The Great
The Great

The Great

Lot
Lot

Lot

Are
Are

Are

With
With

With

Your
Your

Your

Important
Important

Important

When Your
When Your

When Your

From
From

From

The
The

The

Exhibit
Exhibit

Exhibit

🔥 | Latest

Bad, Complex, and Dude: 1:42 PM Tweet Alexandra Erin Retweeted Audrey @Turbocrit Gamer dudes are wild they'll play a game about overthrowing a corrupt monarch but if there's 1 gay character in it then it's "too political" 8/25/17, 1:50 PM 4,764 Retweets 11.6K Likes Audrey Turbocrit 14h Replying to @Turbocrit Not to mention the whole "having a gay/trans character in a high fantasy setting is completely unrealistic. Also here's some dragons" thing 8 237 829 WC @Hexy27Bernie1 7h Tweet your reply definitelygayrpgideas: definitelygayrpgideas: thesallowbeldam: kirinandvlindertje: vaishino: atomic-darth: pupperoni-pizza: didntfitthenarrative: mitch-turn: Sweet generalization. It’s not about whether a character is trans or gay. Gay characters make sense. People have been gay for millennia. Trans however. Not the case. In a high fantasy setting, how in the balls are they going to perform surgery where they change the sex of the character??? It makes no sense at all. They’d have to explain it. And remember, this is high fantasy, Game of Thrones is also in that category. This is a time where they would reach into your body with an object strikingly similar to a salad tossing spoon to yank out a small piece of arrowhead. Pretty sure they hadn’t figured out a surgery as complex as a sex change… The people complaining that there aren’t enough gay/trans people in stuff like this are just as bad if not moreso than the people who complain about gay/trans people being in stuff like this. Create your own fantasy world filled with nothing but gay/trans people. Make it so that being heterosexual is the minority. All the power to you. Good luck trying to create it. You don’t have to have surgery to be transgender. Lots of transgender people don’t. Transgender people, people who identify with the gender not corresponding with their birth sex, have existed before the surgery. And the existence of and recognition of a third sex or dual sex existed in pre-modern times in lots of places are the world.So, for one, your “how in the balls are they going to perform surgery“ question doesn’t actually matter. They don’t need to in order for transgender people to exist.But if they did want to include transgender people who undergo physical changes to reflect their gender/sexual identity, in a HIGH FANTASY world, there’s actually a really easy answer to that: *ahem* “How are you going to make someone trans in a fantasy setting full of magic spells, potions, and artifacts?” shout out to the elixir of sex shift for covering more than just a gender binary. also lets not forget that in ye old days (aka time of the ancient greeks (aka the bc years)) that people drank the urine of pregnant mares to feminize themselves. like, trans people find a way ;) …the fucking Sumerians had trans people, brosky. Sumerians. They didn’t even have fucking iron, but they had trans women. dude lemme find you a fucking. girdle of sex change from 1st edition woah what’s that?? the first edition efreet cover??? OH HEY ITS A FUCKING GIRDLE OF SEX CHANGE AND THERES ALSO A POSSIBILITY IT REMOVES ALL SEX CHARACTERISTICS FROM THE WEARER it’s on page 145 of the dmg 1st ed. want an easier-to-read screenshot of a pdf?? tldr fuck you it’s pride month welcome back to “tldr fuck you” anyways dnd says trans nb rights
Bad, Complex, and Dude: 1:42 PM
 Tweet
 Alexandra Erin Retweeted
 Audrey
 @Turbocrit
 Gamer dudes are wild they'll play a game
 about overthrowing a corrupt monarch
 but if there's 1 gay character in it then it's
 "too political"
 8/25/17, 1:50 PM
 4,764 Retweets 11.6K Likes
 Audrey Turbocrit 14h
 Replying to @Turbocrit
 Not to mention the whole "having a gay/trans
 character in a high fantasy setting is
 completely unrealistic. Also here's some
 dragons" thing
 8
 237
 829
 WC @Hexy27Bernie1 7h
 Tweet your reply
definitelygayrpgideas:

definitelygayrpgideas:

thesallowbeldam:

kirinandvlindertje:

vaishino:

atomic-darth:

pupperoni-pizza:

didntfitthenarrative:

mitch-turn:

