probable


                    
                    
                

                

                

            

        
    







            

            
            

                

                    
                

                

                    

                        


	

	
    

        đŸ”„ | Latest
    

    
    

        

        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            




    Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want

One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else


Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.


Important 


Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.

    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want

One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else


Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.


Important 


Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.

                
            

            
            
libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced t...

            
            
        

    



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            




    Clothes, Energy, and Lawyer: COME BACK
 WITH A
 WARRANT
not-a-single-fuck:

soundssimpleright:

supermansbuttocks:
THUG LYFE

This is actually what you should say to an ICE agent who has come to your house looking for an undocumented immigrant. 
Specifically, do not open the door; tell them to slide their warrant under the door. Read it carefully and check to see if it’s a JUDICIAL warrant, which will have specific information like the time and location where they’re allowed to search, and a specific description of who or what they’re allowed to search for. ICE practically *never* have this; they’ll have an ADMINISTRATIVE warrant, which is just their orders from their boss telling them to arrest a particular person. It does not give them the right to enter your house. 
ICE *can* enter your house if they have probable cause, such as if they see the person they’re looking for through a window or door (which is why you don’t open the door). Other forms of probable cause include kids telling agents that they were born outside of the US. Agents will trick people into chatting with them, especially kids who serve as translators for their parents, asking things like “What part of Mexico are you from?” Staying silent keeps the onus on them to prove in court later that they had evidence someone isn’t here legally. 
It’s important to remember that for now, at least, every person ICE wants to deport has to go before a judge, and ICE has to provide evidence that they know this person is undocumented and that they were arrested without violating the 4th amendment (against unreasonable search and seizure). We know that cops lie and that judges usually side with them, but agents would rather go for a sure bet from a targeted raid than risk wasting their time and energy on arrests that could be thrown out. Knowing your rights and being prepared makes you a more difficult target. 
“I do not consent to entry without a warrant.”
(This information comes from notes I took at a workshop on being an immigration ally. Learn more at welcomingamerica.org)

@soundssimpleright 
ACTUALLY, ICE will wave around anything and call it a warrant and unless you’re a lawyer chances are you won’t be able to tell, so call a lawyer. ICE often comes in civilian vehicles and clothes, will often conceal their badges from you and will even lie about who they are, and they’ve been known to work with police. You shouldn’t open the door. Call your lawyer, a volunteer lawyer group that assists immigrants or a response network* first. Never say anything that might reveal you’re an immigrant at all to any cop, not even if you are arrested for something else. Call your lawyer and let them deal with it.
ICE presentara cualquier cosa y la llamara un warrant, y aunque usted sea un abogado, probablemente no sabra la diferencia, asi que llame a su abogado. ICE muy seguido se presenta en ropa y autos civiles sin marcas, obscuren sus placas y pueden hasta mentir aceca de quienes son, aveces hasta trabajan con policia local para hacer arrestos de immigracion. No habra la puerta. Llame a su abogado, un grupo de abogados voluntarios que asistan a immigrantes o un grupo de respuesta* primero. Nunca diga nada que revele que es usted un immigrante a ningun policia, ni siquiera si usted esta ciendo arrestado por ortra razon. Llame a su abogado y dejen que ellos lideen con ICE.
Here is what a Judicial warrant looks like:
Asi es como se ve un warrant judicial:
This what an immigration warrant looks like:
Asi se ve un warrant de immigracion:
If the warrant looks like this, you don’t have to let them in. Either way, call your lawyer and if you see ICE or suspect you see them, call someone who responds to ICE raids.
Si el warrant se ve como este, usted no tiene que dejarlos entrar. En qualquier caso, llame a su abogado y si ve a ICE o sospecha que los ve llame a alguen que responda a raids de ICE.

*Response networks. Research online if there’s a network of people in your area who respond to ICE raids, you can also ask at local temples or churches if they know of one. These are people whom you call on the phone, they give you brief instructions and send respondents to your location to assist you, serve as witnesses and document what happens so you can use that information to your defense.
*Grupos de respuesta. Busque en linea si hai un grupo de gente en su area que responda a raids de ICE, tambien puede preguntar en tempos o iglecias locales si conocen de uno. Estas son personas que usted llama en el telephono, le dan instuciones breves y llaman socorristas a su locacion a asistirle, servir como testigos y documentar lo que suseda para que usted pueda usar esa informacion en su defensa.

    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Clothes, Energy, and Lawyer: COME BACK
 WITH A
 WARRANT
not-a-single-fuck:

soundssimpleright:

supermansbuttocks:
THUG LYFE

This is actually what you should say to an ICE agent who has come to your house looking for an undocumented immigrant. 
Specifically, do not open the door; tell them to slide their warrant under the door. Read it carefully and check to see if it’s a JUDICIAL warrant, which will have specific information like the time and location where they’re allowed to search, and a specific description of who or what they’re allowed to search for. ICE practically *never* have this; they’ll have an ADMINISTRATIVE warrant, which is just their orders from their boss telling them to arrest a particular person. It does not give them the right to enter your house. 
ICE *can* enter your house if they have probable cause, such as if they see the person they’re looking for through a window or door (which is why you don’t open the door). Other forms of probable cause include kids telling agents that they were born outside of the US. Agents will trick people into chatting with them, especially kids who serve as translators for their parents, asking things like “What part of Mexico are you from?” Staying silent keeps the onus on them to prove in court later that they had evidence someone isn’t here legally. 
It’s important to remember that for now, at least, every person ICE wants to deport has to go before a judge, and ICE has to provide evidence that they know this person is undocumented and that they were arrested without violating the 4th amendment (against unreasonable search and seizure). We know that cops lie and that judges usually side with them, but agents would rather go for a sure bet from a targeted raid than risk wasting their time and energy on arrests that could be thrown out. Knowing your rights and being prepared makes you a more difficult target. 
“I do not consent to entry without a warrant.”
(This information comes from notes I took at a workshop on being an immigration ally. Learn more at welcomingamerica.org)

