🔥 | Latest

Clothes, Friends, and Fucking: satanpositive Roses are red, that much is true, but violets are purple, not fucking blue feels-for-the-fictional I have been waiting for this post all my life marzipanandminutiae They are indeed purple But one thing you've missed The concept of "purple Didn't always exist. Some cultures lack names For a color, you see Hence good old Homer And his "wine-dark sea. A usage so quaint, A phrasing so old, For verses of romance Is sheer fucking gold So roses are red. Violets once were called blue I'm hugely pedantic But what else is new? ineptshieldmaid My friend you're not wrong About Homer's wine-ey sea! Colours are a matter Of cultural contingency Words are in flux And meanings they drift But the word purple You've given short shrift. The concept of purple My friends, is old And refers to a pigment once precious as gold. By crushing up molluscs From the wine-dark sea You make a dye: Imperial decree Meant that in Rome to wear purpura was a privilege reserved For only the emperor! The word purple', for clothes so fancy Entered English By the ninth century Why then are voilets Not purple in song? The dye from this mollusc, known for so long Is almost magenta; More red than blue The concept of purple is old, and yet new The dye is red So this might be true Roses are purple And violets are blue squeeful While this song makes me merry, Tyrian purple dyes many a hue From magenta to berry And a true purple too But fun as it is to watch this poetic race The answer is staring you right in the face Roses are red and violets are blue Because nothing fucking rhymes with purple. Roses are red
Clothes, Friends, and Fucking: satanpositive
 Roses are red, that much is true, but violets are purple, not fucking blue
 feels-for-the-fictional
 I have been waiting for this post all my life
 marzipanandminutiae
 They are indeed purple
 But one thing you've missed
 The concept of "purple
 Didn't always exist.
 Some cultures lack names
 For a color, you see
 Hence good old Homer
 And his "wine-dark sea.
 A usage so quaint,
 A phrasing so old,
 For verses of romance
 Is sheer fucking gold
 So roses are red.
 Violets once were called blue
 I'm hugely pedantic
 But what else is new?
 ineptshieldmaid
 My friend you're not wrong
 About Homer's wine-ey sea!
 Colours are a matter
 Of cultural contingency
 Words are in flux
 And meanings they drift
 But the word purple
 You've given short shrift.
 The concept of purple
 My friends, is old
 And refers to a pigment
 once precious as gold.
 By crushing up molluscs
 From the wine-dark sea
 You make a dye:
 Imperial decree
 Meant that in Rome
 to wear purpura
 was a privilege reserved
 For only the emperor!
 The word purple',
 for clothes so fancy
 Entered English
 By the ninth century
 Why then are voilets
 Not purple in song?
 The dye from this mollusc,
 known for so long
 Is almost magenta;
 More red than blue
 The concept of purple
 is old, and yet new
 The dye is red
 So this might be true
 Roses are purple
 And violets are blue
 squeeful
 While this song makes me merry,
 Tyrian purple dyes many a hue
 From magenta to berry
 And a true purple too
 But fun as it is to watch this poetic race
 The answer is staring you right in the face
 Roses are red and violets are blue
 Because nothing fucking rhymes with purple.
Roses are red

Roses are red

Being Alone, Bad, and Funny: reddit Hello, A few months ago l captured an American Cockroach in my studio apartment. In my apartment, I see a roach from time to time. Nota ton of bunches of roaches, like say, 2 or 3 a month. Most often I smashed them or sprayeda poison on them. But one time l thought, maybe this is a bad thing? Why should a roach be killed ust because it is a bug? Well I decided to capture that roach and I made him my pet. I name him Big Alan I keep Big Alan in a little aquarium, but I also take him out a lot to hold him, pet him, speak to him, etc. Well, let me tell you in my life I have had only3 dates, and before this new date my last prior date was in October 2009. So may I say that, of course, I admit I was very nervous to go on this new date I find that Big Alan keeps me very calm when I have him with me. He is like a good luck charm of sorts, and as my pet he is my good friend, so l know that if he is with me I am not alone. It may seem silly but it is like he is a courage bug So on my date I kept Big Alan in my front shirt pocket, and I put bacon bits in there so he would have a good meal and he would be distracted b that and not crawl awav. Well it did not work exactly this way. You see, a roach like Big Alan has very long antennae. If you have ever seen a cockroach you know that's a fact. Well at some point I guess this damned rascal was tired of his bacon bits and his antennae were poking up out of my pocket. Well I have to tell you that she did see this. I did not want to cause a fright so l explained it is just my pet, and I took Big Alan out of my pocket to show her. Well let me tell you she did react very oorly to this, and even screamed. And everyone turned and saw I had a roach in my hands and just about everyone reacted very badly. I had to explain to everyone he is just my pet. Well I was finding this extremely embarrassing and also l feared for the safety of Big Alan to be honest. So I ran out of that place. Yes, ran. Well now I am quite shamed and angered by all of this. I have resolved I will not do any more dates. That's for sure. But I wish Big Alan had not poked his antennae out. He didn't know the deal but even so T am slightly annoyed at him. I know this is unfair. But it's how I feel. tripropellant: mysteryho: yeezusplease: big alan did nothing wrong i like how this is written like an american 1950s radio personality telling an ambling story this is such a powerful example of how tone and phrasing can be jokes on their own. if this guy wrote this like a normal person it’d be mildly funny but mostly a little sad but because he wrote it how he did it’s indescribably funny
Being Alone, Bad, and Funny: reddit
 Hello,
 A few months ago l captured an American
 Cockroach in my studio apartment. In my
 apartment, I see a roach from time to time. Nota
 ton of bunches of roaches, like say, 2 or 3 a
 month. Most often I smashed them or sprayeda
 poison on them. But one time l thought, maybe
 this is a bad thing? Why should a roach be killed
 ust because it is a bug? Well I decided to
 capture that roach and I made him my pet. I
 name him Big Alan
 I keep Big Alan in a little aquarium, but I also
 take him out a lot to hold him, pet him, speak to
 him, etc.
 Well, let me tell you in my life I have had only3
 dates, and before this new date my last prior
 date was in October 2009. So may I say that, of
 course, I admit I was very nervous to go on this
 new date
 I find that Big Alan keeps me very calm when I
 have him with me. He is like a good luck charm
 of sorts, and as my pet he is my good friend, so l
 know that if he is with me I am not alone. It may
 seem silly but it is like he is a courage bug

 So on my date I kept Big Alan in my front shirt
 pocket, and I put bacon bits in there so he would
 have a good meal and he would be distracted b
 that and not crawl awav. Well it did not work
 exactly this way. You see, a roach like Big Alan
 has very long antennae. If you have ever seen a
 cockroach you know that's a fact. Well at some
 point I guess this damned rascal was tired of his
 bacon bits and his antennae were poking up out
 of my pocket.
 Well I have to tell you that she did see this. I did
 not want to cause a fright so l explained it is just
 my pet, and I took Big Alan out of my pocket to
 show her. Well let me tell you she did react very
 oorly to this, and even screamed. And everyone
 turned and saw I had a roach in my hands and
 just about everyone reacted very badly. I had to
 explain to everyone he is just my pet.
 Well I was finding this extremely embarrassing
 and also l feared for the safety of Big Alan to be
 honest. So I ran out of that place. Yes, ran.

 Well now I am quite shamed and angered by all
 of this. I have resolved I will not do any more
 dates. That's for sure. But I wish Big Alan had
 not poked his antennae out. He didn't know the
 deal but even so T am slightly annoyed at him. I
 know this is unfair. But it's how I feel.
tripropellant:

mysteryho:

yeezusplease:

big alan did nothing wrong

i like how this is written like an american 1950s radio personality telling an ambling story


this is such a powerful example of how tone and phrasing can be jokes on their own. if this guy wrote this like a normal person it’d be mildly funny but mostly a little sad but because he wrote it how he did it’s indescribably funny

tripropellant: mysteryho: yeezusplease: big alan did nothing wrong i like how this is written like an american 1950s radio personality t...