Sweet generalization. 
It’s not about whether a character is trans or gay. Gay characters make sense. People have been gay for millennia. Trans however. Not the case. In a high fantasy setting, how in the balls are they going to perform surgery where they change the sex of the character??? It makes no sense at all. They’d have to explain it. And remember, this is high fantasy, Game of Thrones is also in that category. This is a time where they would reach into your body with an object strikingly similar to a salad tossing spoon to yank out a small piece of arrowhead. Pretty sure they hadn’t figured out a surgery as complex as a sex change…
The people complaining that there aren’t enough gay/trans people in stuff like this are just as bad if not moreso than the people who complain about gay/trans people being in stuff like this.
Create your own fantasy world filled with nothing but gay/trans people. Make it so that being heterosexual is the minority. All the power to you. Good luck trying to create it.

You don’t have to have surgery to be transgender. Lots of transgender people don’t. Transgender people, people who identify with the gender not corresponding with their birth sex, have existed before the surgery. And the existence of and recognition of a third sex or dual sex existed in pre-modern times in lots of places are the world.So, for one, your “how in the balls are they going to perform surgery“ question doesn’t actually matter. They don’t need to in order for transgender people to exist.But if they did want to include transgender people who undergo physical changes to reflect their gender/sexual identity, in a HIGH FANTASY world, there’s actually a really easy answer to that:

*ahem*


“How are you going to make someone trans in a fantasy setting full of magic spells, potions, and artifacts?”

shout out to the elixir of sex shift for covering more than just a gender binary.

also lets not forget that in ye old days (aka time of the ancient greeks (aka the bc years)) that people drank the urine of pregnant mares to feminize themselves. like, trans people find a way ;)

…the fucking Sumerians had trans people, brosky.
Sumerians.
They didn’t even have fucking iron, but they had trans women.

dude lemme find you a fucking. girdle of sex change from 1st edition
woah what’s that?? the first edition efreet cover???
OH HEY ITS A FUCKING GIRDLE OF SEX CHANGE AND THERES ALSO A POSSIBILITY IT REMOVES ALL SEX CHARACTERISTICS FROM THE WEARER
it’s on page 145 of the dmg 1st ed. want an easier-to-read screenshot of a pdf??
tldr fuck you

it’s pride month welcome back to “tldr fuck you” anyways dnd says trans  nb rights

definitelygayrpgideas: definitelygayrpgideas: thesallowbeldam: kirinandvlindertje: vaishino: atomic-darth: pupperoni-pizza: didntfitt...

Apparently, Bad, and Children: the "police officers risk their lives to protect us" starter pack Savannah Danielle lol who knew there was something wrong with actually having a car, a nice house and a clean put together family who lives in a safe community while spending your hard earned money on paying your bills rather then expensive sneakers and supporting the authorities of the neighborhood you take pride in Like Reply 11 minutes ago living-for-fiction: unbossed: theflowerfish: saaavx0h: jaime-foxxx: OKAY BUT SOME OFFICERS ACTUALLY DO RISK THEIR FUCKING LIVES. It’s cute how tumblr users are liike “ahhh not all _____ people” but when it’s cops, they’re all awful apparently. Good god.  yes they do and it’s a shame some people don’t recognize or appreciate that! Cops who don’t check and report explicitly bad cops are not good cops. The culture of the blue wall of silence logically makes it so that cops are inherently bad, not good. The good cops who do report their constituents get labeled as rats and get harassed by other cops for snitching or even lose their jobs. The police are nothing more than a glorified gang. Come live in the communities that the police continuously harass, brutalize, and murder then let me know how you feel. Come hang in Philly for a minute, get a taste of how it feels to have the cops hold a magnifying glass over you. Ask my friend who got shot while delivering pizza in Southwest Philly by plainclothes officers who never identified themselves how it felt to have a bullet removed from his face. Or head to Camden where the cops don’t even respond to calls in these communities, and if they do they just show up to beat and arrest the people there. Go to Washington Heights in NYC where they stop and frisk mostly black and Latino men, even though almost 90% of those searches end up with nothing (stats available on NYPD website). Imagine a world where you get stopped and harassed by the police because of where you live or how you look, regardless of whether you’re innocent or not. Then tell me how much you just loooooove the police. Y'all don’t see shit over that white picket fence of yours, do you? The “good cop” going by the book will use violence to evict a homeless family from their car if they’re parked illegally. The “good cop” going by the book will use violence to arrest them, tearing the children from their parents, if they try to sleep in a foreclosed home left empty by the bank as a tax write-off. The “good cop” going by the book will use violence to keep that family from eating food that grocery stores and restaurants throw away in their locked dumpsters. The “good cop” going by the book will use violence to enforce even the most unjust law. And badge lickers will always try to justify the injustice. For the people who missed the point, this post doesn’t say that cops never risk their lives - it’s inviting you to take a good long look at the characteristics of the people they DO protect and risk their lives for, and note that there is a huge disparity in how cops treat people based on race, socioeconomic status, etc. Also I love it when people use “coppin’ is DANGEROUS” to handwave the numerous civil rights violations cops are routinely guilty of in the process of “just following orders”. Plenty of jobs are dangerous. Plenty of jobs are more dangerous than being a cop. But cops seem to be the main ones stomping around demanding endless respect and unquestioning obedience just because their “job is dangerous”.
Apparently, Bad, and Children: the "police officers risk their lives to
 protect us" starter pack

