As reader Scott Reilly noted in a comment on the previous post, you can buy this as a tee-shirt.
What the Second Amendment really confers
December 23, 2012 • 9:58 am
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
He should take those off. His right is to “bare arms”.
sub
I have always said that. Well done James!
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.
“bear” arms used as a verb; “he beared his arms up real good – they was nice and furry”
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.
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…
The ‘constitutional right to’ or ‘the constitution to’?!
You forgot that the right to bear arms is only half of the amendment!
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?
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.
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…?
Which is why we should be arming those bears…
“Militia and I were the hit of the party – our bear arms won for best costume.”
Family Guy discussed this a while back: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RablPaIREkk
According to that history lesson, guilherme21msa’s comment is right on: fake bear arms indeed! Certainly not as the founders intended…
Looks like he’s bearing bear arms on his bare arms… Is that double or triple redundancy?
Not sure about the redundancy, but you may well have hit upon an alternate definition for “militia”…
Oh… at first I thought you wrote minutiae … 😉
I’m getting credit for being smarter than I actually was…
An event worth enjoying… 😉
lol – indeed…
Is this related to the right to eat bear claws?
…only prune, not almond… 😉
… 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…?
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.
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.
LMAO!
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.”
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…
Funny!
The following is not so funny. Americans are still confused about the ‘Right to Bier Arms’…
http://mg.co.za/article/2012-12-24-pro-gun-rights-us-petition-to-deport-piers-morgan
Go Piers!
Bear feet – likely attached to arms and legs – as a relatively good justification for possession of weapons in certain, quite limited, circumstances.
Wonderful….now Bigfoot will never be seen…
I’ve always thought that is was “the right to arm bears”