anyone</i>, <strike>including</strike> especially our own government. They <i>knew </i>the government would eventually try to become corrupt, try to enlarge and empower itself, try to take more control than they laid it out to have, just as almost every other government has always done. And they could clearly see <i>the people</i> falling for the lines that government fed them in order to <i>make them believe</i> that giving it more power was a good thing, that taking away <i>our </i>power was a good thing, was what the people wanted, just as almost every other people has always done. They knew <i>exactly </i>what was coming, and they predicted it pretty much flawlessly.. because it always happens. That’s exactly <b>why</b> they wrote the Second Amendment to be perfectly solid. Thank God!</p> <p>THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY TO EMPOWER PRIVATE CITIZENS TO GO TO <i>WAR </i>WITH THE GOVERNMENT OR WITH ANY OTHER ENEMY THAT MIGHT THREATEN OUR RIGHTS, OUR LIBERTIES, OR OUR SOVEREIGNTY.   <br/></p> <p>Here is just <i>one of the HUNDREDS</i> of extant, and readily available, examples of discourse surrounding the Second Amendment and its drafting, communications from the general public and within the government:</p> <blockquote><p>The preeminent Whig historian, Thomas Macaulay, labelled this “<b>the security without which every other is insufficient,</b>” and a century earlier the great jurist, William Blackstone, regarded <b>private arms as the means by which a people might vindicate their other rights</b> if these were suppressed. [<a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Fmil%2Fmaltrad.htm&amp;t=MjQ1MjBhMmYwODYzODg0NGYyMGNiOWI4ZDFlNDk3NTEzYjhkZjRjMixGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">x</a>]</p></blockquote> <p><b>The Second Amendment is the “emergency, break glass” for if/when the First Amendment stops working or, worse, is taken away.</b><br/></p> <p>It’s not for <i>hunting</i>, it’s not for <i>home defense</i>, it’s not for <i>target practice</i> or <i>sport</i>. It’s so that <b>we </b>can be as well-armed as (or, hopefully, be better armed than) <i>any </i>enemy we may need to fend off, including our own government. It’s there to at least make the government think twice about trying to take away our rights, to let them know that there is an armed populace out there, ready and wiling to defend its freedoms. It’s there to give us a fighting chance at keeping and maintaining the liberty that our forefathers fought and died for, and <i>yes, it includes AK-47s</i>. In fact, it also includes <b>cannon and full auto machine guns and war ships</b> as well, <i>and </i>includes anybody, no matter who, acquiring as many as they want (but we’ve let those rights be infringed anyway).</p> <h2><b>AND ON TOP OF <i>ALL </i>THAT:</b></h2> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="558" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/d3b5a19358519f2aec51a38e99f186b2/tumblr_inline_ozll8mBKh91suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="558" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>Your opinion on the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment is simply factually incorrect, and you yourself can easily verify that, if you’re ever so inclined to understand the truth rather than what <i>feels right </i>to you, by simply following some of the links above or searching for the recorded debates of the Founding Fathers. Hell, you can just search for a list of quotes by the Founding Fathers and gain a much more thorough understanding of their meaning. Please, do <i>yourself</i> the favor of taking a little time to learn about it. The sources are out there and very easy to find.</p> <p>Again, <b>THERE  <i>IS NO DEBATE</i>  ON THE MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. </b>THAT DEBATE HAPPENED - AND WAS SETTLED - OVER 200 YEARS AGO. AND THEM DUDES WHAT DEBATED IT WROTE DOWN EVERY SINGLE WORD OF THAT DEBATE, AND THOSE WORDS ARE STILL AVAILABLE TO US. THE MEANING OF THESE WORDS IS VERY CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE, AND IF YOU JUST FUCKING GOOGLE FOR A SECOND, YOU’LL SEE EXACTLY WHAT THE MEN WHO WROTE THEM MEANT BY THEM.</p> </blockquote><p>Reblogging for future reference.</p></blockquote> <p>Unless you’re willing to say that the First Amendment is invalid because the founding fathers didn’t know the Internet would exist, shut up about the second amendment being invalid because we have better guns now.</p>: THIS IS NOT A "WELL- REGULATED MILITIA." AND THIS IS NOT A MUSKET. Times have changed Shouldn't our gun laws? OCCUPY D EMOCRATS <p><a href="http://schweizerqualit.at/post/169647951974/theheartbrokenlibertarian" class="tumblr_blog">schweizerqualitaet</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://theheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com/post/169639890186/inkedandproudinfidel-proudliberal11-lets" class="tumblr_blog">theheartbrokenlibertarian</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://inkedandproudinfidel.tumblr.com/post/169567922822/proudliberal11-lets-regulate-the-unregulated" class="tumblr_blog">inkedandproudinfidel</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://proudliberal11.tumblr.com/post/169279939060/lets-regulate-the-unregulated-populace" class="tumblr_blog">proudliberal11</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Let’s regulate the unregulated populace!</p></blockquote> <p>No they shouldn’t…</p> <p>All those above broke many laws in what they did including the possession of those firearms and it did nothing to save lives. Stop being ignorant…</p> </blockquote> <p>OH MY GOSH. THIS SHIT AGAIN?</p> <p>Okay, I’m bringing this back. Sorry to alla yall who’ve had to sit through this before. But for fuuuuuuuuuuuck’s saaaaaaaaaake people!</p> <p><br/></p> <p><b>Where does the Second Amendment say “musket”? Show me where it says musket. In fact, show me where it even says <i>GUNS</i>. Show me where it puts ANY limits on what <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/arms"><i>arms</i></a> we can keep and bear. Show me the words.