 Savannah Danielle lol who knew there was something wrong with actually
 having a car, a nice house and a clean put together family who lives in a
 safe community while spending your hard earned money on paying your
 bills rather then expensive sneakers and supporting the authorities of the
 neighborhood you take pride in
 Like Reply 11 minutes ago
living-for-fiction:
unbossed:


theflowerfish:

saaavx0h:

jaime-foxxx:

OKAY BUT SOME OFFICERS ACTUALLY DO RISK THEIR FUCKING LIVES.
It’s cute how tumblr users are liike “ahhh not all _____ people” but when it’s cops, they’re all awful apparently. Good god. 

yes they do and it’s a shame some people don’t recognize or appreciate that!

Cops who don’t check and report explicitly bad cops are not good cops. The culture of the blue wall of silence logically makes it so that cops are inherently bad, not good. The good cops who do report their constituents get labeled as rats and get harassed by other cops for snitching or even lose their jobs. The police are nothing more than a glorified gang.
Come live in the communities that the police continuously harass, brutalize, and murder then let me know how you feel. 
Come hang in Philly for a minute, get a taste of how it feels to have the cops hold a magnifying glass over you. Ask my friend who got shot while delivering pizza in Southwest Philly by plainclothes officers who never identified themselves how it felt to have a bullet removed from his face.
Or head to Camden where the cops don’t even respond to calls in these communities, and if they do they just show up to beat and arrest the people there.
Go to Washington Heights in NYC where they stop and frisk mostly black and Latino men, even though almost 90% of those searches end up with nothing (stats available on NYPD website). Imagine a world where you get stopped and harassed by the police because of where you live or how you look, regardless of whether you’re innocent or not. Then tell me how much you just loooooove the police.
Y'all don’t see shit over that white picket fence of yours, do you?


The “good cop” going by the book will use violence to evict a homeless family from their car if they’re parked illegally. The “good cop” going by the book will use violence to arrest them, tearing the children from their parents, if they try to sleep in a foreclosed home left empty by the bank as a tax write-off. The “good cop” going by the book will use violence to keep that family from eating food that grocery stores and restaurants throw away in their locked dumpsters.
The “good cop” going by the book will use violence to enforce even the most unjust law. And badge lickers will always try to justify the injustice.


For the people who missed the point, this post doesn’t say that cops never risk their lives - it’s inviting you to take a good long look at the characteristics of the people they DO protect and risk their lives for, and note that there is a huge disparity in how cops treat people based on race, socioeconomic status, etc.
Also I love it when people use “coppin’ is DANGEROUS” to handwave the numerous civil rights violations cops are routinely guilty of in the process of “just following orders”. Plenty of jobs are dangerous. Plenty of jobs are more dangerous than being a cop. But cops seem to be the main ones stomping around demanding endless respect and unquestioning obedience just because their “job is dangerous”.

living-for-fiction: unbossed: theflowerfish: saaavx0h: jaime-foxxx: OKAY BUT SOME OFFICERS ACTUALLY DO RISK THEIR FUCKING LIVES. It’s c...