@soundssimpleright 
ACTUALLY, ICE will wave around anything and call it a warrant and unless you’re a lawyer chances are you won’t be able to tell, so call a lawyer. ICE often comes in civilian vehicles and clothes, will often conceal their badges from you and will even lie about who they are, and they’ve been known to work with police. You shouldn’t open the door. Call your lawyer, a volunteer lawyer group that assists immigrants or a response network* first. Never say anything that might reveal you’re an immigrant at all to any cop, not even if you are arrested for something else. Call your lawyer and let them deal with it.
ICE presentara cualquier cosa y la llamara un warrant, y aunque usted sea un abogado, probablemente no sabra la diferencia, asi que llame a su abogado. ICE muy seguido se presenta en ropa y autos civiles sin marcas, obscuren sus placas y pueden hasta mentir aceca de quienes son, aveces hasta trabajan con policia local para hacer arrestos de immigracion. No habra la puerta. Llame a su abogado, un grupo de abogados voluntarios que asistan a immigrantes o un grupo de respuesta* primero. Nunca diga nada que revele que es usted un immigrante a ningun policia, ni siquiera si usted esta ciendo arrestado por ortra razon. Llame a su abogado y dejen que ellos lideen con ICE.
Here is what a Judicial warrant looks like:
Asi es como se ve un warrant judicial:
This what an immigration warrant looks like:
Asi se ve un warrant de immigracion:
If the warrant looks like this, you don’t have to let them in. Either way, call your lawyer and if you see ICE or suspect you see them, call someone who responds to ICE raids.
Si el warrant se ve como este, usted no tiene que dejarlos entrar. En qualquier caso, llame a su abogado y si ve a ICE o sospecha que los ve llame a alguen que responda a raids de ICE.

*Response networks. Research online if there’s a network of people in your area who respond to ICE raids, you can also ask at local temples or churches if they know of one. These are people whom you call on the phone, they give you brief instructions and send respondents to your location to assist you, serve as witnesses and document what happens so you can use that information to your defense.
*Grupos de respuesta. Busque en linea si hai un grupo de gente en su area que responda a raids de ICE, tambien puede preguntar en tempos o iglecias locales si conocen de uno. Estas son personas que usted llama en el telephono, le dan instuciones breves y llaman socorristas a su locacion a asistirle, servir como testigos y documentar lo que suseda para que usted pueda usar esa informacion en su defensa.

                
            

            
            
not-a-single-fuck:

soundssimpleright:

supermansbuttocks:
THUG LYFE

This is actually what you should say to an ICE agent who has come to y...

            
            
        

    



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            




    Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
peteschult:

libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want

One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else


Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.


Important 


Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.


Cops are *never* your friends. And they are under no obligation to protect you. Ever.
Get rid of pigs!

    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
peteschult:

libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want

One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else


Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.


Important 


Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.


Cops are *never* your friends. And they are under no obligation to protect you. Ever.
Get rid of pigs!

                
            

            
            
peteschult:

libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legall...

            
            
        

    



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            




    Apparently, Baseball, and Fabolous: According to Affidavit, Fabolous Knocked Emily B's
 Two Front Teeth Out and Threatened To Kill Her, Her
 Father, and Her Brother After Finding Out She Was In
 Los Angeles Via Instagram
 @balleralert
According to Affidavit, Fabolous Knocked Emily B's Two Front Teeth Out and Threatened To Kill Her, Her Father, and Her Brother After Finding Out She Was In Los Angeles Via Instagram - blogged by @MsJennyb ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Rapper Fabolous was arrested Wednesday on charges of an alleged domestic violence incident with his longtime girlfriend, Emily B. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ In the incident, according to NorthJersey.com, Fabolous punched her in the face seven times and reportedly threatened to kill her father and brother. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Englewood officials say Fab turned himself in on the domestic dispute and making terroristic threats charges. He was later released. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ According to the publication, the incident stemmed from an argument between the two that occurred on March 7 when Fab was on a business trip in Los Angeles. Apparently, the rapper “became enraged” when he found out Emily was also in the City of Angels via Instagram. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ In the incident, Emily claimed the rapper said he wanted to hit her with a baseball bat and kill her, but “he didn’t want to go out like that.” Later, according to an affidavit of probable cause, Fab reportedly punched her in the face seven times, knocking two of her front teeth out. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Emily asked her father to remove all the guns from their Englewood, NJ, home, as she feared they would be used against her. When Fab arrived, he confronted Emily, her father, and her brother, then proceeded to look for the guns. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ "When he could not locate the guns, the defendant left the house, but not before informing the victim, her father and her brother that he had a bullet for them," according to court documents.
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Apparently, Baseball, and Fabolous: According to Affidavit, Fabolous Knocked Emily B's
 Two Front Teeth Out and Threatened To Kill Her, Her
 Father, and Her Brother After Finding Out She Was In
 Los Angeles Via Instagram
 @balleralert
According to Affidavit, Fabolous Knocked Emily B's Two Front Teeth Out and Threatened To Kill Her, Her Father, and Her Brother After Finding Out She Was In Los Angeles Via Instagram - blogged by @MsJennyb ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Rapper Fabolous was arrested Wednesday on charges of an alleged domestic violence incident with his longtime girlfriend, Emily B. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ In the incident, according to NorthJersey.com, Fabolous punched her in the face seven times and reportedly threatened to kill her father and brother. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Englewood officials say Fab turned himself in on the domestic dispute and making terroristic threats charges. He was later released. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ According to the publication, the incident stemmed from an argument between the two that occurred on March 7 when Fab was on a business trip in Los Angeles. Apparently, the rapper “became enraged” when he found out Emily was also in the City of Angels via Instagram. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ In the incident, Emily claimed the rapper said he wanted to hit her with a baseball bat and kill her, but “he didn’t want to go out like that.” Later, according to an affidavit of probable cause, Fab reportedly punched her in the face seven times, knocking two of her front teeth out. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Emily asked her father to remove all the guns from their Englewood, NJ, home, as she feared they would be used against her. When Fab arrived, he confronted Emily, her father, and her brother, then proceeded to look for the guns. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ "When he could not locate the guns, the defendant left the house, but not before informing the victim, her father and her brother that he had a bullet for them," according to court documents.
                
