Reader Pliny the in Between described his latest cartoon as a “groaner,” though it took me a minute to get it. See how long it takes you.
The originalists
December 3, 2015 • 2:01 pm
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.
Wow, I exercise my 2nd amendment rights every day. Who woulda guessed.
It’s about the original intent of the ‘right to bear arms’ (… bare arms).
No, no. It’s actually about your right to arm bears. Though I don’t see the point; bears are pretty well armed as it is, and anyway I don’t see how one could even load a musket, much less aim and fire.
Gordon Dickson: “The Right to Arm Bears”, a collection of three novellas set on the planet Dilbia. Published in 2000. Very funny.
Heh, heh, reminds me of: http://imgur.com/WuaWsVw
And with a human wearing them.
cjndaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/the-right-to-bear-arms.jpg
Reminds me of Sherri Tepper’s Raising the Stones. In a side plot, a religious prophet leaves the population with the enigmatic message “don’t let’em mess with your heads.” Leading to hundreds of years of sectarian conflict over proper headwear.
And Colin Kapp’s “The Patterns of Chaos” where the protagonist encounters a fanatical religious order, dedicated to self-punishment, whose motto is “Gladly!” – as in “Gladly my cross I’d bear”.
He subsequently sees their Sacred Relic, which is a child’s stuffed toy with loose eye-buttons – it’s “Gladly, my cross-eyed bear”!
And who noticed the man in the gorilla suit walking through the middle of the game?
And there is the added pun that arms/biceps in America are also called “guns”. As in “look at James Madison showing off his guns”.
It took me no time at all. I chortled most merrily.
Reminds me of a Texas “Boolean algebra” interpretation of the “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” clause of the Tenth Amendment, which claimed that cruel punishment is okay if it’s not unusual, and unusual punishment is okay if it’s not cruel.
(Sorry, it’s something I remember from a long time ago I haven’t been able to document it with a link.)
Who was it who said (something like), “Your book is both witty and original. Sadly, the parts that are witty are not original and the parts that are original are not witty.”?
/@
I’ve heard that attributed to Oscar Wilde.
I’ve also heard a version of it attributed to a referee’s evaluation of a scientific article: “This paper contains much that is new and much that is true. Unfortunately, that which is true is not new and that which is new is not true.”
That the Eighth Amendment, and I think you’re thinking of Justice Scalia’s 1991 opinion in Harmelin v. Michigan, in which he set forth his idiosyncratic “originalist” view that a punishment must be cruel and unusual in the conjunctive to violate the 8th: no matter how cruel or how unusual a punishment might be, it’s perfectly constitutional unless it’s both.
I’ve been waiting ever since for Scalia’s originalist explanation for why the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on being “subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” also applies to imprisonment, fines, and probation.
Right. It was the tenth article of the original proposal. I didn’t scroll down far enough.
Got it (almost) immediately:-)
Personally, I’m all in favor of the First Lady’s constitutional right to bare her guns.
Took me far too long. And I definitely groaned.
Music to my ears 😉
The ragged, torn edge of the black cloth and its stray threads suggests to me that this drawing is unconstitutional: the right bare arm has been enfringed.
Are you starting a new thread?
/@
But … a well-rehabilitated material being the best security for a frayed sleeve … maybe it can be re-sewn.
And the last of the visual puns is revealed – well done sir!
Wow… though I did notice the tatters, the meaning of that embellishment completely went over my head! Good job!
During the French Revolution, the representatives of the Parisian poor and oppressed were popularly known as “les bras nu” (“bare arms”). They led the assault on the Bastille and were later viciously suppressed by Robespierre’s bourgeois Jacobins.
Hence, the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment is clearly a statement of support for working class insurgency.