Fucking, Life, and School: DONNY CATES. @Doncates , Dec 11 I promise you dont really want to read a book where Eddie is doing fine and everything is awesome and everyone is happy. That book is boring and you will not like that book Or maybe you would. I dunno. I'm not writing that book symbisexual-disaster:*glances wearily at my 5,000 bookmarked fics in which everything is awesome and everyone is happy*  Honestly this just shows what a shallow understanding of story writing he has and I don’t know how he got to become a writer as a result of this.Conflict makes a story interesting but it’s pretty clear that a) he only has 1 idea of conflict (tragedy) and b) he sees no room for character growth (because anything other than tragedy is considered boring and irrelevant and therefore we never see characters put into different situations and he doesn’t have to write them react to anything other than tragedy).Showing Eddie and Venom doing well doesn’t even have to be the whole series (honestly I’d find that pretty boring too after several issues as much as I want to see Eddie and Venom grocery shopping or going to the farmer’s market). The point of doing so is a) character development and b) a break in the storyline from any current conflict. As much as peace/ trivial aspects of Eddie’s life will get boring after several issues, so will conflict. I’m really tired of seeing overblown issues left right and centre and absolutely no pause given to Eddie’s development (not to mention he’s regressing because of shitty writing).That one scene where Eddie’s speaking to V but seemingly himself when he’s eating noodles and V’s asking for a bloody steak? That’s the kind of shit I’m talking about. It’s literally 2 pages of Eddie speaking to himself, being very kind to V, then snapping back at a stranger who’s weirded out by him and he and V then proceed to have a conversation about innocence and stupidity. Not only does this show Eddie’s a dick in day-to-day life which contrasts with his ideas of being a good person and saving the innocent, it also shows V’s basic (but forming) ideas about human characteristics and personalities and Eddie has to do his best to help V understand innocent =/= stupid. That’s all it fucking took! 2 pages of a regular conversation between Eddie and V! Then you can get back to whatever conflict is happening!Donny Cates never graduated from the school of ‘I like these characters and I’m going to make them suffer’ and it shows.
Fucking, Life, and School: DONNY CATES. @Doncates , Dec 11
 I promise you dont really want to read a book where Eddie is doing fine and
 everything is awesome and everyone is happy. That book is boring and you will
 not like that book
 Or maybe you would. I dunno.
 I'm not writing that book
symbisexual-disaster:*glances wearily at my 5,000 bookmarked fics in which everything is awesome and everyone is happy* 
Honestly this just shows what a shallow understanding of story writing he has and I don’t know how he got to become a writer as a result of this.Conflict makes a story interesting but it’s pretty clear that a) he only has 1 idea of conflict (tragedy) and b) he sees no room for character growth (because anything other than tragedy is considered boring and irrelevant and therefore we never see characters put into different situations and he doesn’t have to write them react to anything other than tragedy).Showing Eddie and Venom doing well doesn’t even have to be the whole series (honestly I’d find that pretty boring too after several issues as much as I want to see Eddie and Venom grocery shopping or going to the farmer’s market). The point of doing so is a) character development and b) a break in the storyline from any current conflict. As much as peace/ trivial aspects of Eddie’s life will get boring after several issues, so will conflict. I’m really tired of seeing overblown issues left right and centre and absolutely no pause given to Eddie’s development (not to mention he’s regressing because of shitty writing).That one scene where Eddie’s speaking to V but seemingly himself when he’s eating noodles and V’s asking for a bloody steak? That’s the kind of shit I’m talking about. It’s literally 2 pages of Eddie speaking to himself, being very kind to V, then snapping back at a stranger who’s weirded out by him and he and V then proceed to have a conversation about innocence and stupidity. Not only does this show Eddie’s a dick in day-to-day life which contrasts with his ideas of being a good person and saving the innocent, it also shows V’s basic (but forming) ideas about human characteristics and personalities and Eddie has to do his best to help V understand innocent =/= stupid. That’s all it fucking took! 2 pages of a regular conversation between Eddie and V! Then you can get back to whatever conflict is happening!Donny Cates never graduated from the school of ‘I like these characters and I’m going to make them suffer’ and it shows.

symbisexual-disaster:*glances wearily at my 5,000 bookmarked fics in which everything is awesome and everyone is happy*  Honestly this just ...