                

                
            

            
            
According to Affidavit, Fabolous Knocked Emily B's Two Front Teeth Out and Threatened To Kill Her, Her Father, and Her Brother After Finding...

            
            
        

    



        

            
        
        

            




    Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
<p><a href="http://gvldngrl.tumblr.com/post/166513263494/wolfoverdose-rikodeine-seemeflow-because" class="tumblr_blog">gvldngrl</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="http://wolfoverdose.tumblr.com/post/166265395771/rikodeine-seemeflow-because-of-the-fifth" class="tumblr_blog">wolfoverdose</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://rikodeine.tumblr.com/post/131562629300">rikodeine</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://seemeflow.tumblr.com/post/131556627065">seemeflow</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.</b></p>
<p><b>1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”</b><br/>Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.</p>
<p><b>2) “Do you have something to hide?”</b><br/>Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.</p>
<p><b>3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”</b><br/>The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”<br/>(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)</p>
<p><b>4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”</b><br/>Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.</p>
<p><b>5.) We have someone who will testify against you</b><br/>Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.</p>
<p><b>6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”</b><br/>Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.</p>
<p><b>7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”</b><br/>Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.</p>
<p>U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).</p>
<p>Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.</p>
<p>Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want">http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want</a><br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Important </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.</p>
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
<p><a href="http://gvldngrl.tumblr.com/post/166513263494/wolfoverdose-rikodeine-seemeflow-because" class="tumblr_blog">gvldngrl</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="http://wolfoverdose.tumblr.com/post/166265395771/rikodeine-seemeflow-because-of-the-fifth" class="tumblr_blog">wolfoverdose</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://rikodeine.tumblr.com/post/131562629300">rikodeine</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://seemeflow.tumblr.com/post/131556627065">seemeflow</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.</b></p>
<p><b>1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”</b><br/>Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.</p>
<p><b>2) “Do you have something to hide?”</b><br/>Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.</p>
<p><b>3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”</b><br/>The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”<br/>(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)</p>
<p><b>4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”</b><br/>Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.</p>
<p><b>5.) We have someone who will testify against you</b><br/>Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.</p>
<p><b>6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”</b><br/>Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.</p>
<p><b>7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”</b><br/>Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.</p>
<p>U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).</p>
<p>Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.</p>
<p>Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want">http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want</a><br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Important </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.</p>
                
            

            
            
gvldngrl:
wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against...

            
            
        

    