Bad, Children, and Chill: * Watch Dra Cuddy:Mother Gothel by Aveku-chan-Kataang Customization /Wallpaper/ People / Females @2011-2016 Aveku-chan-Kataang YES! C'MON! 8DDD galotheshroom: ava-burton-writing: dragonenby: writingwithcolor: so-many-miles-to-go: aworldinneedofmagic: the-independent-jew: so-many-miles-to-go: smol-mother-rose: so-many-miles-to-go: Yeah, there’s a reason for that. It’s called: antisemitic caricature. I don’t understand what’s Jewish about mother gothel… she has a typical Disney face doesn’t she? Is it the curly hair..? I mean her nose and everything else seem normal? I’m sorry, I’m just trying to figure it out, you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to. dark curly hair - long hooked nose - darker complexion than the blond blue eyed heroine 9and really the rest of the cast - portrayed as greedy and evil. Lisa Edelstein is Jewish.  As are Idina Menzel and Amy Winehouse, both of whom I have seen compared in looks to Gothel.  Gothel’s design is a pretty clear caricature of ethnically Jewish women.   This is a pretty good contrast between Rapunzel and Gothel.  Rapunzel has the “typical Disney face”: Here’s a more close up look at her features. The hooked nose becomes even more pronounced as she becomes “eviler.” If you wanted to claim that there was noting out of the ordinary for Disney animation when it came to Gothel’s features, you would have to find at least one Disney princess or heroine with similar characteristics (long hooked nose and dark curly hair, etc). But here is what we have is - small noses that turn up at the end: wide, flatter noses (though cheers to Disney for not putting button noses on their characters of color, although Esmerelda’s clothing design deserves another essay on Rromani stereotypes and there are some major issues with Pocahontas as well) And then a few misc noses (again, props for Jasmine’s nose not being a button): Apart from just the design of Gothel, there’s also the whole: “obviously ‘other’ (read Jewish) woman kidnaps the pretty blonde (read: gentile) kid to use her for ritualistic/magical purposes” Like that right there on top of the aesthetic Jewish-coding is what pushed the antisemitic caricature over the top for me.  It harkens back to antisemitic blood libel that claimed that Jews stole gentile children for all manner of nefarious reasons. Even when Gothel is in “mother” role to Rapunzel, she’s is shown as nagging and passive aggressive, both antisemitic stereotypes of Jewish women. There is no one thing that makes her an antisemitic caricature, but the design, plus the storyline she plays out, plus her characterization cement the overall character as antisemitic.   Jew-coding a villain is not in itself always antisemitic when there are also Jewish coded heroes. Rapunzel does not have that. Having a villain steal a baby for magical/ritualistic reasons is not always antisemitic as long as the villain is not Jew-coded.  Rapunzel fails this as well. Having a nagging and passive aggressive mother character is not antisemitic provided that she is not, again, coded as Jewish.  Rapunzel fails once again. Hope this helps. EDIT: @ariminak pointed out that some of my wording made it sound like Gothel’s features only stereotypically caricatured Ashkenazi women when in fact that is not the case.  I changed the language to remove that phrasing and make it clear that any ethnically Jewish women can be affected by this type of aesthetic trope. If you reblogged the old version, could you please delete it and reblog this one instead. Spread this version so people recognize that this stuff harms all Jewish women. omfg can y’all chill the fuck out, any race can be portrayed as hero or villain, it’s a fucking kids movie not a political statement So I’m guessing you’re white and a gentile. As such, you’ve more than likely grown up looking at tv and movies and fairytales and seeing your face in those of the heroes. Jewish people don’t get that.  When we are portrayed in live action, our characters are more often than not whitewashed and in other media, our features are used and caricaturized to create “evil looking” villains. You don’t see it because you’ve been ingrained with the idea that “ethnic” features are just “how you make a character look evil.”  You don’t look at Gothel and see your mother.  You don’t see yourself and your people.  You don’t see decades of propaganda aimed at fostering hate against you and ultimately seeking to destroy you.   But seeing how you also seem to think that saying you’re not attracted to an entire race of people ISN’T racist, you really don’t get any say on any of this. So really, you need to chill the fuck out and stop telling marginalized people to stop talking about the tools of our own marginalization. Let’s play a game I like to call: Movie Villain or Antisemitic Propaganda: Many “evil witch” tropes were built on European antisemitic stereotypes, not just in appearance but in the storylines they play out as well. Greediness, stealing children, killing children, hunger for power, etc.  Every time a movie villain design uses stereotyped Jewish features to communicate “evilness” to an audience, they perpetuate the marginalization of the people they are using.  One big issue I have is that Gothel’s didn’t start out as the antisemitic caricature that made it to screen.  Much of the early concept art has a more dark romanticism feel.   They changed the original design. Presumably to make Gothel more “other” from the good characters in the movie.  At some point, a decision was made that dark curly hair and a hooked nose wound better convey their villain. It really doesn’t matter if any of this was intentional, I’d actually bet that it wasn’t.  However, antisemitic tropes are so engrained in our societies that people like you, even when confronted with a step by step break down of what it is, feel comfortable thinking that there’s nothing wrong with it and mocking those calling it out as if we are overreacting. You seem to have completely ignored the majority of my post.  It is the character design, plus the characterization, plus the story line that mirrors blood libel that makes Gothel an antisemitic character.  It’s not just about someone of a certain race or ethnicity being a villain.  It’s about how stereotypes of a certain ethnic group are understood as “villainous” due to villains being repeatedly coded as Jewish over decades of film and tv. And contrary to your naive belief, all media is political to some extent. Every time a historically present minority is not included in film (ex: lily-white Harlem in Fantastical Beasts) or when a minority character is whitewashed, or when the “ethnic” features of a minority are used almost universally to portray bad guys, it is a political and social issue.  When you never see yourselves as the people who play the hero or even see your people existing in a portrayal of a place where they should be, it is not benign. Reblogging again for these additions. I’m not Jewish, but I can imagine seeing yourself villanized again and again must wear on you so hard (like queer coded villains do on me). The stereotypes are so insidious, I didn’t even realize she was Jewish coded until I saw this post for the first time, and since then I’ve been able to pick up on more anti-semitic media. Stay cognizant! This is a writing blog so fellow writers! Please take a good look at your villains— even if they’re not Jewish, it can be antisemitic. Thanks. - A Jew™️ I feel like you guys want to be offended. its called shape theory and character design. I haven’t met a single Jew that has a hooked nose and jews are not the only the only ethnicity with lightish brown skin and curly black hair. for example, ME I’m Mexican and have those features I have met a woman for MADRID who looks EXACTLY like the woman above. and her accent sounds a lot more Spanish than Jewish (which would make sense because Rapunzel takes place in Germany and Spain is pretty damn close by. Also she just straight up does not have a hooked nose. Not anything like those caricatures anyway. In the shot where she’s in profile it doesn’t look hooked at all.
Bad, Children, and Chill: * Watch
 Dra Cuddy:Mother Gothel
 by Aveku-chan-Kataang
 Customization /Wallpaper/ People / Females @2011-2016 Aveku-chan-Kataang
 YES! C'MON! 8DDD
galotheshroom:
ava-burton-writing:

dragonenby:

writingwithcolor:

so-many-miles-to-go:

aworldinneedofmagic:

the-independent-jew:

so-many-miles-to-go:

smol-mother-rose:

so-many-miles-to-go:


Yeah, there’s a reason for that.
It’s called: antisemitic caricature.


I don’t understand what’s Jewish about mother gothel… she has a typical Disney face doesn’t she? Is it the curly hair..? I mean her nose and everything else seem normal? 
I’m sorry, I’m just trying to figure it out, you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to.

dark curly hair - long hooked nose - darker complexion than the blond blue eyed heroine 9and really the rest of the cast - portrayed as greedy and evil.
Lisa Edelstein is Jewish.  As are Idina Menzel and Amy Winehouse, both of whom I have seen compared in looks to Gothel.  Gothel’s design is a pretty clear caricature of ethnically Jewish women.  
This is a pretty good contrast between Rapunzel and Gothel.  Rapunzel has the “typical Disney face”:
Here’s a more close up look at her features.
The hooked nose becomes even more pronounced as she becomes “eviler.”
If you wanted to claim that there was noting out of the ordinary for Disney animation when it came to Gothel’s features, you would have to find at least one Disney princess or heroine with similar characteristics (long hooked nose and dark curly hair, etc).
But here is what we have is -
small noses that turn up at the end:
wide, flatter noses (though cheers to Disney for not putting button noses on their characters of color, although Esmerelda’s clothing design deserves another essay on Rromani stereotypes and there are some major issues with Pocahontas as well)
And then a few misc noses (again, props for Jasmine’s nose not being a button):
Apart from just the design of Gothel, there’s also the whole: “obviously ‘other’ (read Jewish) woman kidnaps the pretty blonde (read: gentile) kid to use her for ritualistic/magical purposes”
Like that right there on top of the aesthetic Jewish-coding is what pushed the antisemitic caricature over the top for me.  It harkens back to antisemitic blood libel that claimed that Jews stole gentile children for all manner of nefarious reasons. Even when Gothel is in “mother” role to Rapunzel, she’s is shown as nagging and passive aggressive, both antisemitic stereotypes of Jewish women.
There is no one thing that makes her an antisemitic caricature, but the design, plus the storyline she plays out, plus her characterization cement the overall character as antisemitic.  
Jew-coding a villain is not in itself always antisemitic when there are also Jewish coded heroes. Rapunzel does not have that.
Having a villain steal a baby for magical/ritualistic reasons is not always antisemitic as long as the villain is not Jew-coded.  Rapunzel fails this as well.
Having a nagging and passive aggressive mother character is not antisemitic provided that she is not, again, coded as Jewish.  Rapunzel fails once again.
Hope this helps.
EDIT: @ariminak pointed out that some of my wording made it sound like Gothel’s features only stereotypically caricatured Ashkenazi women when in fact that is not the case.  I changed the language to remove that phrasing and make it clear that any ethnically Jewish women can be affected by this type of aesthetic trope. If you reblogged the old version, could you please delete it and reblog this one instead.

Spread this version so people recognize that this stuff harms all Jewish women. 

omfg can y’all chill the fuck out, any race can be portrayed as hero or villain, it’s a fucking kids movie not a political statement

So I’m guessing you’re white and a gentile. As such, you’ve more than likely grown up looking at tv and movies and fairytales and seeing your face in those of the heroes.
Jewish people don’t get that.  When we are portrayed in live action, our characters are more often than not whitewashed and in other media, our features are used and caricaturized to create “evil looking” villains.
You don’t see it because you’ve been ingrained with the idea that “ethnic” features are just “how you make a character look evil.”  You don’t look at Gothel and see your mother.  You don’t see yourself and your people.  You don’t see decades of propaganda aimed at fostering hate against you and ultimately seeking to destroy you.  
But seeing how you also seem to think that saying you’re not attracted to an entire race of people ISN’T racist, you really don’t get any say on any of this.
So really, you need to chill the fuck out and stop telling marginalized people to stop talking about the tools of our own marginalization.
Let’s play a game I like to call: Movie Villain or Antisemitic Propaganda:
Many “evil witch” tropes were built on European antisemitic stereotypes, not just in appearance but in the storylines they play out as well. Greediness, stealing children, killing children, hunger for power, etc.  Every time a movie villain design uses stereotyped Jewish features to communicate “evilness” to an audience, they perpetuate the marginalization of the people they are using. 
One big issue I have is that Gothel’s didn’t start out as the antisemitic caricature that made it to screen.  Much of the early concept art has a more dark romanticism feel.  
They changed the original design. Presumably to make Gothel more “other” from the good characters in the movie.  At some point, a decision was made that dark curly hair and a hooked nose wound better convey their villain.
It really doesn’t matter if any of this was intentional, I’d actually bet that it wasn’t.  However, antisemitic tropes are so engrained in our societies that people like you, even when confronted with a step by step break down of what it is, feel comfortable thinking that there’s nothing wrong with it and mocking those calling it out as if we are overreacting.
You seem to have completely ignored the majority of my post.  It is the character design, plus the characterization, plus the story line that mirrors blood libel that makes Gothel an antisemitic character.  It’s not just about someone of a certain race or ethnicity being a villain.  It’s about how stereotypes of a certain ethnic group are understood as “villainous” due to villains being repeatedly coded as Jewish over decades of film and tv.
And contrary to your naive belief, all media is political to some extent. Every time a historically present minority is not included in film (ex: lily-white Harlem in Fantastical Beasts) or when a minority character is whitewashed, or when the “ethnic” features of a minority are used almost universally to portray bad guys, it is a political and social issue.  When you never see yourselves as the people who play the hero or even see your people existing in a portrayal of a place where they should be, it is not benign.