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...

Aww, Bad, and Confidence: wunderblumekind: rainytimemachinedeer: introvertunites: the-erikalypse: ellinfp: dailypsychologyfacts: 7 Subtle Signs a Shy Girl Likes You | Lesly D. x Psych2Go Number 6. So freaking accurate. Okay I know this is supposed to be an educational video but the drawings in this are SO. GOT. DAMN. CUTE. Ok, this is bad. Not the video, it’s great! Buuut, idk, it’s just that I have/do all of them, but I’m a guy. I know that these characteristics aren’t exclusive, but no one really applies this sort of thinking to me just because I’m a guy. :( It’s frustrating and somewhat defeating when I just get labeled as the “nice guy” because I don’t use the typical male flirting strategies. I like to talk with (not at) you, I want to share thoughts, emotions, and experiences with you, but I’m an introvert socially awkward from years of shaming. So I don’t have the self-confidence or self-worth to make the first move. Not to mention that, with the current social climate, if I misread things and make a move, there’s a significant amount of risk to my social, emotional psychological, work, and public status. I’m too timid and sane to try anything worthy of legal action, but even just asking someone out could have a cascade affect if it doesn’t go well. Idk. I’m just rambling, so I’ll leave it there for now. Aww I feel attacked ahahahah. I remember how I was like Goethe in replying or texting messages, writing poems, drawing and painting, baking and cooking for him, making handmade things, little gifts, but sooo shy in front of my man :)) I rare talked to him directly or even say hi. He was actually even confused on our first date if I really like him or not. He texted me then on next day if I (actually) really have interest on a serious relationship with him, because I looked and behaved very odd in front of him. I texted him back like hours later (bc I had to prepare and select good words I have to use) :))) Srsly my face looked like a tomato all day long. We used to laugh till now if we recall the day. I am always so good at making people I like get confused (thanks to my first dominant function Fi). Like, ever. ahahaha
Aww, Bad, and Confidence: wunderblumekind:
rainytimemachinedeer:

introvertunites:

the-erikalypse:

ellinfp:

dailypsychologyfacts:
7 Subtle Signs a Shy Girl Likes You | Lesly D. x Psych2Go

Number 6. So freaking accurate. 


Okay I know this is supposed to be an educational video but the drawings in this are SO. GOT. DAMN. CUTE.



Ok, this is bad. Not the video, it’s great! Buuut, idk, it’s just that I have/do all of them, but I’m a guy. I know that these characteristics aren’t  exclusive, but no one really applies this sort of thinking to me just because I’m a guy. :( It’s frustrating and somewhat defeating when I just get labeled as the “nice guy” because I don’t use the typical male flirting strategies. I like to talk with (not at) you, I want to share thoughts, emotions, and experiences with you, but I’m an introvert  socially awkward from years of shaming. So I don’t have the self-confidence or self-worth to make the first move. Not to mention that, with the current social climate, if I misread things and make a move, there’s a significant amount of risk to my social, emotional  psychological, work, and public status. I’m too timid and sane to try anything worthy of legal action, but even just asking someone out could have a cascade affect if it doesn’t go well. Idk. I’m just rambling, so I’ll leave it there for now. 

Aww I feel attacked ahahahah. I remember how I was like Goethe in replying or texting messages, writing poems, drawing and painting, baking and cooking for him, making handmade things, little gifts, but sooo shy in front of my man :)) I rare talked to him directly or even say hi. He was actually even confused on our first date if I really like him or not. He texted me then on next day if I (actually) really have interest on a serious relationship with him, because I looked and behaved very odd in front of him. I texted him back like hours later (bc I had to prepare and select good words I have to use) :))) Srsly my face looked like a tomato all day long. We used to laugh till now if we recall the day. I am always so good at making people I like get confused (thanks to my first dominant function Fi). Like, ever. ahahaha

wunderblumekind: rainytimemachinedeer: introvertunites: the-erikalypse: ellinfp: dailypsychologyfacts: 7 Subtle Signs a Shy Girl Likes Y...