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            




    Facebook, Memes, and Party: Washington State Man Arrested and Charged
 After Raping A Young Woman As She Died
 From Overdose
 @balleralert
Washington State Man Arrested and Charged After Raping A Young Woman As She Died From Overdose - blogged by @MsJennyb ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ A Washington State man is facing a slew of charges for raping a young woman as she died from an overdose. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ According to PEOPLE, the incident occurred earlier this month at a party, where 18-year-old Alyssa Mae Noceda snorted a line of crushed Percocet pills before she ingested a “dab” of liquid THC that she received from the 19-year-old suspect, Brian Roberto Varela. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Within less than a minute, Varela said Noceda passed out on his bed. According to the arrest warrant, as Noceda died in his room, Varela texted a group of his co-workers about his situation with pictures, saying “LOL I think she OD’d, still breathing, I’m smashing her to pass the time.” ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Varela then used the young woman’s finger to unlock her phone and post a message on her Snapchat to suggest she had run away. He then took a nap next to Noceda’s lifeless body, just before clocking in for a double-shift at Dairy Queen, where he disclosed more details about his night with Noceda. “She died having sex with me,” he told his co-workers. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ However, the co-workers quickly informed officials about Varela’s situation, as they linked Noceda’s name to her worried mother’s Facebook page. After gathering the information, officials had enough probable cause for an arrest. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ They then went to Varela’s home, where they found Noceda’s lifeless body stuffed in a plastic crate in his bedroom. The 19-year-old was then arrested and charged with rape, manslaughter, and homicide by controlled substance with a $500,000 bond for each charge.
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Facebook, Memes, and Party: Washington State Man Arrested and Charged
 After Raping A Young Woman As She Died
 From Overdose
 @balleralert
Washington State Man Arrested and Charged After Raping A Young Woman As She Died From Overdose - blogged by @MsJennyb ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ A Washington State man is facing a slew of charges for raping a young woman as she died from an overdose. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ According to PEOPLE, the incident occurred earlier this month at a party, where 18-year-old Alyssa Mae Noceda snorted a line of crushed Percocet pills before she ingested a “dab” of liquid THC that she received from the 19-year-old suspect, Brian Roberto Varela. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Within less than a minute, Varela said Noceda passed out on his bed. According to the arrest warrant, as Noceda died in his room, Varela texted a group of his co-workers about his situation with pictures, saying “LOL I think she OD’d, still breathing, I’m smashing her to pass the time.” ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Varela then used the young woman’s finger to unlock her phone and post a message on her Snapchat to suggest she had run away. He then took a nap next to Noceda’s lifeless body, just before clocking in for a double-shift at Dairy Queen, where he disclosed more details about his night with Noceda. “She died having sex with me,” he told his co-workers. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ However, the co-workers quickly informed officials about Varela’s situation, as they linked Noceda’s name to her worried mother’s Facebook page. After gathering the information, officials had enough probable cause for an arrest. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ They then went to Varela’s home, where they found Noceda’s lifeless body stuffed in a plastic crate in his bedroom. The 19-year-old was then arrested and charged with rape, manslaughter, and homicide by controlled substance with a $500,000 bond for each charge.
                
            

            
            
Washington State Man Arrested and Charged After Raping A Young Woman As She Died From Overdose - blogged by @MsJennyb ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ A Wash...

            
            
        

    



        

            
        
        

            




    9/11, Being Alone, and America: 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>
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                9/11, Being Alone, and America: 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>
                
            

            
            
schweizerqualitaet:

theheartbrokenlibertarian:
inkedandproudinfidel:

proudliberal11:

Let’s regulate the unregulated populace!

No they sh...

            
            
        

    



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            




    Africa, Girls, and New York: Finland
 Sweden
 Iceland
 Russia
 Norway
 United
 Kingdom
 Canada
 Poland
 Germanyraine
 Kazakhstan
 France
 Mongolia
 Spain Italy
 orth
 acific
 cean
 United States
 North
 Turkey
 China
 South Korea
 Atlantic
 Ocean
 Afghanistan
 aq rnkistan
 Algeria Libya
 Egyp
 Mexico
 i Arabia
 India
 Thailand
 Mali Niger
 Nigeria
 Ethiopia
 zuela
 DR Congo, Kenya
 Indonesia
 Papua New
 Guinea
 Tanzania
 Brazil
 Peru
 Angola h
 Namibia
 Indian
 Ocean
 Botswana Madagascar
 South
 Pacific
 Ocean
 South
 Atlantic
 Ocean
 Australia
 Chile
 South Africa
 Argentina
 New
 Zealand
thatsthat24:

shitshilarious:

queerqueerspawn:

james-tiqueerius:

queerqueerspawn:

glampersand:

glowcloud:

kittiesinqueerland:

robalyn:

the highlighted area is where Jason Derulo knows what the girls want. london to taiwan.

new york to haiti

greenland is right out

ummm no offense but new york to haiti should be measured as the area between the two latitudes, not the longitudes. this graph is incorrect and vastly underestimates the total region of the earth in which Jason Derulo knows what the girls want

Even measuring that way, Greenland remains right out, as does the entirity of Brazil.

Have we considered measuring by neither latitude nor longitude but in all area that would extend perpendicular from the diagonal of the two places?There are many different interpretations of the data, and until more is available, we ought not conclude anything at this point.

In light of that, I posit this alternative map of regions where Jason Derulo is potentially claiming where he knows what girls want:

As we can see, if we assume that model, the vast majority of the area where Jason Derulo knows what girls want is either open ocean (the Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea) or sparsely populated (the northern Sahara, the northern Arabian Desert, various desert portions of Iran and Afghanistan, and the southern Tibetan Plateau). Four of the ten most populated countries on the planet have no territory in it (Nigeria, Brazil, Japan, and Indonesia), and two which do have relatively little territory in it (the US and Russia). It is suggested that for all his boasting, Jason Derulo does not know what a probable majority of the world’s girls want.

Perhaps Jason Derulo’s intention was never to proclaim to be omnipotent to the interests of the female gender. Perhaps he was instead expressing his humanity, or the limits of his knowledge. I applaud Jason Derulo. Jason Derulo is not just another 2 dimensional character. Jason Derulo has depth.Jason Derulo has limitations and has come to terms with them. Jason Derulo knows Jason Derulo. Thats why he makes it a point to say his name so much.