Reblogging again for these additions.


I’m not Jewish, but I can imagine seeing yourself villanized again and again must wear on you so hard (like queer coded villains do on me). The stereotypes are so insidious, I didn’t even realize she was Jewish coded until I saw this post for the first time, and since then I’ve been able to pick up on more anti-semitic media.
Stay cognizant!  

This is a writing blog so fellow writers! Please take a good look at your villains— even if they’re not Jewish, it can be antisemitic. Thanks. - A Jew™️

I feel like you guys want to be offended. its called shape theory and character design. I haven’t met a single Jew that has a hooked nose and jews are not the only the only ethnicity with lightish brown skin and curly black hair. for example, ME I’m Mexican and have those features I have met a woman for MADRID who looks EXACTLY like the woman above. and her accent sounds a lot more Spanish than Jewish (which would make sense because Rapunzel takes place in Germany and Spain is pretty damn close by.


Also she just straight up does not have a hooked nose. Not anything like those caricatures anyway. In the shot where she’s in profile it doesn’t look hooked at all.

galotheshroom: ava-burton-writing: dragonenby: writingwithcolor: so-many-miles-to-go: aworldinneedofmagic: the-independent-jew: so-man...

Arguing, Bad, and Beautiful: * Watch Dra Cuddy:Mother Gothel by Aveku-chan-Kataang Customization /Wallpaper/ People / Females @2011-2016 Aveku-chan-Kataang YES! C'MON! 8DDD <p><a href="http://siryouarebeingmocked.tumblr.com/post/176459494915/hst3000-rainbowloliofjustice" class="tumblr_blog">siryouarebeingmocked</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://hst3000.tumblr.com/post/176070852987/rainbowloliofjustice-thedoctorofall" class="tumblr_blog">hst3000</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://rainbowloliofjustice.tumblr.com/post/176051226472/thedoctorofall-ava-burton-writing" class="tumblr_blog">rainbowloliofjustice</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://thedoctorofall.tumblr.com/post/176049574122/ava-burton-writing-dragonenby" class="tumblr_blog">thedoctorofall</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://ava-burton-writing.tumblr.com/post/175913515322/dragonenby-writingwithcolor" class="tumblr_blog">ava-burton-writing</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://dragonenby.tumblr.com/post/175899318762/writingwithcolor-so-many-miles-to-go" class="tumblr_blog">dragonenby</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://writingwithcolor.tumblr.com/post/154992689002/so-many-miles-to-go-aworldinneedofmagic" class="tumblr_blog">writingwithcolor</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://so-many-miles-to-go.tumblr.com/post/154736881768/aworldinneedofmagic-the-independent-jew" class="tumblr_blog">so-many-miles-to-go</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://aworldinneedofmagic.tumblr.com/post/154715496153/the-independent-jew-so-many-miles-to-go" class="tumblr_blog">aworldinneedofmagic</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://the-independent-jew.tumblr.com/post/154343314825/smol-mother-rose-so-many-miles-to-go-yeah" class="tumblr_blog">the-independent-jew</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://so-many-miles-to-go.tumblr.com/post/154339137228/smol-mother-rose-so-many-miles-to-go-yeah" class="tumblr_blog">so-many-miles-to-go</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://smol-mother-rose.tumblr.com/post/154322589416/so-many-miles-to-go-yeah-theres-a-reason-for" class="tumblr_blog">smol-mother-rose</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://so-many-miles-to-go.tumblr.com/post/154319305938/yeah-theres-a-reason-for-that-its-called" class="tumblr_blog">so-many-miles-to-go</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Yeah, there’s a reason for that.</p> <p>It’s called: <b>antisemitic caricature.</b></p> </blockquote> <p>I don’t understand what’s Jewish about mother gothel… she has a typical Disney face doesn’t she? Is it the curly hair..? I mean her nose and everything else seem normal? </p> <p>I’m sorry, I’m just trying to figure it out, you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to.</p> </blockquote> <p>dark curly hair - long hooked nose - darker complexion than the blond blue eyed heroine 9and really the rest of the cast - portrayed as greedy and evil.</p> <p>Lisa Edelstein is Jewish.  As are Idina Menzel and Amy Winehouse, both of whom I have seen compared in looks to Gothel.  Gothel’s design is a pretty clear caricature of ethnically Jewish women.  </p> <hr><p>This is a pretty good contrast between Rapunzel and Gothel.  <b><i>Rapunzel</i></b> has the “typical Disney face”:</p> <figure data-orig-width="1876" data-orig-height="1080" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/c6a02d31e5325ce3897ea40bca1db98c/tumblr_inline_oi1alyTZwN1u3hfbm_540.jpg" alt="image" data-orig-width="1876" data-orig-height="1080"/></figure><p>Here’s a more close up look at her features.</p> <figure data-orig-width="736" data-orig-height="414" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/81263a61b9b531b9a037bb3c2474d87d/tumblr_inline_oi1amcSI571u3hfbm_540.jpg" alt="image" data-orig-width="736" data-orig-height="414"/></figure><p>The hooked nose becomes even more pronounced as she becomes “eviler.”</p> <figure data-orig-width="640" data-orig-height="531" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/2cab6154654958a036ca5787f037fb2a/tumblr_inline_oi1ampHH5I1u3hfbm_540.jpg" alt="image" data-orig-width="640" data-orig-height="531"/></figure><hr><p>If you wanted to claim that there was noting out of the ordinary for Disney animation when it came to Gothel’s features, you would have to find at least one Disney princess or heroine with similar characteristics (long hooked nose and dark curly hair, etc).</p> <p>But here is what we have is -</p> <p><b>small noses that turn up at the end:</b></p> <figure data-orig-width="626" data-orig-height="313" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/795ee2dbccf93c8be84f2e494375d885/tumblr_inline_oi1an5YIKL1u3hfbm_540.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="626" data-orig-height="313"/></figure><p><b>wide, flatter noses</b> (though cheers to Disney for not putting button noses on their characters of color, although Esmerelda’s clothing design deserves another essay on Rromani stereotypes and there are some major issues with Pocahontas as well)</p> <figure data-orig-width="621" data-orig-height="310" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/cf1bb1115b150fc66fe3a135c2b1f7ae/tumblr_inline_oi1anhfdcO1u3hfbm_540.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="621" data-orig-height="310"/></figure><p>And then a few <b>misc noses</b> (again, props for Jasmine’s nose not being a button):</p> <figure data-orig-width="466" data-orig-height="155" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4c972fc2df9f1f9fd3025d72babafcef/tumblr_inline_oi1anq7O7d1u3hfbm_540.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="466" data-orig-height="155"/></figure><hr><p>Apart from just the design of Gothel, there’s also the whole: <b>“obviously ‘other’ (read Jewish) woman kidnaps the pretty blonde (read: gentile) kid to use her for ritualistic/magical purposes”</b></p> <p>Like that right there <b><i>on top of</i> </b>the aesthetic Jewish-coding is what pushed the antisemitic caricature over the top for me.  It harkens back to antisemitic blood libel that claimed that Jews stole gentile children for all manner of nefarious reasons. Even when Gothel is in “mother” role to Rapunzel, she’s is shown as nagging and passive aggressive, both antisemitic stereotypes of Jewish women.</p> <p><b>There is no one thing that makes her an antisemitic caricature, but the design, plus the storyline she plays out, plus her characterization cement the overall character as antisemitic.  </b></p> <p>Jew-coding a villain is not in itself always antisemitic when there are also Jewish coded <b>heroes</b>. Rapunzel does not have that.</p> <p>Having a villain steal a baby for magical/ritualistic reasons is not always antisemitic as long as the villain is not Jew-coded.  Rapunzel fails this as well.</p> <p>Having a nagging and passive aggressive mother character is not antisemitic provided that she is not, again, coded as Jewish.  Rapunzel fails once again.</p> <p>Hope this helps.</p> <hr><p><b>EDIT: </b><a class="tumblelog" href="https://tmblr.co/mjHVWLfz9CujkJO8PWDNbUA">@ariminak</a> pointed out that some of my wording made it sound like Gothel’s features <i>only</i> stereotypically caricatured Ashkenazi women when in fact that is not the case.  I changed the language to remove that phrasing and make it clear that any ethnically Jewish women can be affected by this type of aesthetic trope. If you reblogged the old version, could you please delete it and reblog this one instead.</p> </blockquote> <p>Spread this version so people recognize that this stuff harms all Jewish women. <br/></p> </blockquote> <p>omfg can y’all chill the fuck out, any race can be portrayed as hero or villain, it’s a fucking kids movie not a political statement</p> </blockquote> <p>So I’m guessing you’re white and a gentile. As such, you’ve more than likely grown up looking at tv and movies and fairytales and seeing your face in those of the heroes.</p> <p>Jewish people don’t get that.  When we are portrayed in live action, our characters are more often than not whitewashed and in other media, our features are used and caricaturized to create “evil looking” villains.</p> <p>You don’t see it because you’ve been ingrained with the idea that “ethnic” features are just “how you make a character look evil.”  You don’t look at Gothel and see your mother.  You don’t see yourself and your people.  You don’t see decades of propaganda aimed at fostering hate against you and ultimately seeking to destroy you.  </p> <p>But seeing how<a href="http://aworldinneedofmagic.tumblr.com/post/148709289078/drwhothefuckyouthinkyoutalkinto-gelopanda"> you also seem to think that saying you’re not attracted to <i>an entire race</i> of people ISN’T racist</a>, you really don’t get any say on any of this.</p> <p>So really, you need to chill the fuck out and stop telling marginalized people to stop talking about the tools of our own marginalization.</p> <p><b>Let’s play a game I like to call: <i>Movie Villain or Antisemitic Propaganda:</i></b></p> <figure data-orig-width="726" data-orig-height="446" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ef40a021948f154c0b106784323660aa/tumblr_inline_oii52q367I1u3hfbm_540.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="726" data-orig-height="446"/></figure><p>Many “evil witch” tropes were built on European antisemitic stereotypes, not just in appearance but in the storylines they play out as well. Greediness, stealing children, killing children, hunger for power, etc.  <b>Every time a movie villain design uses stereotyped Jewish features to communicate “evilness” to an audience, they perpetuate the marginalization of the people they are using. </b></p> <p>One big issue I have is that Gothel’s didn’t start out as the antisemitic caricature that made it to screen.  Much of the early concept art has a more dark romanticism feel.  </p> <figure data-orig-width="750" data-orig-height="453" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/6a26a0b8632d40346b1b4541b6829f02/tumblr_inline_oii6kjyfLA1u3hfbm_540.jpg" alt="image" data-orig-width="750" data-orig-height="453"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="750" data-orig-height="453" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ad784bf14cf3600fc783cb3f6b9f0c70/tumblr_inline_oii6kjtoI61u3hfbm_540.jpg" alt="image" data-orig-width="750" data-orig-height="453"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="1100" data-orig-height="741" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/8163c91a59863a27fef98dcb16bd8782/tumblr_inline_oii6kk5zKZ1u3hfbm_540.jpg" alt="image" data-orig-width="1100" data-orig-height="741"/></figure><p>They changed the original design. Presumably to make Gothel more “other” from the good characters in the movie. <b> At some point, a decision was made that dark curly hair and a hooked nose wound better convey their villain.</b></p> <p>It really doesn’t matter if any of this was intentional, I’d actually bet that it wasn’t.  However, antisemitic tropes are so engrained in our societies that people like you, even when confronted with a step by step break down of what it is, feel comfortable thinking that there’s nothing wrong with it and mocking those calling it out as if we are overreacting.</p> <p>You seem to have completely ignored the majority of my post.  It is the character design, plus the characterization, plus the story line that mirrors blood libel that makes Gothel an antisemitic character. <b> It’s not just about someone of a certain race or ethnicity being a villain.  It’s about how stereotypes of a certain ethnic group are understood as “villainous” due to villains being repeatedly coded as Jewish over decades of film and tv.</b></p> <p>And contrary to your naive belief, all media is political to some extent. Every time a historically present minority is not included in film (ex: lily-white Harlem in Fantastical Beasts) or when a minority character is whitewashed, or when the “ethnic” features of a minority are used almost universally to portray bad guys, it is a political and social issue.  <b>When you never see yourselves as the people who play the hero or even see your people existing in a portrayal of a place where they should be, it is not benign.</b></p> </blockquote> <p>Reblogging again for these additions.