Aww, Bad, and Confidence: wunderblumekind: rainytimemachinedeer: introvertunites: the-erikalypse: ellinfp: dailypsychologyfacts: 7 Subtle Signs a Shy Girl Likes You | Lesly D. x Psych2Go Number 6. So freaking accurate. Okay I know this is supposed to be an educational video but the drawings in this are SO. GOT. DAMN. CUTE. Ok, this is bad. Not the video, it’s great! Buuut, idk, it’s just that I have/do all of them, but I’m a guy. I know that these characteristics aren’t exclusive, but no one really applies this sort of thinking to me just because I’m a guy. :( It’s frustrating and somewhat defeating when I just get labeled as the “nice guy” because I don’t use the typical male flirting strategies. I like to talk with (not at) you, I want to share thoughts, emotions, and experiences with you, but I’m an introvert socially awkward from years of shaming. So I don’t have the self-confidence or self-worth to make the first move. Not to mention that, with the current social climate, if I misread things and make a move, there’s a significant amount of risk to my social, emotional psychological, work, and public status. I’m too timid and sane to try anything worthy of legal action, but even just asking someone out could have a cascade affect if it doesn’t go well. Idk. I’m just rambling, so I’ll leave it there for now. Aww I feel attacked ahahahah. I remember how I was like Goethe in replying or texting messages, writing poems, drawing and painting, baking and cooking for him, making handmade things, little gifts, but sooo shy in front of my man :)) I rare talked to him directly or even say hi. He was actually even confused on our first date if I really like him or not. He texted me then on next day if I (actually) really have interest on a serious relationship with him, because I looked and behaved very odd in front of him. I texted him back like hours later (bc I had to prepare and select good words I have to use) :))) Srsly my face looked like a tomato all day long. We used to laugh till now if we recall the day. I am always so good at making people I like get confused (thanks to my first dominant function Fi). Like, ever. ahahaha
Aww, Bad, and Confidence: wunderblumekind:

rainytimemachinedeer:

introvertunites:

the-erikalypse:

ellinfp:

dailypsychologyfacts:
7 Subtle Signs a Shy Girl Likes You | Lesly D. x Psych2Go

Number 6. So freaking accurate. 


Okay I know this is supposed to be an educational video but the drawings in this are SO. GOT. DAMN. CUTE.



Ok, this is bad. Not the video, it’s great! Buuut, idk, it’s just that I have/do all of them, but I’m a guy. I know that these characteristics aren’t  exclusive, but no one really applies this sort of thinking to me just because I’m a guy. :( It’s frustrating and somewhat defeating when I just get labeled as the “nice guy” because I don’t use the typical male flirting strategies. I like to talk with (not at) you, I want to share thoughts, emotions, and experiences with you, but I’m an introvert  socially awkward from years of shaming. So I don’t have the self-confidence or self-worth to make the first move. Not to mention that, with the current social climate, if I misread things and make a move, there’s a significant amount of risk to my social, emotional  psychological, work, and public status. I’m too timid and sane to try anything worthy of legal action, but even just asking someone out could have a cascade affect if it doesn’t go well. Idk. I’m just rambling, so I’ll leave it there for now. 

Aww I feel attacked ahahahah. I remember how I was like Goethe in replying or texting messages, writing poems, drawing and painting, baking and cooking for him, making handmade things, little gifts, but sooo shy in front of my man :)) I rare talked to him directly or even say hi. He was actually even confused on our first date if I really like him or not. He texted me then on next day if I (actually) really have interest on a serious relationship with him, because I looked and behaved very odd in front of him. I texted him back like hours later (bc I had to prepare and select good words I have to use) :))) Srsly my face looked like a tomato all day long. We used to laugh till now if we recall the day. I am always so good at making people I like get confused (thanks to my first dominant function Fi). Like, ever. ahahaha

wunderblumekind: rainytimemachinedeer: introvertunites: the-erikalypse: ellinfp: dailypsychologyfacts: 7 Subtle Signs a Shy Girl Likes ...

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...

