34 thoughts on “What the Second Amendment really confers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a Reply to gbjames Cancel reply