</p> </blockquote> <p>I’m not Jewish, but I can imagine seeing yourself villanized again and again must wear on you so hard (like queer coded villains do on me). The stereotypes are so insidious, I didn’t even realize she was Jewish coded until I saw this post for the first time, and since then I’ve been able to pick up on more anti-semitic media.</p> <p>Stay cognizant! </p> </blockquote> <p>This is a writing blog so fellow writers! Please take a good look at your villains— even if they’re not Jewish, it can be antisemitic. Thanks. - A Jew™️</p> </blockquote> <p>I have a feeling this is all baseless, and groundless. If you’re assuming a character has to be a negative Jewish stereotype because you stereotype those features as bein Jewish. The one with the issue might be you</p> </blockquote> <p>Mother Gothel has a similar facial structure as Cruella De Vil. Pointy cheekbones and chin, etc. </p> <figure data-orig-width="1600" data-orig-height="921" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/2ca38ab88da550b0df2c068dd610b59e/tumblr_inline_pc3u94DPjC1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="1600" data-orig-height="921"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="1003" data-orig-height="1458" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/20fba8157c93162a45ad83687045c4f4/tumblr_inline_pc3u9lFuTT1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="1003" data-orig-height="1458"/></figure><p>She isn’t any shade specifically darker than any of the other characters. They deliberately chose pictures where Mother Gothel is either in the darkened tower, or it is night time. </p> <p>Also, they only compared Mother Gothel to other Disney protags rather than other Disney villains or even Disney characters who are older. Disney typically uses very angular features to convey villains. </p> <figure data-orig-width="720" data-orig-height="480" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/a3257bff02583d7625f8fcc6d0450151/tumblr_inline_pc3uhqneNm1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="720" data-orig-height="480"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="1808" data-orig-height="1080" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/eff51a7ac3da026cbd5c35bd2306849c/tumblr_inline_pc3ui75cWO1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="1808" data-orig-height="1080"/></figure><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1080" data-orig-width="1424"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4ca1d9a7d7d1d683fd24d2c7f6246df5/tumblr_inline_pc3yjcMx4N1tx5uef_1280.png" data-orig-height="1080" data-orig-width="1424"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="300" data-orig-height="240" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/d881a63a0254cc8fbf8eaa8492f1fd52/tumblr_inline_pc3uji270c1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="300" data-orig-height="240"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="220" data-orig-height="322"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/2c053cbc17b4281c43e68dcf5d064a1c/tumblr_inline_pc3uuf11sU1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="220" data-orig-height="322"/></figure><p>Cruella has an upwards turned nose like most disney protags. It’s just sharper to go along with her other angular features.</p> <figure data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="375" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/d000718627c5d7f706927ed24f5fdb53/tumblr_inline_pc3uvwOH951tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="375"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="1440" data-orig-height="1080" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/2c1714d66f95acfb83d0fa651a638290/tumblr_inline_pc3uw9SJcB1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="1440" data-orig-height="1080"/></figure><p>Hell you can even compare her to Maleficent</p> <figure data-orig-width="400" data-orig-height="300" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/f71a5ad89503be687d6983421b7ee8f4/tumblr_inline_pc3uxnYbqh1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="400" data-orig-height="300"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="628" data-orig-height="418" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/194eadb0b5f82c48995786391f23de4d/tumblr_inline_pc3v17KSkb1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="628" data-orig-height="418"/></figure><p>Who you can see has no hooked or curved nose. In fact, her nose is more flat, similar to Jasmine.</p> <p>Also, many characters change from their concept art. Dr. Facilier went from this</p> <figure data-orig-width="371" data-orig-height="480" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/8a288ad68dcba5beb215b58355329452/tumblr_inline_pc3upqCyHv1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="371" data-orig-height="480"/></figure><p>to this </p> <figure data-orig-width="435" data-orig-height="800" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/8f165821d091d813a248966d7f907eaf/tumblr_inline_pc3uqz4ODa1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="435" data-orig-height="800"/></figure><p>The change from her hair being straight to curly has nothing to do with making her more “Jewish coded”. It’s the visual difference between her and Rapunzel, also, if anyone has forgotten… <i>Rapunzel’s natural hair color is brown, not blonde.</i></p> <figure data-orig-width="504" data-orig-height="460" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/54cf4524541b7c090e850bbe5e8f216d/tumblr_inline_pc3v6dvQEX1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="504" data-orig-height="460"/></figure><p>If they wanted to make a character Jewish coded, then why just stop at curly hair and hooked nose? Many people, of various religions, races, and cultures have hooked noses and curly dark hair. Why not just go the full yard if you wanted to make a Jewish coded character that is anti-Semitic? Why not give her Jewish clothing and make her look ugly, gross, and dirty? </p> <figure data-orig-width="512" data-orig-height="636" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/9e1be5f1a6be51a1d48f412816d5eabd/tumblr_inline_pc3v9nvIuZ1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="512" data-orig-height="636"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="717" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ab077d76ddf1a292292d6bc02440a081/tumblr_inline_pc3va6j6LP1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="717"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="375" data-orig-height="255" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/d59c6b2ad84f8509e38267470b500ffb/tumblr_inline_pc3vb30xWY1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="375" data-orig-height="255"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="407" data-orig-height="600" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/44e6d379c41c9d3b418ad21fbf60cb23/tumblr_inline_pc3vbmA1ES1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="407" data-orig-height="600"/></figure><p>They deliberately manipulated information and pointed out something and said, “See, Jewish stereotype.” even though you can see from mother Gothel’s profile picture, <i>her nose isn’t even hooked</i>. They’re picking out things that <i>could be</i> Jewish features or stereotypes and then saying that they are. </p> <p>“She’s greedy and evil” and so are pretty much all other Disney Villains. Ya know… gotta be evil to be a villain. Dr. Faciler, Gaston, The Evil Queen, Maleficent, Jafar, Scar… need I list more villains? Being evil and greedy =/= being jewish coded because evil and greedy are common traits of villains, <i>even within </i><br/></p> <p>“She has dark curly hair” so does Esmeralda and Moana. <br/></p> <p>“Hooked nose.” her nose isn’t even hooked. It’s flat, similar to Maleficent’s. Anytime someone’s head is bent or leaning forward, naturally, their nose will appear more hooked. that’s just anatomy. That happens to <i>everyone</i>. Hell, you can even see in the images <i>her nose isn’t hooked</i>. <br/></p> <p>If you can’t tell the difference between a Jewish caricature and Mother Gothel, then I think that’s a you problem. Stereotypes are not exclusive to one group. In fact, implying that is <i>even more racist and anti-semitic </i>than the character. </p> <p>Hell, in fact, prior to the 20th century, <i>red curly hair</i> was associated with Jewish people. So by that logic, Merida must be Jewish coded… but because she is <i>good</i> and looks like a Disney protag, she <i>can’t</i> be Jewish coded because she doesn’t have enough “Jewish stereotypes”. </p> <p>The stereotype of Jewish people being greedy originates from when Jewish people were legally restricted to being usurers… Which is where the stereotype comes from. However, even in Jewish religion and mythology, greed, as in any other religion, is often portrayed as a negative or bad trait. </p> <p>The irony is that they can only see Jewish stereotypes in <i>villainous characters</i> but can’t see any in the protagonists or heroes.</p> <figure data-orig-width="600" data-orig-height="400" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/5dab9038b1c45aa7d8afd2a14fd57fdd/tumblr_inline_pc3wmuk1ny1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="600" data-orig-height="400"/></figure><p>Esmeralda (from Frollo’s perspective) is associated with sin and temptation… which is another Jewish stereotype (Beautiful Jewess / Belle Juive) and she has dark, curly hair (another Jewish stereotype). </p> <p>Merida has curly red hair, which was a Jewish stereotype before the 10th century. If we’re going this loosely based on stereotypes, you can even argue that Queen Eleanor is “Jewish-coded” because she is nagging, protective, and motherly. Ya know, the Jewish mother/wife stereotype. </p> <p>So you have two arguably Jewish-coded heroines and protags yet no one can see the Jewish stereotypes in them because they are <i>the good guys</i>. Or because they don’t have <i>certain</i> Jewish stereotypes.</p> <p>The thing is, stereotypes, are not all inherently bad, or rather, not all stereotypes are negative. Not all stereotypes originate from oppressors or people that are anti-semitic, racist, etc. Some stereotypes are often used as stock characters by people of a race or culture. Not every stereotype is exclusive to Jewish people either or even originates with anti-semitism. </p> <p>If you can <i>only</i> see yourself in villains then maybe it’s you rather than the creators or characters. You literally picked the bare minimum and made a mountain out of an ant hill.</p> </blockquote> <p>Maybe it’s me, but isn’t that shape of nose called the ROMAN nose? The propaganda ones seem a lot fatter and bulbous to me.</p> </blockquote> <p><i>&gt; They changed the original design. Presumably to make Gothel more “other” from the good characters in the movie. </i></p><p>Why, yes, the child kidnapper and abuser villain whose entire character motivation is based on <b>being different</b> is designed not to look like regular people, especially her “daughter”. Even her clothes are deliberately anachronistic.</p></blockquote> <p>This entire post has been quite a ride.</p>
Arguing, Bad, and Beautiful: * Watch
 Dra Cuddy:Mother Gothel
 by Aveku-chan-Kataang
 Customization /Wallpaper/ People / Females @2011-2016 Aveku-chan-Kataang
 YES! C'MON! 8DDD
<p><a href="http://siryouarebeingmocked.tumblr.com/post/176459494915/hst3000-rainbowloliofjustice" class="tumblr_blog">siryouarebeingmocked</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="https://hst3000.tumblr.com/post/176070852987/rainbowloliofjustice-thedoctorofall" class="tumblr_blog">hst3000</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="http://rainbowloliofjustice.tumblr.com/post/176051226472/thedoctorofall-ava-burton-writing" class="tumblr_blog">rainbowloliofjustice</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://thedoctorofall.tumblr.com/post/176049574122/ava-burton-writing-dragonenby" class="tumblr_blog">thedoctorofall</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://ava-burton-writing.tumblr.com/post/175913515322/dragonenby-writingwithcolor" class="tumblr_blog">ava-burton-writing</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://dragonenby.tumblr.com/post/175899318762/writingwithcolor-so-many-miles-to-go" class="tumblr_blog">dragonenby</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://writingwithcolor.tumblr.com/post/154992689002/so-many-miles-to-go-aworldinneedofmagic" class="tumblr_blog">writingwithcolor</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://so-many-miles-to-go.tumblr.com/post/154736881768/aworldinneedofmagic-the-independent-jew" class="tumblr_blog">so-many-miles-to-go</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://aworldinneedofmagic.tumblr.com/post/154715496153/the-independent-jew-so-many-miles-to-go" class="tumblr_blog">aworldinneedofmagic</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://the-independent-jew.tumblr.com/post/154343314825/smol-mother-rose-so-many-miles-to-go-yeah" class="tumblr_blog">the-independent-jew</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://so-many-miles-to-go.tumblr.com/post/154339137228/smol-mother-rose-so-many-miles-to-go-yeah" class="tumblr_blog">so-many-miles-to-go</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://smol-mother-rose.tumblr.com/post/154322589416/so-many-miles-to-go-yeah-theres-a-reason-for" class="tumblr_blog">smol-mother-rose</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://so-many-miles-to-go.tumblr.com/post/154319305938/yeah-theres-a-reason-for-that-its-called" class="tumblr_blog">so-many-miles-to-go</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Yeah, there’s a reason for that.</p>
<p>It’s called: <b>antisemitic caricature.</b></p>
</blockquote>