Af, America, and Beard: This homeless man applied for a job at McDonald's and was told he needed to shae his beard. When an officer spotted him struggling to shave without a mirror, he helped him get cleaned up - and get hired! #mrcheckpointc ommunity Absolutely beautiful to see such a act from a Public Servant. It’s hard to side with these guys 🐽 (no offense to my four legged friends y’all are cool AF) because almost everything they do i have a educated opinion on. But a kind act is a kind act and i don’t want to take away from it. I hope one day we realize that these small acts are what will change the world not following immoral rules, or maintaining quotas, But actually showing compassionate human characteristics. Police today are uneducated, highly ignorant, poorly trained in damn near every aspect, militarized, cowards that are scared to standup against all of the injustices within their own departments. They know who the racist, sexual predators, power abusing, lying officers are and they remain silent which just fuels the fire even more. “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. - Martin Luther King, Jr.” If there is one thing i don’t like about America it’s the militarization of Police...the Police State. standup911 - Video - @mrcheckpoint_ Events - @_meetingoftheminds Back up account- @_standup911
Af, America, and Beard: This homeless man applied for a job at
 McDonald's and was told he needed to shae
 his beard. When an officer spotted him
 struggling to shave without a mirror, he helped
 him get cleaned up - and get hired!
 #mrcheckpointc ommunity
Absolutely beautiful to see such a act from a Public Servant. It’s hard to side with these guys 🐽 (no offense to my four legged friends y’all are cool AF) because almost everything they do i have a educated opinion on. But a kind act is a kind act and i don’t want to take away from it. I hope one day we realize that these small acts are what will change the world not following immoral rules, or maintaining quotas, But actually showing compassionate human characteristics. Police today are uneducated, highly ignorant, poorly trained in damn near every aspect, militarized, cowards that are scared to standup against all of the injustices within their own departments. They know who the racist, sexual predators, power abusing, lying officers are and they remain silent which just fuels the fire even more. “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. - Martin Luther King, Jr.” If there is one thing i don’t like about America it’s the militarization of Police...the Police State. standup911 - Video - @mrcheckpoint_ Events - @_meetingoftheminds Back up account- @_standup911

Absolutely beautiful to see such a act from a Public Servant. It’s hard to side with these guys 🐽 (no offense to my four legged friends y’al...