But again, Greenland is right out

    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Africa, Girls, and New York: Finland
 Sweden
 Iceland
 Russia
 Norway
 United
 Kingdom
 Canada
 Poland
 Germanyraine
 Kazakhstan
 France
 Mongolia
 Spain Italy
 orth
 acific
 cean
 United States
 North
 Turkey
 China
 South Korea
 Atlantic
 Ocean
 Afghanistan
 aq rnkistan
 Algeria Libya
 Egyp
 Mexico
 i Arabia
 India
 Thailand
 Mali Niger
 Nigeria
 Ethiopia
 zuela
 DR Congo, Kenya
 Indonesia
 Papua New
 Guinea
 Tanzania
 Brazil
 Peru
 Angola h
 Namibia
 Indian
 Ocean
 Botswana Madagascar
 South
 Pacific
 Ocean
 South
 Atlantic
 Ocean
 Australia
 Chile
 South Africa
 Argentina
 New
 Zealand
thatsthat24:

shitshilarious:

queerqueerspawn:

james-tiqueerius:

queerqueerspawn:

glampersand:

glowcloud:

kittiesinqueerland:

robalyn:

the highlighted area is where Jason Derulo knows what the girls want. london to taiwan.

new york to haiti

greenland is right out

ummm no offense but new york to haiti should be measured as the area between the two latitudes, not the longitudes. this graph is incorrect and vastly underestimates the total region of the earth in which Jason Derulo knows what the girls want

Even measuring that way, Greenland remains right out, as does the entirity of Brazil.

Have we considered measuring by neither latitude nor longitude but in all area that would extend perpendicular from the diagonal of the two places?There are many different interpretations of the data, and until more is available, we ought not conclude anything at this point.

In light of that, I posit this alternative map of regions where Jason Derulo is potentially claiming where he knows what girls want:

As we can see, if we assume that model, the vast majority of the area where Jason Derulo knows what girls want is either open ocean (the Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea) or sparsely populated (the northern Sahara, the northern Arabian Desert, various desert portions of Iran and Afghanistan, and the southern Tibetan Plateau). Four of the ten most populated countries on the planet have no territory in it (Nigeria, Brazil, Japan, and Indonesia), and two which do have relatively little territory in it (the US and Russia). It is suggested that for all his boasting, Jason Derulo does not know what a probable majority of the world’s girls want.

Perhaps Jason Derulo’s intention was never to proclaim to be omnipotent to the interests of the female gender. Perhaps he was instead expressing his humanity, or the limits of his knowledge. I applaud Jason Derulo. Jason Derulo is not just another 2 dimensional character. Jason Derulo has depth.Jason Derulo has limitations and has come to terms with them. Jason Derulo knows Jason Derulo. Thats why he makes it a point to say his name so much.

But again, Greenland is right out

                
            

            
            
thatsthat24:

shitshilarious:

queerqueerspawn:

james-tiqueerius:

queerqueerspawn:

glampersand:

glowcloud:

kittiesinqueerland:

robalyn...

            
            
        

    



        

            
        
        

            




    Africa, Girls, and New York: Finland
 Sweden
 Iceland
 Russia
 Norway
 United
 Kingdom
 Canada
 Poland
 Germanyraine
 Kazakhstan
 France
 Mongolia
 Spain Italy
 orth
 acific
 cean
 United States
 North
 Turkey
 China
 South Korea
 Atlantic
 Ocean
 Afghanistan
 aq rnkistan
 Algeria Libya
 Egyp
 Mexico
 i Arabia
 India
 Thailand
 Mali Niger
 Nigeria
 Ethiopia
 zuela
 DR Congo, Kenya
 Indonesia
 Papua New
 Guinea
 Tanzania
 Brazil
 Peru
 Angola h
 Namibia
 Indian
 Ocean
 Botswana Madagascar
 South
 Pacific
 Ocean
 South
 Atlantic
 Ocean
 Australia
 Chile
 South Africa
 Argentina
 New
 Zealand
thatsthat24:
shitshilarious:

queerqueerspawn:

james-tiqueerius:

queerqueerspawn:

glampersand:

glowcloud:

kittiesinqueerland:

robalyn:

the highlighted area is where Jason Derulo knows what the girls want. london to taiwan.

new york to haiti

greenland is right out

ummm no offense but new york to haiti should be measured as the area between the two latitudes, not the longitudes. this graph is incorrect and vastly underestimates the total region of the earth in which Jason Derulo knows what the girls want

Even measuring that way, Greenland remains right out, as does the entirity of Brazil.

Have we considered measuring by neither latitude nor longitude but in all area that would extend perpendicular from the diagonal of the two places?There are many different interpretations of the data, and until more is available, we ought not conclude anything at this point.

In light of that, I posit this alternative map of regions where Jason Derulo is potentially claiming where he knows what girls want:

As we can see, if we assume that model, the vast majority of the area where Jason Derulo knows what girls want is either open ocean (the Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea) or sparsely populated (the northern Sahara, the northern Arabian Desert, various desert portions of Iran and Afghanistan, and the southern Tibetan Plateau). Four of the ten most populated countries on the planet have no territory in it (Nigeria, Brazil, Japan, and Indonesia), and two which do have relatively little territory in it (the US and Russia). It is suggested that for all his boasting, Jason Derulo does not know what a probable majority of the world’s girls want.

Perhaps Jason Derulo’s intention was never to proclaim to be omnipotent to the interests of the female gender. Perhaps he was instead expressing his humanity, or the limits of his knowledge. I applaud Jason Derulo. Jason Derulo is not just another 2 dimensional character. Jason Derulo has depth.Jason Derulo has limitations and has come to terms with them. Jason Derulo knows Jason Derulo. Thats why he makes it a point to say his name so much.