<p>I don’t understand what’s Jewish about mother gothel… she has a typical Disney face doesn’t she? Is it the curly hair..? I mean her nose and everything else seem normal? </p>
<p>I’m sorry, I’m just trying to figure it out, you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>dark curly hair - long hooked nose - darker complexion than the blond blue eyed heroine 9and really the rest of the cast - portrayed as greedy and evil.</p>
<p>Lisa Edelstein is Jewish.  As are Idina Menzel and Amy Winehouse, both of whom I have seen compared in looks to Gothel.  Gothel’s design is a pretty clear caricature of ethnically Jewish women.  </p>
<hr><p>This is a pretty good contrast between Rapunzel and Gothel.  <b><i>Rapunzel</i></b> has the “typical Disney face”:</p>
<figure data-orig-width="1876" data-orig-height="1080" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/c6a02d31e5325ce3897ea40bca1db98c/tumblr_inline_oi1alyTZwN1u3hfbm_540.jpg" alt="image" data-orig-width="1876" data-orig-height="1080"/></figure><p>Here’s a more close up look at her features.</p>
<figure data-orig-width="736" data-orig-height="414" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/81263a61b9b531b9a037bb3c2474d87d/tumblr_inline_oi1amcSI571u3hfbm_540.jpg" alt="image" data-orig-width="736" data-orig-height="414"/></figure><p>The hooked nose becomes even more pronounced as she becomes “eviler.”</p>
<figure data-orig-width="640" data-orig-height="531" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/2cab6154654958a036ca5787f037fb2a/tumblr_inline_oi1ampHH5I1u3hfbm_540.jpg" alt="image" data-orig-width="640" data-orig-height="531"/></figure><hr><p>If you wanted to claim that there was noting out of the ordinary for Disney animation when it came to Gothel’s features, you would have to find at least one Disney princess or heroine with similar characteristics (long hooked nose and dark curly hair, etc).</p>
<p>But here is what we have is -</p>
<p><b>small noses that turn up at the end:</b></p>
<figure data-orig-width="626" data-orig-height="313" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/795ee2dbccf93c8be84f2e494375d885/tumblr_inline_oi1an5YIKL1u3hfbm_540.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="626" data-orig-height="313"/></figure><p><b>wide, flatter noses</b> (though cheers to Disney for not putting button noses on their characters of color, although Esmerelda’s clothing design deserves another essay on Rromani stereotypes and there are some major issues with Pocahontas as well)</p>
<figure data-orig-width="621" data-orig-height="310" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/cf1bb1115b150fc66fe3a135c2b1f7ae/tumblr_inline_oi1anhfdcO1u3hfbm_540.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="621" data-orig-height="310"/></figure><p>And then a few <b>misc noses</b> (again, props for Jasmine’s nose not being a button):</p>
<figure data-orig-width="466" data-orig-height="155" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4c972fc2df9f1f9fd3025d72babafcef/tumblr_inline_oi1anq7O7d1u3hfbm_540.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="466" data-orig-height="155"/></figure><hr><p>Apart from just the design of Gothel, there’s also the whole: <b>“obviously ‘other’ (read Jewish) woman kidnaps the pretty blonde (read: gentile) kid to use her for ritualistic/magical purposes”</b></p>
<p>Like that right there <b><i>on top of</i> </b>the aesthetic Jewish-coding is what pushed the antisemitic caricature over the top for me.  It harkens back to antisemitic blood libel that claimed that Jews stole gentile children for all manner of nefarious reasons. Even when Gothel is in “mother” role to Rapunzel, she’s is shown as nagging and passive aggressive, both antisemitic stereotypes of Jewish women.</p>
<p><b>There is no one thing that makes her an antisemitic caricature, but the design, plus the storyline she plays out, plus her characterization cement the overall character as antisemitic.  </b></p>
<p>Jew-coding a villain is not in itself always antisemitic when there are also Jewish coded <b>heroes</b>. Rapunzel does not have that.</p>
<p>Having a villain steal a baby for magical/ritualistic reasons is not always antisemitic as long as the villain is not Jew-coded.  Rapunzel fails this as well.</p>
<p>Having a nagging and passive aggressive mother character is not antisemitic provided that she is not, again, coded as Jewish.  Rapunzel fails once again.</p>
<p>Hope this helps.</p>
<hr><p><b>EDIT: </b><a class="tumblelog" href="https://tmblr.co/mjHVWLfz9CujkJO8PWDNbUA">@ariminak</a> pointed out that some of my wording made it sound like Gothel’s features <i>only</i> stereotypically caricatured Ashkenazi women when in fact that is not the case.  I changed the language to remove that phrasing and make it clear that any ethnically Jewish women can be affected by this type of aesthetic trope. If you reblogged the old version, could you please delete it and reblog this one instead.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Spread this version so people recognize that this stuff harms all Jewish women. <br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>omfg can y’all chill the fuck out, any race can be portrayed as hero or villain, it’s a fucking kids movie not a political statement</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So I’m guessing you’re white and a gentile. As such, you’ve more than likely grown up looking at tv and movies and fairytales and seeing your face in those of the heroes.</p>
<p>Jewish people don’t get that.  When we are portrayed in live action, our characters are more often than not whitewashed and in other media, our features are used and caricaturized to create “evil looking” villains.</p>
<p>You don’t see it because you’ve been ingrained with the idea that “ethnic” features are just “how you make a character look evil.”  You don’t look at Gothel and see your mother.  You don’t see yourself and your people.  You don’t see decades of propaganda aimed at fostering hate against you and ultimately seeking to destroy you.  </p>
<p>But seeing how<a href="http://aworldinneedofmagic.tumblr.com/post/148709289078/drwhothefuckyouthinkyoutalkinto-gelopanda"> you also seem to think that saying you’re not attracted to <i>an entire race</i> of people ISN’T racist</a>, you really don’t get any say on any of this.</p>
<p>So really, you need to chill the fuck out and stop telling marginalized people to stop talking about the tools of our own marginalization.</p>
<p><b>Let’s play a game I like to call: <i>Movie Villain or Antisemitic Propaganda:</i></b></p>
<figure data-orig-width="726" data-orig-height="446" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ef40a021948f154c0b106784323660aa/tumblr_inline_oii52q367I1u3hfbm_540.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="726" data-orig-height="446"/></figure><p>Many “evil witch” tropes were built on European antisemitic stereotypes, not just in appearance but in the storylines they play out as well. Greediness, stealing children, killing children, hunger for power, etc.  <b>Every time a movie villain design uses stereotyped Jewish features to communicate “evilness” to an audience, they perpetuate the marginalization of the people they are using. </b></p>
<p>One big issue I have is that Gothel’s didn’t start out as the antisemitic caricature that made it to screen.  Much of the early concept art has a more dark romanticism feel.  </p>
<figure data-orig-width="750" data-orig-height="453" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/6a26a0b8632d40346b1b4541b6829f02/tumblr_inline_oii6kjyfLA1u3hfbm_540.jpg" alt="image" data-orig-width="750" data-orig-height="453"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="750" data-orig-height="453" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ad784bf14cf3600fc783cb3f6b9f0c70/tumblr_inline_oii6kjtoI61u3hfbm_540.jpg" alt="image" data-orig-width="750" data-orig-height="453"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="1100" data-orig-height="741" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/8163c91a59863a27fef98dcb16bd8782/tumblr_inline_oii6kk5zKZ1u3hfbm_540.jpg" alt="image" data-orig-width="1100" data-orig-height="741"/></figure><p>They changed the original design. Presumably to make Gothel more “other” from the good characters in the movie. <b> At some point, a decision was made that dark curly hair and a hooked nose wound better convey their villain.</b></p>
<p>It really doesn’t matter if any of this was intentional, I’d actually bet that it wasn’t.  However, antisemitic tropes are so engrained in our societies that people like you, even when confronted with a step by step break down of what it is, feel comfortable thinking that there’s nothing wrong with it and mocking those calling it out as if we are overreacting.</p>
<p>You seem to have completely ignored the majority of my post.  It is the character design, plus the characterization, plus the story line that mirrors blood libel that makes Gothel an antisemitic character. <b> It’s not just about someone of a certain race or ethnicity being a villain.  It’s about how stereotypes of a certain ethnic group are understood as “villainous” due to villains being repeatedly coded as Jewish over decades of film and tv.</b></p>
<p>And contrary to your naive belief, all media is political to some extent. Every time a historically present minority is not included in film (ex: lily-white Harlem in Fantastical Beasts) or when a minority character is whitewashed, or when the “ethnic” features of a minority are used almost universally to portray bad guys, it is a political and social issue.  <b>When you never see yourselves as the people who play the hero or even see your people existing in a portrayal of a place where they should be, it is not benign.</b></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Reblogging again for these additions.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I’m not Jewish, but I can imagine seeing yourself villanized again and again must wear on you so hard (like queer coded villains do on me). The stereotypes are so insidious, I didn’t even realize she was Jewish coded until I saw this post for the first time, and since then I’ve been able to pick up on more anti-semitic media.</p>