</b></p> <p><b>You cannot; they are not there.</b></p> <p><a class="tumblelog" href="https://tmblr.co/mcpMWUpnSYWxH6sA7gfOiUg">@proudliberal11</a> If what you posted is really what you believe - and I do <i>honestly </i>mean this in the nicest possible way - then you are not qualified to speak on the subject of the Second Amendment with any modicum of authority. You can have your own feelings and opinions, <i>of course</i>, but you clearly do not have the <i>facts</i>, and you do not understand the law, its adoption, the reasons behind it, or its intent. If you just want guns gone or want new laws, then simply petition the government to begin the process of repealing the Second Amendment and/or amending the Constitution (good luck with that, though), but <i>please </i>don’t try to change or erase history!</p> <p><b>There is NO DEBATE on the meaning or intent of the Second Amendment.</b> That was settled and made clear <i>a long time ago</i>, and it has nothing to do with what you think a “militia” is, for one thing, and nothing to do with “muskets” either, for that matter. </p> <p>The Founding Fathers didn’t just shit out the Constitution and the Bill of Rights overnight or off the top of their heads. They didn’t forget about it until the night before it was due. These things were discussed and debated and researched and proven over the course of <b><i>several </i></b><i><b>months</b></i>, and <a href="https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/billofrights.html">those discussions and debates were thoroughly documented</a>. This drafting would have been equivalent to the 9/11 news coverage of the day! It was a BIG DEAL, even then; they knew they were building history. People were watching, recording, discussing everywhere. It’s ALL written down.</p> <p>The Framers were <i>extremely clear</i> about exactly what they intended, solid evidence of which you can find by studying <a href="http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm">contemporary literature</a> and documentation <a href="https://wallbuilders.com/founders-second-amendment/">surrounding the authoring</a> of the Second Amendment. Letters, speeches, publications, etc., <a href="http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm">written by and to the framers</a>, as well as the public, - which <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Feducation.blogs.archives.gov%2F2016%2F05%2F10%2Fteaching-the-second-amendment%2F&amp;sa=D&amp;sntz=1&amp;usg=AFQjCNH7ovpuftRdhqKahPIpnnED_tmYGA">clearly spell out</a> the full intent of the law, <a href="http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/19adec.pdf">explain the law</a> in simple terms, and give insight into popular and official <a href="https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers">opinion about the law</a> - are still freely available today. I’ve linked a handful, but it’s very easy to find this information, and I encourage - nay, <i>beg </i>- you to seek it out. </p> <p>Here are just a few examples, though, in case you don’t feel like researching something so extremely important:</p> <blockquote> <p><b>—–&gt; “I ask who are the <i>militia</i>? They consist now of <i>the whole people</i>, except a few public officers.”</b><br/>- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 </p> <p><b>“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, <i><u>composed of the body of the people</u></i>, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”</b><br/>- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789 <br/></p> <p><b> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”</b><br/>- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 <br/></p> <p><b>“To preserve liberty, it is essential that <u><i>the whole body of the people</i> always possess <i>arms</i></u>, and be taught alike, <i>especially when young</i>, how to use them.” </b><br/>- Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration, A Framer of the Second Amendment in the First Congress<br/></p> <p><b>“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that <i>their people</i> preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”</b><br/>- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787 <br/></p> <p><b>[On our military superiority over a tyrannical enemy] …This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; <i>every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy</i>.“</b><br/>- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778 <br/></p> <p><b>“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”</b><br/>- George Mason, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788</p> <p><b>“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; <i><u>because the whole body of the people are armed</u></i>, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”</b><br/>- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787</p> </blockquote> <p>That could not be more clear. This “militia” is us. It’s you and me and everyone reading this and everyone else. <b>THE MILITIA IS THE PEOPLE, THE CITIZENS, YOU AND ME.</b></p> <p>If nothing else, please do take a look at <a href="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html"><b>THIS DOCUMENT</b></a>. It lays out the history and the clear reasoning behind the Founding Fathers’ drafting of the Second Amendment. It is thoroughly sourced, and it is detailed.</p> <p>As you can see, looking at what is here, juxtaposed with what we have in place today, we have already strayed extremely far from the original intent of the document as well as from the letter of its law - we have already infringed our God-given (and merely government-<i>protected</i>) inalienable rights to hell and back - and we the people are NOT happy to give away another inch, no matter how “mean” you <i>feel</i> icky-o guns may be.</p> <p>And as for the document itself:<br/><br/></p> <h2><b>Let me break the Second Amendment down for you.</b></h2> <p><i>BUT FIRST!