But again, Greenland is right out

    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Africa, Girls, and New York: Finland
 Sweden
 Iceland
 Russia
 Norway
 United
 Kingdom
 Canada
 Poland
 Germanyraine
 Kazakhstan
 France
 Mongolia
 Spain Italy
 orth
 acific
 cean
 United States
 North
 Turkey
 China
 South Korea
 Atlantic
 Ocean
 Afghanistan
 aq rnkistan
 Algeria Libya
 Egyp
 Mexico
 i Arabia
 India
 Thailand
 Mali Niger
 Nigeria
 Ethiopia
 zuela
 DR Congo, Kenya
 Indonesia
 Papua New
 Guinea
 Tanzania
 Brazil
 Peru
 Angola h
 Namibia
 Indian
 Ocean
 Botswana Madagascar
 South
 Pacific
 Ocean
 South
 Atlantic
 Ocean
 Australia
 Chile
 South Africa
 Argentina
 New
 Zealand
thatsthat24:
shitshilarious:

queerqueerspawn:

james-tiqueerius:

queerqueerspawn:

glampersand:

glowcloud:

kittiesinqueerland:

robalyn:

the highlighted area is where Jason Derulo knows what the girls want. london to taiwan.

new york to haiti

greenland is right out

ummm no offense but new york to haiti should be measured as the area between the two latitudes, not the longitudes. this graph is incorrect and vastly underestimates the total region of the earth in which Jason Derulo knows what the girls want

Even measuring that way, Greenland remains right out, as does the entirity of Brazil.

Have we considered measuring by neither latitude nor longitude but in all area that would extend perpendicular from the diagonal of the two places?There are many different interpretations of the data, and until more is available, we ought not conclude anything at this point.

In light of that, I posit this alternative map of regions where Jason Derulo is potentially claiming where he knows what girls want:

As we can see, if we assume that model, the vast majority of the area where Jason Derulo knows what girls want is either open ocean (the Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea) or sparsely populated (the northern Sahara, the northern Arabian Desert, various desert portions of Iran and Afghanistan, and the southern Tibetan Plateau). Four of the ten most populated countries on the planet have no territory in it (Nigeria, Brazil, Japan, and Indonesia), and two which do have relatively little territory in it (the US and Russia). It is suggested that for all his boasting, Jason Derulo does not know what a probable majority of the world’s girls want.

Perhaps Jason Derulo’s intention was never to proclaim to be omnipotent to the interests of the female gender. Perhaps he was instead expressing his humanity, or the limits of his knowledge. I applaud Jason Derulo. Jason Derulo is not just another 2 dimensional character. Jason Derulo has depth.Jason Derulo has limitations and has come to terms with them. Jason Derulo knows Jason Derulo. Thats why he makes it a point to say his name so much.

But again, Greenland is right out

                
            

            
            
thatsthat24:
shitshilarious:

queerqueerspawn:

james-tiqueerius:

queerqueerspawn:

glampersand:

glowcloud:

kittiesinqueerland:

robalyn:...

            
            
        

    



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            




    Dogs, LinkedIn, and Phone: starrose17:

sassyhail:

chocolatequeennk:


afleshjackforblainecharitydrive:

dbvictoria:

25% of the people have a 4th cone and see colors as they are

Given the sudden interest for the color of dresses and vision, here some of the fascinating findings we did recently.
The color nuances we see depend on the number and distribution of cones (=color receptors) in our eye. You can check this rainbow: how many color nuances do you count?
You see less than 20 color nuances: you are a dichromats, like dogs, which means you have 2 types of cones only. You are likely to wear black, beige, and blue. 25% of the population is dichromat.
You see between 20 and 32 color nuances: you are a trichromat, you have 3 types of cones (in the purple/blue, green and red area). You enjoy 
different colors as you can appreciate them. 50% of the population is 
trichromat.
You see between 33 and 39 colors: you are a 
tetrachromat, like bees, and have 4 types of cones (in the purple/blue, 
green, red plus yellow area). You are irritated by yellow, so this color
 will be nowhere to be found in your wardrobe. 25% of the population is 
tetrachromat.
You see more than 39 color nuances: come on, you are
 making up things! there are only 39 different colors in the test and 
probably only 35 are properly translated by your computer screen anyway 
:)
It is highly probable that people who have an additional 4th 
cone do not get tricked by blue/black or white/gold dresses, no matter 
the background light ;)
(x)


I see 21 colors. I had no idea there are so many more.


I see 35-39 colours, and I hate the colour yellow. That was actually what made me curious enough to stop scrolling and count. Who knew there was a scientific reason behind my colour preferences?So the idea here is that what I see as annoyingly, garishly bright, most people don’t see as clearly, and that’s why it’s “cheerful?” (I’ve never understood that description of yellow.)


I barely saw 18 or 19. Dang :/

Seriously? I see all 39 extremely easily.