<p>Stay cognizant!  </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a writing blog so fellow writers! Please take a good look at your villains— even if they’re not Jewish, it can be antisemitic. Thanks. - A Jew™️</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I have a feeling this is all baseless, and groundless. If you’re assuming a character has to be a negative Jewish stereotype because you stereotype those features as bein Jewish. The one with the issue might be you</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Mother Gothel has a similar facial structure as Cruella De Vil. Pointy cheekbones and chin, etc. </p>
<figure data-orig-width="1600" data-orig-height="921" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/2ca38ab88da550b0df2c068dd610b59e/tumblr_inline_pc3u94DPjC1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="1600" data-orig-height="921"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="1003" data-orig-height="1458" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/20fba8157c93162a45ad83687045c4f4/tumblr_inline_pc3u9lFuTT1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="1003" data-orig-height="1458"/></figure><p>She isn’t any shade specifically darker than any of the other characters. They deliberately chose pictures where Mother Gothel is either in the darkened tower, or it is night time. </p>
<p>Also, they only compared Mother Gothel to other Disney protags rather than other Disney villains or even Disney characters who are older. Disney typically uses very angular features to convey villains. </p>
<figure data-orig-width="720" data-orig-height="480" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/a3257bff02583d7625f8fcc6d0450151/tumblr_inline_pc3uhqneNm1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="720" data-orig-height="480"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="1808" data-orig-height="1080" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/eff51a7ac3da026cbd5c35bd2306849c/tumblr_inline_pc3ui75cWO1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="1808" data-orig-height="1080"/></figure><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1080" data-orig-width="1424"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4ca1d9a7d7d1d683fd24d2c7f6246df5/tumblr_inline_pc3yjcMx4N1tx5uef_1280.png" data-orig-height="1080" data-orig-width="1424"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="300" data-orig-height="240" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/d881a63a0254cc8fbf8eaa8492f1fd52/tumblr_inline_pc3uji270c1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="300" data-orig-height="240"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="220" data-orig-height="322"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/2c053cbc17b4281c43e68dcf5d064a1c/tumblr_inline_pc3uuf11sU1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="220" data-orig-height="322"/></figure><p>Cruella has an upwards turned nose like most disney protags. It’s just sharper to go along with her other angular features.</p>
<figure data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="375" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/d000718627c5d7f706927ed24f5fdb53/tumblr_inline_pc3uvwOH951tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="375"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="1440" data-orig-height="1080" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/2c1714d66f95acfb83d0fa651a638290/tumblr_inline_pc3uw9SJcB1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="1440" data-orig-height="1080"/></figure><p>Hell you can even compare her to Maleficent</p>
<figure data-orig-width="400" data-orig-height="300" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/f71a5ad89503be687d6983421b7ee8f4/tumblr_inline_pc3uxnYbqh1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="400" data-orig-height="300"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="628" data-orig-height="418" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/194eadb0b5f82c48995786391f23de4d/tumblr_inline_pc3v17KSkb1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="628" data-orig-height="418"/></figure><p>Who you can see has no hooked or curved nose. In fact, her nose is more flat, similar to Jasmine.</p>
<p>Also, many characters change from their concept art. Dr. Facilier went from this</p>
<figure data-orig-width="371" data-orig-height="480" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/8a288ad68dcba5beb215b58355329452/tumblr_inline_pc3upqCyHv1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="371" data-orig-height="480"/></figure><p>to this </p>
<figure data-orig-width="435" data-orig-height="800" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/8f165821d091d813a248966d7f907eaf/tumblr_inline_pc3uqz4ODa1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="435" data-orig-height="800"/></figure><p>The change from her hair being straight to curly has nothing to do with making her more “Jewish coded”. It’s the visual difference between her and Rapunzel, also, if anyone has forgotten… <i>Rapunzel’s natural hair color is brown, not blonde.</i></p>
<figure data-orig-width="504" data-orig-height="460" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/54cf4524541b7c090e850bbe5e8f216d/tumblr_inline_pc3v6dvQEX1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="504" data-orig-height="460"/></figure><p>If they wanted to make a character Jewish coded, then why just stop at curly hair and hooked nose? Many people, of various religions, races, and cultures have hooked noses and curly dark hair. Why not just go the full yard if you wanted to make a Jewish coded character that is anti-Semitic? Why not give her Jewish clothing and make her look ugly, gross, and dirty? </p>
<figure data-orig-width="512" data-orig-height="636" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/9e1be5f1a6be51a1d48f412816d5eabd/tumblr_inline_pc3v9nvIuZ1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="512" data-orig-height="636"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="717" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ab077d76ddf1a292292d6bc02440a081/tumblr_inline_pc3va6j6LP1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="717"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="375" data-orig-height="255" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/d59c6b2ad84f8509e38267470b500ffb/tumblr_inline_pc3vb30xWY1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="375" data-orig-height="255"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="407" data-orig-height="600" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/44e6d379c41c9d3b418ad21fbf60cb23/tumblr_inline_pc3vbmA1ES1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="407" data-orig-height="600"/></figure><p>They deliberately manipulated information and pointed out something and said, “See, Jewish stereotype.” even though you can see from mother Gothel’s profile picture, <i>her nose isn’t even hooked</i>. They’re picking out things that <i>could be</i> Jewish features or stereotypes and then saying that they are. </p>
<p>“She’s greedy and evil” and so are pretty much all other Disney Villains. Ya know… gotta be evil to be a villain. Dr. Faciler, Gaston, The Evil Queen, Maleficent, Jafar, Scar… need I list more villains? Being evil and greedy =/= being jewish coded because evil and greedy are common traits of villains, <i>even within </i><br/></p>
<p>“She has dark curly hair” so does Esmeralda and Moana. <br/></p>
<p>“Hooked nose.” her nose isn’t even hooked. It’s flat, similar to Maleficent’s. Anytime someone’s head is bent or leaning forward, naturally, their nose will appear more hooked. that’s just anatomy. That happens to <i>everyone</i>. Hell, you can even see in the images <i>her nose isn’t hooked</i>. <br/></p>
<p>If you can’t tell the difference between a Jewish caricature and Mother Gothel, then I think that’s a you problem. Stereotypes are not exclusive to one group. In fact, implying that is <i>even more racist and anti-semitic </i>than the character. </p>
<p>Hell, in fact, prior to the 20th century, <i>red curly hair</i> was associated with Jewish people. So by that logic, Merida must be Jewish coded… but because she is <i>good</i> and looks like a Disney protag, she <i>can’t</i> be Jewish coded because she doesn’t have enough “Jewish stereotypes”. </p>
<p>The stereotype of Jewish people being greedy originates from when Jewish people were legally restricted to being usurers… Which is where the stereotype comes from. However, even in Jewish religion and mythology, greed, as in any other religion, is often portrayed as a negative or bad trait. </p>
<p>The irony is that they can only see Jewish stereotypes in <i>villainous characters</i> but can’t see any in the protagonists or heroes.</p>
<figure data-orig-width="600" data-orig-height="400" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/5dab9038b1c45aa7d8afd2a14fd57fdd/tumblr_inline_pc3wmuk1ny1tx5uef_1280.png" alt="image" data-orig-width="600" data-orig-height="400"/></figure><p>Esmeralda (from Frollo’s perspective) is associated with sin and temptation… which is another Jewish stereotype (Beautiful Jewess / Belle Juive) and she has dark, curly hair (another Jewish stereotype). </p>
<p>Merida has curly red hair, which was a Jewish stereotype before the 10th century. If we’re going this loosely based on stereotypes, you can even argue that Queen Eleanor is “Jewish-coded” because she is nagging, protective, and motherly. Ya know, the Jewish mother/wife stereotype. </p>
<p>So you have two arguably Jewish-coded heroines and protags yet no one can see the Jewish stereotypes in them because they are <i>the good guys</i>. Or because they don’t have <i>certain</i> Jewish stereotypes.</p>
<p>The thing is, stereotypes, are not all inherently bad, or rather, not all stereotypes are negative. Not all stereotypes originate from oppressors or people that are anti-semitic, racist, etc. Some stereotypes are often used as stock characters by people of a race or culture. Not every stereotype is exclusive to Jewish people either or even originates with anti-semitism. </p>
<p>If you can <i>only</i> see yourself in villains then maybe it’s you rather than the creators or characters. You literally picked the bare minimum and made a mountain out of an ant hill.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Maybe it’s me, but isn’t that shape of nose called the ROMAN nose? The propaganda ones seem a lot fatter and bulbous to me.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><i>&gt;