</i> Before I get into that, you <i>must u</i>nderstand that <i><b>language is fluid</b></i> and that it changes over the years, that the definitions of words change and adapt all the time. For example, the word “great” used to exclusively mean very large, the word “terrible” used to exclusively mean awe-inspiringly, the word “sick” used to exclusively mean ill, the word “woman” used to exclusively mean adult person born with a vagina, and so on. Therefore, you must look at the words and phrasing from the point of view of 1791, the <i>time it was written</i>, and you can’t apply our current use of language to it, and you must keep that in mind as you read older texts. And just because <i>language changes</i>, that does NOT mean the original intent of words changes, too. Quite the contrary.</p> <blockquote><p><b>“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to <i>the time when the Constitution was adopted</i>, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, <i>or invented against it</i>, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”</b><br/>- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823 <br/></p></blockquote> <p>ALSO:</p> <blockquote><p> <b>Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. <br/></b>– James Madison, on the creation of the Constitution<br/></p></blockquote> <p>So ok, sit tight, here we go.</p> <h2><b>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.</b></h2> <blockquote><p><b>A <i>WELL REGULATED</i></b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Fcons%2Fwellregu.htm&amp;t=ODBlNzBjMmRjNjk4OGI5MmVkZjU3YjYzODk0N2YxYjEzYzY4YTRmNSxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> hooked up; well outfitted; well provided for; has lots of all the latest and greatest things; well-armed<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT </i>MEAN:</b> heavily legislated; under intense governmental scrutiny; subject to lots of laws and ordinances</p> <blockquote><p><b>MILITIA</b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Fmil%2Fcs_milit.htm&amp;t=ZjA3NGRjMzQ2YThkZjE2YzE3NWFkMWFiNmYwOGY3ZmQ2Zjg0MTVjMyxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> the populace; a general, unofficial body of those citizens physically able to engage themselves in combat; those of us who have guns; a self organized and self managed group of people gathered for the purposes of defense<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT </i>MEAN:</b> official, government-sanctioned, -approved, and -run military installment that is slightly less formal than the Armed Forces; a junior or local sub-branch of the federal Armed Forces</p> <blockquote><p><b>BEING NECESSARY TO</b></p></blockquote> <p><b>MEANS:</b> is the reason why; is required for; also, the wording here, and the preceding comma, replaces using “because this…” at the beginning of the sentence as we would use it today - it’s just rearranged<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT </i>MEAN:</b> if it becomes needed; only when needed; in times of threat but not otherwise</p> <blockquote><p><b>THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE</b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Flrev%2Frkba_wayment.htm&amp;t=MGUxYjczZTRmOTZmMTE2NmE5NDA2MGQ3MWNlZTdkZWU4NjJiOGNiMyxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> the defense of freedoms; the protection of rights and freedoms; maintaining sovereignty; protection from takeover (foreign or domestic)<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> keeping us safe from any danger whatsoever; the protection of individuals from individuals</p> <blockquote><p><b>THE <i>RIGHT</i></b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Fbillofr_.htm&amp;t=Njc3NjE5YWJhYTc0M2E2YWVlZjNmNTc0MzQ0NjYzOWJmMWI0ODEyZCxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> full personal entitlement; the freedom; the free ability; the personal decision whether or not to; the God-given, free and clear, dependent only upon existing, choice<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> sometimes, depending upon some people’s opinion, the ability to; the ability to, dependent upon whether or not one is allowed</p> <blockquote><p><b>OF <i>THE PEOPLE</i></b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.1215.org%2Flawnotes%2Flawnotes%2Fpvc.htm&amp;t=MGYzNWJjNjczNWM0MWFjNWQ2YWQ1MjVjMGVlNmE5NjI0ZmE2MGU4ZixGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> all legal inhabitants; all citizens of legal age of majority/responsibility<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> some citizens, if they meet certain criteria; those citizens who have certain abilities or characteristics; only those citizens who qualify; citizens who meet certain restrictions or requirements; all citizens except those who do not meet certain qualifications</p> <blockquote><p><b>TO <i>KEEP AND BEAR</i></b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.oxforddictionaries.com%2Fdefinition%2Farms&amp;t=NmU0NWU3MTE2ODQxYjFjOGVhNmY3Mjg3NmYzMTc1NDRiYTc4YjcyMSxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> to participate in any actions associated with; to possess and carry and use in any manner; to have; to acquire; to carry on their person or in their conveyance<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> to simply have and carry; to own but have stored elsewhere; to be issued as and when, according to circumstances; to have a limited number of; to own but leave administration of to others; to have but with restrictions</p> <blockquote><p><b><i>ARMS</i></b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guncite.com%2Fgc2ndmea.html&amp;t=NTU2MTExYWRkOGMwMWFlYzczNjNkYWQxOGNmMmZhZDBkZTQ5MjUyYixGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> weapons or armament of any kind; offensive or defensive weapons; ordnance; guns, missiles, swords, knives, cannon, explosives; ammunition for weapons; any instrument intended for defense or offense against any person or thing; any item necessary to operate or maintain the above<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> certain kinds of weapons; some but not all defensive implements</p> <blockquote><p><b>SHALL NOT