39, but only just ( then again, I am looking at this through a very damaged phone screen )
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Dogs, LinkedIn, and Phone: starrose17:

sassyhail:

chocolatequeennk:


afleshjackforblainecharitydrive:

dbvictoria:

25% of the people have a 4th cone and see colors as they are

Given the sudden interest for the color of dresses and vision, here some of the fascinating findings we did recently.
The color nuances we see depend on the number and distribution of cones (=color receptors) in our eye. You can check this rainbow: how many color nuances do you count?
You see less than 20 color nuances: you are a dichromats, like dogs, which means you have 2 types of cones only. You are likely to wear black, beige, and blue. 25% of the population is dichromat.
You see between 20 and 32 color nuances: you are a trichromat, you have 3 types of cones (in the purple/blue, green and red area). You enjoy 
different colors as you can appreciate them. 50% of the population is 
trichromat.
You see between 33 and 39 colors: you are a 
tetrachromat, like bees, and have 4 types of cones (in the purple/blue, 
green, red plus yellow area). You are irritated by yellow, so this color
 will be nowhere to be found in your wardrobe. 25% of the population is 
tetrachromat.
You see more than 39 color nuances: come on, you are
 making up things! there are only 39 different colors in the test and 
probably only 35 are properly translated by your computer screen anyway 
:)
It is highly probable that people who have an additional 4th 
cone do not get tricked by blue/black or white/gold dresses, no matter 
the background light ;)
(x)


I see 21 colors. I had no idea there are so many more.


I see 35-39 colours, and I hate the colour yellow. That was actually what made me curious enough to stop scrolling and count. Who knew there was a scientific reason behind my colour preferences?So the idea here is that what I see as annoyingly, garishly bright, most people don’t see as clearly, and that’s why it’s “cheerful?” (I’ve never understood that description of yellow.)


I barely saw 18 or 19. Dang :/

Seriously? I see all 39 extremely easily.


39, but only just ( then again, I am looking at this through a very damaged phone screen )
                
            

            
            
starrose17:

sassyhail:

chocolatequeennk:


afleshjackforblainecharitydrive:

dbvictoria:

25% of the people have a 4th cone and see colors...

            
            
        

    



        

            
        
        

            




    Dogs, Fucking, and LinkedIn: <p><a href="http://straightboyfriend2.tumblr.com/post/161593015858/sassyhail-chocolatequeennk" class="tumblr_blog">straightboyfriend2</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://sassyhail.tumblr.com/post/118921399192/chocolatequeennk" class="tumblr_blog">sassyhail</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://chocolatequeennk.tumblr.com/post/113239476029/afleshjackforblainecharitydrive-dbvictoria-25">chocolatequeennk</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://afleshjackforblainecharitydrive.tumblr.com/post/113196854241/dbvictoria-25-of-the-people-have-a-4th-cone-and">afleshjackforblainecharitydrive</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://dbvictoria.tumblr.com/post/112481473103/25-of-the-people-have-a-4th-cone-and-see-colors">dbvictoria</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/25-people-have-4th-cone-see-colors-p-prof-diana-derval">25% of the people have a 4th cone and see colors as they are</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Given the sudden interest for the color of dresses and vision, here some of the fascinating findings we did recently.</p>
<p>The color nuances we see depend on the number and distribution of cones (=color receptors) in our eye. You can check this rainbow: how many color nuances do you count?</p>
<p>You see less than 20 color nuances: you are a dichromats, like dogs, which means you have 2 types of cones only. You are likely to wear black, beige, and blue. 25% of the population is dichromat.</p>
<p>You see between 20 and 32 color nuances: you are a trichromat, you have 3 types of cones (in the purple/blue, green and red area). You enjoy 
different colors as you can appreciate them. 50% of the population is 
trichromat.</p>
<p>You see between 33 and 39 colors: you are a 
tetrachromat, like bees, and have 4 types of cones (in the purple/blue, 
green, red plus yellow area). You are irritated by yellow, so this color
 will be nowhere to be found in your wardrobe. 25% of the population is 
tetrachromat.</p>
<p>You see more than 39 color nuances: come on, you are
 making up things! there are only 39 different colors in the test and 
probably only 35 are properly translated by your computer screen anyway 
:)</p>
<p>It is highly probable that people who have an additional 4th 
cone do not get tricked by blue/black or white/gold dresses, no matter 
the background light ;)</p>
<br/><br/>(<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/25-people-have-4th-cone-see-colors-p-prof-diana-derval">x</a>)</blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>I see 21 colors. I had no idea there are so many more.<br/></p>
</blockquote>