They changed the original design. Presumably to make Gothel more “other” from the good characters in the movie.

</i></p><p>Why, yes, the child kidnapper and abuser villain whose entire character motivation is based on <b>being different</b> is designed not to look like regular people, especially her “daughter”. Even her clothes are deliberately anachronistic.</p></blockquote>

<p>This entire post has been quite a ride.</p>

siryouarebeingmocked: hst3000: rainbowloliofjustice: thedoctorofall: ava-burton-writing: dragonenby: writingwithcolor: so-many-miles-t...

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...

Clothes, Friends, and Fucking: Roses are red, that much is true, but violets are purple, not fucking blue feels-for-the-fictional I have been waiting for this post all my life. marzipanandminutiae They are indeed purple, But one thing you've missed: The concept of purple Didn't always exist. Some cultures lack names For a color, you see. Hence good old Homer And his "wine-dark sea. A usage so quaint, A phrasing so old, For verses of romance Is sheer fucking gold. So roses are red Violets once were called blue. I'm hugely pedantic But what else is new? ineptshieldmaid My friend you're not wrong About Homer's wine-ey sea! Colours are a matter Of cultural contingency Words are in flux And meanings they drift But the word purple You've given short shrift. The concept of purple, My friends, is old And refers to a pigment once precious as gold. By crushing up molluscs From the wine-dark sea You make a dye: Imperial decree Meant that in Rome, to wear purpura was a privilege reserved For only the emperor! The word purple for clothes so fancy, Entered English By the ninth century Why then are voilets Not purple in song? The dye from this mollusc, known for so long Is almost magenta; More red than blue The concept of purple is old, and yet new The dye is red, So this might be true: Roses are purple And violets are blue squeeful While this song makes me merry Tyrian purple dyes many a hue From magenta to berry And a true purple too But fun as it is to watch this poetic race The answer is staring you right in the face Roses are red and violets are blue Because nothing fucking rhymes with purple Its long, but its good
Clothes, Friends, and Fucking: Roses are red, that much is true, but violets are purple, not fucking
 blue
 feels-for-the-fictional
 I have been waiting for this post all my life.
 marzipanandminutiae
 They are indeed purple,
 But one thing you've missed:
 The concept of purple
 Didn't always exist.
 Some cultures lack names
 For a color, you see.
 Hence good old Homer
 And his "wine-dark sea.
 A usage so quaint,
 A phrasing so old,
 For verses of romance
 Is sheer fucking gold.
 So roses are red
 Violets once were called blue.
 I'm hugely pedantic
 But what else is new?
 ineptshieldmaid
 My friend you're not wrong
 About Homer's wine-ey sea!
 Colours are a matter
 Of cultural contingency
 Words are in flux
 And meanings they drift
 But the word purple
 You've given short shrift.
 The concept of purple,
 My friends, is old
 And refers to a pigment
 once precious as gold.
 By crushing up molluscs
 From the wine-dark sea
 You make a dye:
 Imperial decree
 Meant that in Rome,
 to wear purpura
 was a privilege reserved
 For only the emperor!
 The word purple
 for clothes so fancy,
 Entered English
 By the ninth century
 Why then are voilets
 Not purple in song?
 The dye from this mollusc,
 known for so long
 Is almost magenta;
 More red than blue
 The concept of purple
 is old, and yet new
 The dye is red,
 So this might be true:
 Roses are purple
 And violets are blue
 squeeful
 While this song makes me merry
 Tyrian purple dyes many a hue
 From magenta to berry
 And a true purple too
 But fun as it is to watch this poetic race
 The answer is staring you right in the face
 Roses are red and violets are blue
 Because nothing fucking rhymes with purple
Its long, but its good

Its long, but its good

Adam Driver, Bad, and Finn: @grumpykylos Adam Driver suffers from an anxiety disorder and has stated that it takes a lot of courage for him to pursue/continue acting because he is afraid of people laughing at his appearance. So, yeah, fuck y'all for mocking him 12/17/17, 2:24 PM <p><a href="http://emeraldboreas.tumblr.com/post/168723106056/vesperfiend-emeraldboreas-vesperfiend" class="tumblr_blog">emeraldboreas</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://vesperfiend.tumblr.com/post/168720779346/emeraldboreas-vesperfiend-jathis" class="tumblr_blog">vesperfiend</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://emeraldboreas.tumblr.com/post/168720531611/vesperfiend-jathis" class="tumblr_blog">emeraldboreas</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://vesperfiend.tumblr.com/post/168718804991/jathis-just-another-star-wars-account-i-can" class="tumblr_blog">vesperfiend</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://jathis.tumblr.com/post/168699306119/just-another-star-wars-account-i-can-understand" class="tumblr_blog">jathis</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://just-another-star-wars-account.tumblr.com/post/168690295071/i-can-understand-not-liking-the-character-of-kylo" class="tumblr_blog">just-another-star-wars-account</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>I can understand not liking the character of Kylo Ren but making fun of the actor isn’t right</p></blockquote> <p>That’s why Channing Tatum and John Boyega help him during public appearances.</p> </blockquote> <p>Adam Driver is a piece of shit who said there were good and bad people with the rebellion and the first order. Literally defending nazis in a really important time in history. People shouldn’t make fun of his looks but I have no sympathy for nazi apologists I don’t care if they have anxiety or not 🤷‍♀️</p></blockquote> <p>Do you know what “literally” means?</p></blockquote> <p>In a time of Nazis LITERALLY marching in the streets and people saying there’s “good people on both sides” the fact that he used that exact phrasing when talking about something that is an OBVIOUS parallel to Nazis is LITERALLY defending Nazis you absolute buffoon</p></blockquote> <p>For Adam Driver to literally defend Nazis, he’d have to defend the Nazi Party and its ideology. </p><p>Instead, he made the rather lukewarm statement that there are good people on both sides, a concept explored in the movie through Finn’s character and his own character’s story arc.</p><p>The First Order, like many fictional regimes in modern media, are modeled after the Third Reich because said Reich was scary. The imagery is iconic and striking, and the word Nazi has become a byword for “bad guys.” Villains’ costumes are often still based on them, even in media that has nothing to do with WWII. </p><p>You’re being emotionally manipulated by garden-variety costuming and props. </p></blockquote> <p>Oh my gooooooooooooooooooosh are we really actually calling a man a Nazi apologist for something he said about fucking fictional characters in a soap opera about space wizards? I’m done.</p>
Adam Driver, Bad, and Finn: @grumpykylos
 Adam Driver suffers from an
 anxiety disorder and has stated
 that it takes a lot of courage for
 him to pursue/continue acting
 because he is afraid of people
 laughing at his appearance. So,
 yeah, fuck y'all for mocking him
 12/17/17, 2:24 PM
<p><a href="http://emeraldboreas.tumblr.com/post/168723106056/vesperfiend-emeraldboreas-vesperfiend" class="tumblr_blog">emeraldboreas</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://vesperfiend.tumblr.com/post/168720779346/emeraldboreas-vesperfiend-jathis" class="tumblr_blog">vesperfiend</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://emeraldboreas.tumblr.com/post/168720531611/vesperfiend-jathis" class="tumblr_blog">emeraldboreas</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://vesperfiend.tumblr.com/post/168718804991/jathis-just-another-star-wars-account-i-can" class="tumblr_blog">vesperfiend</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://jathis.tumblr.com/post/168699306119/just-another-star-wars-account-i-can-understand" class="tumblr_blog">jathis</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="https://just-another-star-wars-account.tumblr.com/post/168690295071/i-can-understand-not-liking-the-character-of-kylo" class="tumblr_blog">just-another-star-wars-account</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>I can understand not liking the character of Kylo Ren but making fun of the actor isn’t right</p></blockquote>