BE</b></p></blockquote> <p><b>MEANS:</b> must never, ever, under any circumstances, be, <i>no matter what</i><br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> should not be; will hopefully not be; can only be under some conditions; can be, if legally restricted; is allowed to be if new laws are created</p> <blockquote><p><b>INFRINGED</b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefreedictionary.com%2Finfringed&amp;t=NDU0MDA2NjU4MzUwYmQ4MzczZjJkNTEzNDM2ZTUwZTBlYzUzOGQ5ZSxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> taken away; restricted in any way; put conditions or requirements upon; diminished; changed or updated; made new laws about; limited in any way; re-legislated; detracted from; invalidated<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> taken away, <i>unless </i>lots of people think it should be; changed, <i>unless </i>opinions change; updated, <i>if</i> people think that’s what they want<br/></p> <p>THEREFORE, were the second amendment written today, it would read:<br/></p> <h2><b>Because a <i>thoroughly hooked up</i> and <i>well-armed</i> <i><u>population</u> </i>is the only way our nation will ever be able to remain free and sovereign, and the only way we will ever keep our precious rights and liberties, <i>every single citizen of this country</i> is freely allowed to <i>possess </i>any <i>firearm or weapon </i>and to <i>use </i>said weapon in any way, and nobody is allowed to ever change, <b>restrict, or limit </b>laws about, or prevent any citizen from owning, keeping, or using <i>any kind of firearm or weapon</i>, even if people <i>think</i> that’s what they want.</b></h2> <p>Just to reiterate the parts that people most often misunderstand:</p> <p><b><i>Well-regulated</i> DOES NOT MEAN strictly governed</b>. It means well <i>outfitted</i>, hooked the fuck up.</p> <p><b><i>Militia </i>DOES NOT MEAN official, state sanctioned, junior or local branch of the federal armed forces</b>. It means citizens with guns, and that’s it. In fact, the Framers did not want a federal- (or state-) run standing military; they saw that as a threat to liberty. It’s very clear that what they meant was THE PEOPLE.</p> <p><b><i>Keep and bear</i> DOES NOT MEAN simply possess and carry</b>. It means participate in any and all associated activities.</p> <p><i><b>Arms </b></i><b>DOES NOT MEAN</b> guns, or certain guns, or guns with certain features. It means <i>weapons</i>, of any kind.</p> <p>Just look these things up, <i>please</i>, or follow the links provided.</p> <p><b>–&gt;</b> And <i>COME ON</i>. Use just a little common sense. If the Second Amendment were written exclusively to arm the military, or police, or officially government sanctioned militias, then WHY would it very explicitly say <b>the right of <i><u>THE PEOPLE</u></i> to keep and bear arms</b>…? Why would these educated, intelligent, careful, and conscientious men make such a stupid contradiction in one of the most important documents they’d ever written? That’s simply ridiculous! They didn’t make any mistakes, and we haven’t been somehow blindly running the country wrong for 230 years. It’s written correctly, and the meaning of it is quite clear if you just read past the first few words. </p> <blockquote><p>The right of <i><b>THE PEOPLE</b></i> to keep and bear <b>arms</b> shall not be infringed.</p></blockquote> <p>That’s unmistakable. Really.<br/><br/></p> <h2><b>AND AS FOR THE <i>ARMS</i> THEMSELVES..</b></h2> <p><b><i>Nowhere </i>does the Second Amendment (written in 1791) say <i>anything </i>about muskets, nor even <i>guns</i>, nor does it mention or even insinuate <i>any</i> limitation on what arms a person can keep and bear.</b></p> <p>Even further, in case you somehow actually didn’t know this, there were basically fully automatic machine guns BEFORE the Second Amendment was written, and <i>yes indeed</i>, these were known and accounted for when the document was drafted.</p> <p><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper-box">Pepper-box revolver</a> from 1790 or earlier</b><br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="440"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/32125f9701fe79560a11c06e34c082c6/tumblr_inline_oyyuzsEla71tnietr_500.jpg" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="440"/></figure><p><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun">Puckle gun</a>, invented in 1718 (complete with relevant text)</b><br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="392" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/47df142ced1c43b4e6f86e8d11595433/tumblr_inline_ozbyg7l6UX1suj1m1_500.png" data-orig-height="392" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock">Belton flintlock rifle</a>, 1777 </b><br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="310" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/8509f4782b2214c8fce1d957d98c1243/tumblr_inline_oyyuzs6rzo1tnietr_500.jpg" data-orig-height="310" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle">Girandoni air rifle</a>, 1779 </b><br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="173" data-orig-width="300"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/5e95ac5b5241961bbd16e3ee1fface9c/tumblr_inline_oyyuzsE6yV1tnietr_400.jpg" data-orig-height="173" data-orig-width="300"/></figure><p>(Thank you <a>@guns-and-freedom</a>​ for this list.)</p> <p>And that’s only a few of the <i>guns</i>. I haven’t even mentioned all the other kinds of <i><b>ARMS</b></i> that were available <a href="http://www.americanrevolution.org/artillery.php">before the Second Amendment was written</a>, those <b><i>ARMS</i></b> upon which no restriction shall ever be put, according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights:</p> <p><b>MORTARS</b></p> <p>Mortars are projectile launching arms that have been in use since the <b>1400s</b>.</p> <p>By 1775, there were nine different Land Service and four Sea Service Mortars in the British inventory alone.