<p>I see 35-39 colours, and I hate the colour yellow. That was actually what made me curious enough to stop scrolling and count. Who knew there was a scientific reason behind my colour preferences?<br/><br/>So the idea here is that what I see as annoyingly, garishly bright, most people don’t see as clearly, and that’s why it’s “cheerful?” (I’ve never understood that description of yellow.)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I barely saw 18 or 19. Dang :/<br/></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Im fucking colorblind</p></blockquote>
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Dogs, Fucking, and LinkedIn: <p><a href="http://straightboyfriend2.tumblr.com/post/161593015858/sassyhail-chocolatequeennk" class="tumblr_blog">straightboyfriend2</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://sassyhail.tumblr.com/post/118921399192/chocolatequeennk" class="tumblr_blog">sassyhail</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://chocolatequeennk.tumblr.com/post/113239476029/afleshjackforblainecharitydrive-dbvictoria-25">chocolatequeennk</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://afleshjackforblainecharitydrive.tumblr.com/post/113196854241/dbvictoria-25-of-the-people-have-a-4th-cone-and">afleshjackforblainecharitydrive</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://dbvictoria.tumblr.com/post/112481473103/25-of-the-people-have-a-4th-cone-and-see-colors">dbvictoria</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/25-people-have-4th-cone-see-colors-p-prof-diana-derval">25% of the people have a 4th cone and see colors as they are</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Given the sudden interest for the color of dresses and vision, here some of the fascinating findings we did recently.</p>
<p>The color nuances we see depend on the number and distribution of cones (=color receptors) in our eye. You can check this rainbow: how many color nuances do you count?</p>
<p>You see less than 20 color nuances: you are a dichromats, like dogs, which means you have 2 types of cones only. You are likely to wear black, beige, and blue. 25% of the population is dichromat.</p>
<p>You see between 20 and 32 color nuances: you are a trichromat, you have 3 types of cones (in the purple/blue, green and red area). You enjoy 
different colors as you can appreciate them. 50% of the population is 
trichromat.</p>
<p>You see between 33 and 39 colors: you are a 
tetrachromat, like bees, and have 4 types of cones (in the purple/blue, 
green, red plus yellow area). You are irritated by yellow, so this color
 will be nowhere to be found in your wardrobe. 25% of the population is 
tetrachromat.</p>
<p>You see more than 39 color nuances: come on, you are
 making up things! there are only 39 different colors in the test and 
probably only 35 are properly translated by your computer screen anyway 
:)</p>
<p>It is highly probable that people who have an additional 4th 
cone do not get tricked by blue/black or white/gold dresses, no matter 
the background light ;)</p>
<br/><br/>(<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/25-people-have-4th-cone-see-colors-p-prof-diana-derval">x</a>)</blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>I see 21 colors. I had no idea there are so many more.<br/></p>
</blockquote>

<p>I see 35-39 colours, and I hate the colour yellow. That was actually what made me curious enough to stop scrolling and count. Who knew there was a scientific reason behind my colour preferences?<br/><br/>So the idea here is that what I see as annoyingly, garishly bright, most people don’t see as clearly, and that’s why it’s “cheerful?” (I’ve never understood that description of yellow.)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I barely saw 18 or 19. Dang :/<br/></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Im fucking colorblind</p></blockquote>
                
            

            
            
straightboyfriend2:

sassyhail:
chocolatequeennk:


afleshjackforblainecharitydrive:

dbvictoria:

25% of the people have a 4th cone and see...

            
            
        

    



        

            
        
        

            




    Click, Memes, and Pop: FIX A
 CLICKING HIP
TAKE THIS QUICK TEST FOR YOUR CLICKING HIP . đŸ“©I get asked a lot about hips that click and pop and what causes it. There are actually a few different causes ranging from muscular tightness to actual joint disorders like labral tears. . đŸ˜ČMost people are freaked out about it but they really shouldn't be. Most hip clicking is just a tendon snapping over a part of the femur and often don't cause pain. If you do have pain though, be sure to get it looked at to make sure it's not the joint itself. . đŸŽ„This test will let you know if your psoas is the probable cause. It works best for those that feel clicking only when taking their leg from flexion to extension, like lowering down in a leg raise exercise. During that lowering portion, the psoas eccentrically contracts and controls the motion so that your leg doesn't just flop down and that can cause it to snap over the iliopectineal eminence. . 🔍The test uses a band to reduce the load on the psoas. As you push against it, you activate the glute and hamstring and the band helps assist the lowering. If the click reduces or stops, it's a clue that your psoas is the culprit. . 🛠From there you can start implementing the psoas stretch or band distraction I've shown you before and work on this drill, gradually decreasing band tension over time. . Tag a friend who has a snapping hip and share the wealth! MyodetoxOrlando Myodetox
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Click, Memes, and Pop: FIX A
 CLICKING HIP
TAKE THIS QUICK TEST FOR YOUR CLICKING HIP . đŸ“©I get asked a lot about hips that click and pop and what causes it. There are actually a few different causes ranging from muscular tightness to actual joint disorders like labral tears. . đŸ˜ČMost people are freaked out about it but they really shouldn't be. Most hip clicking is just a tendon snapping over a part of the femur and often don't cause pain. If you do have pain though, be sure to get it looked at to make sure it's not the joint itself. . đŸŽ„This test will let you know if your psoas is the probable cause. It works best for those that feel clicking only when taking their leg from flexion to extension, like lowering down in a leg raise exercise. During that lowering portion, the psoas eccentrically contracts and controls the motion so that your leg doesn't just flop down and that can cause it to snap over the iliopectineal eminence. . 🔍The test uses a band to reduce the load on the psoas. As you push against it, you activate the glute and hamstring and the band helps assist the lowering. If the click reduces or stops, it's a clue that your psoas is the culprit. . 🛠From there you can start implementing the psoas stretch or band distraction I've shown you before and work on this drill, gradually decreasing band tension over time. . Tag a friend who has a snapping hip and share the wealth! MyodetoxOrlando Myodetox
                
                

                
            

            
            
TAKE THIS QUICK TEST FOR YOUR CLICKING HIP . đŸ“©I get asked a lot about hips that click and pop and what causes it. There are actually a few d...

            
            
        

    



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            




    Memes, Cool, and Race: HOW DID HE
 GO UP THIS?
This is a cool raceđŸ€™ Follow @thefullfamily for a probable follow back! Credit: Danirep YT
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Memes, Cool, and Race: HOW DID HE
 GO UP THIS?
This is a cool raceđŸ€™ Follow @thefullfamily for a probable follow back! Credit: Danirep YT
                
                

                
            

            
            
This is a cool raceđŸ€™ Follow @thefullfamily for a probable follow back! Credit: Danirep YT