<p>That’s why Channing Tatum and John Boyega help him during public appearances.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Adam Driver is a piece of shit who said there were good and bad people with the rebellion and the first order. Literally defending nazis in a really important time in history. People shouldn’t make fun of his looks but I have no sympathy for nazi apologists I don’t care if they have anxiety or not 🤷‍♀️</p></blockquote>

<p>Do you know what “literally” means?</p></blockquote>

<p>In a time of Nazis LITERALLY marching in the streets and people saying there’s “good people on both sides” the fact that he used that exact phrasing when talking about something that is an OBVIOUS parallel to Nazis is LITERALLY defending Nazis you absolute buffoon</p></blockquote>

<p>For Adam Driver to literally defend Nazis, he’d have to defend the Nazi Party and its ideology. </p><p>Instead, he made the rather lukewarm statement that there are good people on both sides, a concept explored in the movie through Finn’s character and his own character’s story arc.</p><p>The First Order, like many fictional regimes in modern media, are modeled after the Third Reich because said Reich was scary. The imagery is iconic and striking, and the word Nazi has become a byword for “bad guys.” Villains’ costumes are often still based on them, even in media that has nothing to do with WWII. </p><p>You’re being emotionally manipulated by garden-variety costuming and props. </p></blockquote>

<p>Oh my gooooooooooooooooooosh are we really actually calling a man a Nazi apologist for something he said about fucking fictional characters in a soap opera about space wizards? I’m done.</p>

emeraldboreas: vesperfiend: emeraldboreas: vesperfiend: jathis: just-another-star-wars-account: I can understand not liking the characte...

Clothes, Friends, and Fucking: ithendra writrs Follow satanpositive Roses are red, that much is true, but violets are purple, not fucking blue feels-for-the-fictional I have been waiting for this post all my life marzipanandminutiae They are indeed purple But one thing you've missed The concept of purple" Didn't always exist. Some cultures lack names For a color, you see Hence good old Homer And his "wine-dark sea." A usage so quaint, A phrasing so old For verses of romance Is sheer fucking gold. So roses are red Violets once were called blue I'm hugely pedantic But what else is new? ineptshieldmaid My friend you're not wrong About Homer's wine-ey sea! Colours are a matter Of cultural contingency Words are in flux And meanings they drift But the word purple You've given short shrift. The concept of purple My friends, is old And refers to a pigment once precious as gold By crushing up molluscs From the wine-dark sea You make a dye Imperial decree Meant that in Rome to wear purpura was a privilege reserved For only the emperor! The word 'purple', for clothes so fancy Entered English By the ninth century Why then are voilets Not purple in song? The dye from this mollusc known for so long Is almost magenta More red than blue The concept of purple is old, and yet new The dye is red So this might be true Roses are purple And violets are blue squeeful While this song makes me merry, Tyrian purple dyes many a hue From magenta to berry And a true purple too But fun as it is to watch this poetic race The answer is staring you right in the face: Roses are red and violets are blue Because nothing fucking rhymes with purple e naomispeaks IT GOT BETTER writrs When english majors really need to write a paper, but get distracted 96 691 notes Its obvious when you think about it.
Clothes, Friends, and Fucking: ithendra writrs Follow
 satanpositive
 Roses are red, that much is true, but violets are purple, not fucking blue
 feels-for-the-fictional
 I have been waiting for this post all my life
 marzipanandminutiae
 They are indeed purple
 But one thing you've missed
 The concept of purple"
 Didn't always exist.
 Some cultures lack names
 For a color, you see
 Hence good old Homer
 And his "wine-dark sea."
 A usage so quaint,
 A phrasing so old
 For verses of romance
 Is sheer fucking gold.
 So roses are red
 Violets once were called blue
 I'm hugely pedantic
 But what else is new?
 ineptshieldmaid
 My friend you're not wrong
 About Homer's wine-ey sea!
 Colours are a matter
 Of cultural contingency
 Words are in flux
 And meanings they drift
 But the word purple
 You've given short shrift.
 The concept of purple
 My friends, is old
 And refers to a pigment
 once precious as gold
 By crushing up molluscs
 From the wine-dark sea
 You make a dye
 Imperial decree
 Meant that in Rome
 to wear purpura
 was a privilege reserved
 For only the emperor!
 The word 'purple',
 for clothes so fancy
 Entered English
 By the ninth century
 Why then are voilets
 Not purple in song?
 The dye from this mollusc
 known for so long
 Is almost magenta
 More red than blue
 The concept of purple
 is old, and yet new
 The dye is red
 So this might be true
 Roses are purple
 And violets are blue
 squeeful
 While this song makes me merry,
 Tyrian purple dyes many a hue
 From magenta to berry
 And a true purple too
 But fun as it is to watch this poetic race
 The answer is staring you right in the face:
 Roses are red and violets are blue
 Because nothing fucking rhymes with purple
 e naomispeaks
 IT GOT BETTER
 writrs
 When english majors really need to write a paper, but get distracted
 96 691 notes
Its obvious when you think about it.

Its obvious when you think about it.

Clothes, Friends, and Fucking: ithendra writrs Follow satanpositive Roses are red, that much is true, but violets are purple, not fucking blue feels-for-the-fictional I have been waiting for this post all my life marzipanandminutiae They are indeed purple But one thing you've missed The concept of purple" Didn't always exist. Some cultures lack names For a color, you see Hence good old Homer And his "wine-dark sea." A usage so quaint, A phrasing so old For verses of romance Is sheer fucking gold. So roses are red Violets once were called blue I'm hugely pedantic But what else is new? ineptshieldmaid My friend you're not wrong About Homer's wine-ey sea! Colours are a matter Of cultural contingency Words are in flux And meanings they drift But the word purple You've given short shrift. The concept of purple My friends, is old And refers to a pigment once precious as gold By crushing up molluscs From the wine-dark sea You make a dye Imperial decree Meant that in Rome to wear purpura was a privilege reserved For only the emperor! The word 'purple', for clothes so fancy Entered English By the ninth century Why then are voilets Not purple in song? The dye from this mollusc known for so long Is almost magenta More red than blue The concept of purple is old, and yet new The dye is red So this might be true Roses are purple And violets are blue squeeful While this song makes me merry, Tyrian purple dyes many a hue From magenta to berry And a true purple too But fun as it is to watch this poetic race The answer is staring you right in the face: Roses are red and violets are blue Because nothing fucking rhymes with purple e naomispeaks IT GOT BETTER writrs When english majors really need to write a paper, but get distracted 96 691 notes Its obvious when you think about it.
Clothes, Friends, and Fucking: ithendra writrs Follow
 satanpositive
 Roses are red, that much is true, but violets are purple, not fucking blue
 feels-for-the-fictional
 I have been waiting for this post all my life
 marzipanandminutiae
 They are indeed purple
 But one thing you've missed
 The concept of purple"
 Didn't always exist.
 Some cultures lack names
 For a color, you see
 Hence good old Homer
 And his "wine-dark sea."
 A usage so quaint,
 A phrasing so old
 For verses of romance
 Is sheer fucking gold.
 So roses are red
 Violets once were called blue
 I'm hugely pedantic
 But what else is new?
 ineptshieldmaid
 My friend you're not wrong
 About Homer's wine-ey sea!
 Colours are a matter
 Of cultural contingency
 Words are in flux
 And meanings they drift
 But the word purple
 You've given short shrift.
 The concept of purple
 My friends, is old
 And refers to a pigment
 once precious as gold
 By crushing up molluscs
 From the wine-dark sea
 You make a dye
 Imperial decree
 Meant that in Rome
 to wear purpura
 was a privilege reserved
 For only the emperor!
 The word 'purple',
 for clothes so fancy
 Entered English
 By the ninth century
 Why then are voilets
 Not purple in song?
 The dye from this mollusc
 known for so long
 Is almost magenta
 More red than blue
 The concept of purple
 is old, and yet new
 The dye is red
 So this might be true
 Roses are purple
 And violets are blue
 squeeful
 While this song makes me merry,
 Tyrian purple dyes many a hue
 From magenta to berry
 And a true purple too
 But fun as it is to watch this poetic race
 The answer is staring you right in the face:
 Roses are red and violets are blue
 Because nothing fucking rhymes with purple
 e naomispeaks
 IT GOT BETTER
 writrs
 When english majors really need to write a paper, but get distracted
 96 691 notes
Its obvious when you think about it.

Its obvious when you think about it.