<br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="346" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/0199ff1c14b01cdb4b9015bbf4b0d335/tumblr_inline_ozbzkpmB9O1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="346" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="221" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bea14ef96990869cc3a10d2464758a9a/tumblr_inline_ozbzl945Cd1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="221" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>This <a href="http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/gallery1/clash5_e.shtml">French mortar</a> formed part of the defenses of Louisbourg during the British siege of <b>1758</b>. Made of cast iron, it could propel a 60-kilogram (132lb) shell up to four kilometers (2.5mi):</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="283" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/82d4f4a856c85867297a7a84ec060abc/tumblr_inline_ozbznl8zhM1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="283" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>That’s just a few examples.</p> <p><b>CANNON</b></p> <p>There are so many cannon, and their history is so rich and deep, that it’s impossible for me to get into it here. You know what a cannon is. Everybody does… so did the Founding Fathers.</p> <p>Cannon were built for offense and for defense, for battle and for siege, for land and for sea. They can be mounted on ships, they can be wheeled on wagons or purpose built conveyances, and they can even (but not often) be hand held. <br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="257" data-orig-width="344"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/fdcac6069eedd9d058acf1fc14cd21bc/tumblr_inline_ozbzwuANvw1suj1m1_400.jpg" data-orig-height="257" data-orig-width="344"/></figure><p>These things are old as dirt. Historians are pretty sure the first one was invented in China in the <b>1100s</b>, and they became standardized and common in Europe as far back as the Middle Ages, though probably much earlier.</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="333" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/6444d2089242cc8c73b1a48c95985fe1/tumblr_inline_ozc0iacKej1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="333" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>This incredible fort, built in <b>1593</b>, was designed specifically to defend against cannon:<br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="371" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/fe6a18995e8b28ea5492e2877744b659/tumblr_inline_ozc0ozfzgF1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="371" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b>HOWITZERS</b><br/></p> <p>Speaking of cannon, let’s not forget the Howitzer, which also dates back to the <b>1400s</b> and was used commonly as early as the <b>1600s</b>. It’s somewhere between the weapon commonly referred to as “gun” and a cannon, as it has a shorter barrel, smaller propellant charge, and higher trajectory than the cannon.</p> <p>This beautiful 24lb Howitzer entered service in <b>1790</b>:</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="357" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ebc2f8c84f50a167d652a29cb9a77bd3/tumblr_inline_ozc3qol80G1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="357" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>British and American Howitzers from the Revolutionary War, ca <b>1770s</b>:</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="385" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/f6fa6e415a99e20eb4874d0a7b656a62/tumblr_inline_ozc3t0itsX1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="385" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b>BOWS and ARROWS</b><br/></p> <p>Bows, as you surely know, are single-operator, hand held projectile weapons which have been extremely common pretty much <i>forever</i>. They’re basically the bolt-action rifles of the last <i>few thousand years</i>.</p> <p>The bow and arrow dates back to <b>prehistoric times</b>, and the crossbow dates back to <b>6th century BC</b> in China. Modern, fancy bows are relatively complicated compared to historical bows, but the archers that wielded them were deadly accurate. Until (and even well after) the advent and widespread use of the firearm, bows and arrows - and archers - were absolutely formidable. They’re pretty much the closest thing we can compare in historical battle to the modern gun, in popularity, accuracy, and believe it or not, versatility.<br/></p> <p>Arrows can be loosed more than one at a time. Arrows can be made to explode on impact. Arrows can be loosed on fire. Arrowheads vary widely and have been purpose built for nearly unlimited uses for millennia.</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="358" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4850d694a016ec830f520d08126d614c/tumblr_inline_ozc44sxQUf1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="358" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>Arrows can be loosed in rapid succession, quite accurately, and a good archer can loose arrows effectively semi-automatically<b>**</b> with just a modified grip.</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="333" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/3391db20fa82d59ee94454edd0f82e85/tumblr_inline_ozc23e4yso1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="333" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>A good archer can loose arrows nearly as fast as any semi-automatic<b>**</b> firearm, and just as accurately too. <br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-embed tmblr-full" data-provider="youtube" data-orig-width="540" data-orig-height="304" data-url="https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBEG-ly9tQGk"><iframe width="540" height="304" id="youtube_iframe" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BEG-ly9tQGk?feature=oembed&amp;enablejsapi=1&amp;origin=https://safe.txmblr.com&amp;wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></figure><p>(But this guy really has <i>nothing </i>on a trained, professional medieval or ancient military archer.) <br/></p> <p><b>CROSSBOWS</b></p> <p>Crossbows are extremely old, as well, and extremely commonplace throughout history. They’re basically the AR-15s of the last <i>few thousand years</i>.</p> <p>The Chinese outpaced Europeans in this department, as they did in explosives (which I’m not even getting into here!), and had crossbow technology as early as the <b>6th century BC</b>. That’s B.C. - where you count backwards. Europeans have been using them since <i>at least</i> the Battle of Hastings in 1066, and probably much earlier.</p> <p>Crossbows are so fast, can be used so rapidly, and are so accurate and deadly that some armies wanted them outlawed because they were such a terrifying advantage on the field, and they were indeed <a href="http://militaryhistorynow.com/2012/05/23/the-crossbow-a-medieval-wmd/">banned from Christian-on-Christian</a> battle by the Pope in 1096. But that didn’t last long.</p> <p>Crossbow bolts vary <i>nearly </i>as widely as arrows, and can do many of the things arrowheads can do (such as cause explosions on impact, etc.), and they can be loosed <i>extremely</i> quickly and <i>very </i>accurately via a crossbow. <br/></p> <p>Here is a DaVinci giant crossbow, as in Leonardo DaVinci, <b>1488-1489</b>:</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="368" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/9adbfc103b34f7af1fb3adbf3cb8e925/tumblr_inline_ozc1zx3Pkx1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="368" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b>And crossbows even come in semi-automatic**!</b> Here is a hand held semi-automatic<b>**</b> crossbow that can shoot 10 bolts in 15 seconds. It is from the <b><i>4th century BC</i>:</b></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="163" data-orig-width="417"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/1e2737d81fd3c6e0474bd87c05773da4/tumblr_inline_ozc28wnJaP1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="163" data-orig-width="417"/></figure><p>This bronze crossbow lower was <i><b><u>mass produced</u></b></i> as early as the <b>4th century BC</b>:</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="324" data-orig-width="432"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ecef8516b2f697a7ca6d1df36697d965/tumblr_inline_ozc3z9FENS1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="324" data-orig-width="432"/></figure><p><b><br/></b></p> <p><b>—–&gt; **</b>BY THE WAY - <i><b>semi-automatic</b></i> means CAN ONLY FIRE ONE BULLET AT A TIME, <b>one single bullet per pull of the trigger</b>. It <i>does NOT mean</i> a Rambo-style, constant spray, belt fed, machine gun. That Rambo type of gun is NOT semi-automatic, as the news would love for you to believe; that is <i>FULLY automatic</i>. Anything that is <i>FULLY AUTOMATIC - </i>which means you can hold down the trigger and just spray - IS ILLEGAL ALREADY and has been for decades. <i>FAR</i> too many people have no clue what those words mean. <b>&lt;—–</b><br/></p> <p><br/></p> <p>Anyway. The above listed weapons are only the <i>projectile </i><b><i>ARMS</i> </b>that were readily available and widely known well before the Second Amendment was written. I’m not even going to get into melee weapons like swords, axes, hammers, polearms, pikes, maces, caltrops, spears, halberds…….. I’m just not going to start. Nor am I going to get into shit like war ships and armored vehicles and <b>explosives</b> and things like that. But those things are all <b><i>arms</i></b> as well. Every single weapon mentioned here - and <i>any </i>other type of weapon on earth - as well as any <i>ammunition </i>for any of those weapons, is an <i><b>arm</b> </i>and is included in the Second Amendment’s use of the word <i><b>arms</b></i>.<br/></p> <p><b><i>ALL OF THE ABOVE</i> ARE  *A R M S*  THAT WERE WIDELY AVAILABLE AND WELL KNOWN TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS.</b></p> <p>And remember, the Second Amendment says <i><b>arms</b></i>, not guns, not muskets, not flintlocks, not anything specific at all. Just arms.</p> <p>The Founding Fathers knew about all of these <i>arms</i>. They understood the evolution and history of warfare and weaponry. They were familiar with all of the weapons, including firearms, of their day. And I would confidently go out on a limb and say that - given how well they predicted the future of government growth, and the willingness of the people to buy politicians’ lines - they understood and expected firearms and weapons technology to advance in much the same way as it has (which is to say… it actually hasn’t really changed all that much). And speaking of the Founding Fathers’ foresight…</p> <h2><b>THE PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, <i>WAR!</i></b></h2> <p>One of the MAIN reasons for the Second Amendment existing is that the founding fathers didn’t trust the government OR the people. They NEVER intended for there to be a federally-run standing army; they wanted The People to always be ready and able to defend ourselves - from <i>anyone</i>, <strike>including</strike> especially our own government. They <i>knew </i>the government would eventually try to become corrupt, try to enlarge and empower itself, try to take more control than they laid it out to have, just as almost every other government has always done. And they could clearly see <i>the people</i> falling for the lines that government fed them in order to <i>make them believe</i> that giving it more power was a good thing, that taking away <i>our </i>power was a good thing, was what the people wanted, just as almost every other people has always done. They knew <i>exactly </i>what was coming, and they predicted it pretty much flawlessly.. because it always happens. That’s exactly <b>why</b> they wrote the Second Amendment to be perfectly solid. Thank God!</p> <p>THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY TO EMPOWER PRIVATE CITIZENS TO GO TO <i>WAR </i>WITH THE GOVERNMENT OR WITH ANY OTHER ENEMY THAT MIGHT THREATEN OUR RIGHTS, OUR LIBERTIES, OR OUR SOVEREIGNTY.   <br/></p> <p>Here is just <i>one of the HUNDREDS</i> of extant, and readily available, examples of discourse surrounding the Second Amendment and its drafting, communications from the general public and within the government:</p> <blockquote><p>The preeminent Whig historian, Thomas Macaulay, labelled this “<b>the security without which every other is insufficient,</b>” and a century earlier the great jurist, William Blackstone, regarded <b>private arms as the means by which a people might vindicate their other rights</b> if these were suppressed. [<a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Fmil%2Fmaltrad.htm&amp;t=MjQ1MjBhMmYwODYzODg0NGYyMGNiOWI4ZDFlNDk3NTEzYjhkZjRjMixGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">x</a>]</p></blockquote> <p><b>The Second Amendment is the “emergency, break glass” for if/when the First Amendment stops working or, worse, is taken away.</b><br/></p> <p>It’s not for <i>hunting</i>, it’s not for <i>home defense</i>, it’s not for <i>target practice</i> or <i>sport</i>. It’s so that <b>we </b>can be as well-armed as (or, hopefully, be better armed than) <i>any </i>enemy we may need to fend off, including our own government. It’s there to at least make the government think twice about trying to take away our rights, to let them know that there is an armed populace out there, ready and wiling to defend its freedoms. It’s there to give us a fighting chance at keeping and maintaining the liberty that our forefathers fought and died for, and <i>yes, it includes AK-47s</i>. In fact, it also includes <b>cannon and full auto machine guns and war ships</b> as well, <i>and </i>includes anybody, no matter who, acquiring as many as they want (but we’ve let those rights be infringed anyway).</p> <h2><b>AND ON TOP OF <i>ALL </i>THAT:</b></h2> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="558" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/d3b5a19358519f2aec51a38e99f186b2/tumblr_inline_ozll8mBKh91suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="558" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>Your opinion on the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment is simply factually incorrect, and you yourself can easily verify that, if you’re ever so inclined to understand the truth rather than what <i>feels right </i>to you, by simply following some of the links above or searching for the recorded debates of the Founding Fathers. Hell, you can just search for a list of quotes by the Founding Fathers and gain a much more thorough understanding of their meaning. Please, do <i>yourself</i> the favor of taking a little time to learn about it. The sources are out there and very easy to find.</p> <p>Again, <b>THERE  <i>IS NO DEBATE</i>  ON THE MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. </b>THAT DEBATE HAPPENED - AND WAS SETTLED - OVER 200 YEARS AGO. AND THEM DUDES WHAT DEBATED IT WROTE DOWN EVERY SINGLE WORD OF THAT DEBATE, AND THOSE WORDS ARE STILL AVAILABLE TO US. THE MEANING OF THESE WORDS IS VERY CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE, AND IF YOU JUST FUCKING GOOGLE FOR A SECOND, YOU’LL SEE EXACTLY WHAT THE MEN WHO WROTE THEM MEANT BY THEM.</p> </blockquote><p>Reblogging for future reference.</p></blockquote> <p>Unless you’re willing to say that the First Amendment is invalid because the founding fathers didn’t know the Internet would exist, shut up about the second amendment being invalid because we have better guns now.</p>
Save
<p><a href="http://oculoslux.tumblr.com/post/165487176622/libertarirynn-ejjonez-really-capitalism-has" class="tumblr_blog">oculoslux</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/165486646224/ejjonez-really-capitalism-has-done-nothing-for" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://tmblr.co/mLkBNqmONa48nW7sdNBIqQg">@ejjonez</a><br/> Really? Capitalism has done nothing for black people? Did Madame CJ Walker get rich in a communist society? As for “proper criticism” sure I’ve read “criticisms” of capitalism and I haven’t seen a good one yet. Meanwhile there is not a single functionally successful example of communism so let’s decide which one makes more sense.</p> May I remind you that communism involves a much higher level of government involvement (and don’t give me that anarchist communist nonsense because any spread out highly populated communist society has involved the government), and this is the same government that enslaved Africans a few hundred years ago. Somehow I don’t think giving them more power is the greatest idea or in the best interest of African-Americans but maybe that’s just me.</blockquote> <p>Slavery was supported by people, not<b> just</b> the government and most civil rights gains have come from legislation. At the same time, a lot of race based discrimination has been from the government, but again we can say the same thing about general society. The difference, to me, is that without a force similar to the government, there isn’t really any counter play to a racist society. Everything would play the same, things would just be private. Governments have seemed more of an asset than anything else.<br/><br/>And one(such as this person) could define socialist policies as communist policies and only define capitalism under almost no government involvement, which quickly whittles down if you stop defining anything that involves patents as a capitalist success.<br/><br/></p> </blockquote> <p>“Slavery was supported by the people” people empowered by the government. There were laws dictating slave practices. There was like a whole war and everything. I’ve never understood why people act like the government had nothing to do with slavery or only had a passive role in it. And there is absolutely a force that can fight against racism outside of the government. Read up on the Montgomery bus boycott. The laws begin to change because it turns out most people like money more than they like racist ideals. No government can actually stop racism anyway since it’s a frame of mind. If there’s a store owner that doesn’t want me shopping there because I’m black I don’t want the government forcing him to let me shop there just so I can give business to somebody who hates me. I’d rather give business to someone else and tell everyone I know to do the same.</p>: My about me does not say I'm ancap. It says I'm a conservative minded libertarian. And I am passionately against communism in all it's forms as it does nothing but harm black, brown, and every other kind of person. ejjonez @libertarirynn Funny, I'm against capitalism for the same reasons. I'm not even saying you gotta be an anarchist or a communist or whatever but, have you at least read some proper criticism of the system you support? Sorry for misinterpreting I guess, your title says ancap memes so I kinda figured you were an ancap. <p><a href="http://oculoslux.tumblr.com/post/165487176622/libertarirynn-ejjonez-really-capitalism-has" class="tumblr_blog">oculoslux</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/165486646224/ejjonez-really-capitalism-has-done-nothing-for" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://tmblr.co/mLkBNqmONa48nW7sdNBIqQg">@ejjonez</a><br/> Really? Capitalism has done nothing for black people? Did Madame CJ Walker get rich in a communist society? As for “proper criticism” sure I’ve read “criticisms” of capitalism and I haven’t seen a good one yet. Meanwhile there is not a single functionally successful example of communism so let’s decide which one makes more sense.</p> May I remind you that communism involves a much higher level of government involvement (and don’t give me that anarchist communist nonsense because any spread out highly populated communist society has involved the government), and this is the same government that enslaved Africans a few hundred years ago. Somehow I don’t think giving them more power is the greatest idea or in the best interest of African-Americans but maybe that’s just me.</blockquote> <p>Slavery was supported by people, not<b> just</b> the government and most civil rights gains have come from legislation. At the same time, a lot of race based discrimination has been from the government, but again we can say the same thing about general society. The difference, to me, is that without a force similar to the government, there isn’t really any counter play to a racist society. Everything would play the same, things would just be private. Governments have seemed more of an asset than anything else.<br/><br/>And one(such as this person) could define socialist policies as communist policies and only define capitalism under almost no government involvement, which quickly whittles down if you stop defining anything that involves patents as a capitalist success.<br/><br/></p> </blockquote> <p>“Slavery was supported by the people” people empowered by the government. There were laws dictating slave practices. There was like a whole war and everything. I’ve never understood why people act like the government had nothing to do with slavery or only had a passive role in it. And there is absolutely a force that can fight against racism outside of the government. Read up on the Montgomery bus boycott. The laws begin to change because it turns out most people like money more than they like racist ideals. No government can actually stop racism anyway since it’s a frame of mind. If there’s a store owner that doesn’t want me shopping there because I’m black I don’t want the government forcing him to let me shop there just so I can give business to somebody who hates me. I’d rather give business to someone else and tell everyone I know to do the same.</p>

<p><a href="http://oculoslux.tumblr.com/post/165487176622/libertarirynn-ejjonez-really-capitalism-has" class="tumblr_blog">oculoslux</a>:...

Save
<p><a href="https://tmblr.co/mLkBNqmONa48nW7sdNBIqQg">@ejjonez</a><br/> Really? Capitalism has done nothing for black people? Did Madame CJ Walker get rich in a communist society? As for “proper criticism” sure I’ve read “criticisms” of capitalism and I haven’t seen a good one yet. Meanwhile there is not a single functionally successful example of communism so let’s decide which one makes more sense.</p> May I remind you that communism involves a much higher level of government involvement (and don&rsquo;t give me that anarchist communist nonsense because any spread out highly populated communist society has involved the government), and this is the same government that enslaved Africans a few hundred years ago. Somehow I don’t think giving them more power is the greatest idea or in the best interest of African-Americans but maybe that’s just me.: My about me does not say I'm ancap. It says I'm a conservative minded libertarian. And I am passionately against communism in all it's forms as it does nothing but harm black, brown, and every other kind of person. ejjonez @libertarirynn Funny, I'm against capitalism for the same reasons. I'm not even saying you gotta be an anarchist or a communist or whatever but, have you at least read some proper criticism of the system you support? Sorry for misinterpreting I guess, your title says ancap memes so I kinda figured you were an ancap. <p><a href="https://tmblr.co/mLkBNqmONa48nW7sdNBIqQg">@ejjonez</a><br/> Really? Capitalism has done nothing for black people? Did Madame CJ Walker get rich in a communist society? As for “proper criticism” sure I’ve read “criticisms” of capitalism and I haven’t seen a good one yet. Meanwhile there is not a single functionally successful example of communism so let’s decide which one makes more sense.</p> May I remind you that communism involves a much higher level of government involvement (and don&rsquo;t give me that anarchist communist nonsense because any spread out highly populated communist society has involved the government), and this is the same government that enslaved Africans a few hundred years ago. Somehow I don’t think giving them more power is the greatest idea or in the best interest of African-Americans but maybe that’s just me.

<p><a href="https://tmblr.co/mLkBNqmONa48nW7sdNBIqQg">@ejjonez</a><br/> Really? Capitalism has done nothing for black people? Did Madame...

Save