Alive, Animals, and Apparently: flamethrowing-hurdy-gurdy: flamethrowing-hurdy-gurdy I have had this on my mind for days, someone please help: I mean, how do we see a pug and then a husky and understand that both are dogs? I'm pretty sure I've never seen a picture of a breed of dog I hadn't seen before and wondered what animal it Do you want the Big Answer or the Small Answers cos I have a feeling this is about to get intense Oooh okay are YOU gonna answer this, hang on I need to get some snacks and make sure the phone is off The short answer is "because they're statistically unlikely to be anything else The long question is "given the extreme diversity of morphology in dogs, with many subsets of dogs' bearing no visual resemblance to each other, how am 1 able to intuit that they belong to the 'dog set just by The reason that this is a Good Big Question is because we are broadly used to categorising Things as related based on resemblances. Then everyoneI have Fun Facts like "elephants are ACTUALLY closely related to rock hyraxes!! Even though they look nothing alike!!" e realized abou t genes and evolution and so on, and so now we These Fun Facts are appealing because they're not intuitive. So why is dog-sorting intuitive? Well, because if you eliminate all the other possibilities, most dogs are dogs. To process Things- whether animals, words, situations or experiences our brains categorise the most important things about them, and then compare these to our memory banks. If we've experienced the same thing before- whether first-hand or through a story then we know what's happening, and we proceed accordingly If the New Thing is completely New, then t question marks, shunts into a different track, counts up all the Similar Traits, and assigns it a provisional category based on its similarity to other Things. We then experience the Thing, exploring it further, and he brain pings up a Our brain t categorises the New based on the knowledge and traits. That is how humans experience the universe. We do our best, and we generally do it well. This is the basis of stereotyping. It behaviours (racism), some of our most challenging problems (trauma), helps us survive (stories) and sharing the ability with things that dont have it leads to some of our most whimsical creations (artificial In fact, one reason that humans are so wonderfully successful is that we can effectively gain knowledge from experiences without having experienced them personally! You dont have to eat all the berries to find the poisonous ones. You can just remember stories and descriptions of berries, and compare those to the ones you've just discovered. You can benefit from memorics that aren't your own! On the other hand, if you had a terribly traumatic experience involving say, an eagle, then your brain will try to protect you in every way possible from a similar experience. If you collect too many traumatic experiences with eagles, then your brain will not enjoy eagle-shapecd New Things. In fact, if New Things match up to too many cagle-like noise!! 。The hot Glare of the Yellow Eye CLAWS VERY BAD VERY BAD Then the brain may shunt the train of thought back into trauma, and the person will actually experience the New Thing as trauma. Even if the New Thing was something apparently unrelated, like being generally pointy, or having a hot glare. (This is an overly simplistic explanation of how triggers work, but it's the one most accessible to people.) So the answer rests in how we categorise dogs, and what "dog" means to humans. Human brains associate dogs with universal categories, such efour legs Mcat Eater e Soft friend An BORK BORK Anything we have previously experienced and learned as A Dog gets added to the memory bank. Sometimes it brings new categories along with it. So a lifetime's experience results in excellent dog-intuition And anything we experience with, say, a 90% match is officially a Dog. Brains are super good at eliminating things, too. So while the concept of physical doggo-ness is pretty nebulous, and has to include greyhounds and Pekingese and mastiffs, we know that even if an animal LOOKS like a bear, if the other categories don't match up in context (bears are not usually soft friends, they don't Bork Bork, they don't have long tails to wag) then it is statistically more likely to be a Doggo. If it occupies a dog-shaped space then it is usually a dog. So if you see someone dragging a fluffy whatnot along on a string, you will go, Mop? (Unlikely-seems to be self propelled.) ° Alien? (Unlikely-no real alien ever experienced.) Threat? (Vastly unlikely in context.) Rabbit? (No. Rabbits hop, and this appears to scurry.) (Brains are very keen on categorising movement patterns. This is why lurching zombies and bad CGl are so uncomfortable to experience, brains just go INCORRECT!! That is WRONG!" Without consciously knowing why. Anyway, very few animals move like domestic dogs!) Very fluffy cat? (Maybe-but not quite. Shares many characteristics, though!) Eldritch horror? (No, it is obviously a soft friend of unknown type) Robotic toy? (Unlikely too complex and convincing.) animal detected!!! Thi s is a good animal!! This is pleasing!! It may be appropriate to laugh at this animal, because we have just realized that it is probably a DOG!! Soft friend, alive, walks on leash. It had a low doggo-ness quotient! and a confusing Snout, but it is NOT those other Known Things, and it occupies a dog-shaped space! Hahahaha!!! It is extra funny and appealing, because it made us guess!! We love playing that game * PING! NEW CATEGORIES ADDED TO "Doggo set mopness, floof. Snout. And that's why most dogs are dogs. You're so good at identifying dog shaped spaces that they can't be anything else! The science of identifying Good Boys
Alive, Animals, and Apparently: flamethrowing-hurdy-gurdy:
 flamethrowing-hurdy-gurdy
 I have had this on my mind for days, someone please help:
 I mean, how do we see a pug and then a husky and understand
 that both are dogs? I'm pretty sure I've never seen a picture of a
 breed of dog I hadn't seen before and wondered what animal it
 Do you want the Big Answer or the Small Answers cos I have a
 feeling this is about to get intense
 Oooh okay are YOU gonna answer this, hang on I need to get some
 snacks and make sure the phone is off
 The short answer is "because they're statistically unlikely to be anything
 else
 The long question is "given the extreme diversity of morphology in
 dogs, with many subsets of dogs' bearing no visual resemblance to each
 other, how am 1 able to intuit that they belong to the 'dog set just by
 The reason that this is a Good Big Question is because we are broadly
 used to categorising Things as related based on resemblances. Then
 everyoneI
 have Fun Facts like "elephants are ACTUALLY closely related to rock
 hyraxes!! Even though they look nothing alike!!"
 e realized abou
 t genes and evolution and so on, and so now we
 These Fun Facts are appealing because they're not intuitive.
 So why is dog-sorting intuitive?
 Well, because if you eliminate all the other possibilities, most dogs are
 dogs.
 To process Things- whether animals, words, situations or experiences
 our brains categorise the most important things about them, and then
 compare these to our memory banks. If we've experienced the same
 thing before- whether first-hand or through a story then we know
 what's happening, and we proceed accordingly
 If the New Thing is completely New, then t
 question marks, shunts into a different track, counts up all the Similar
 Traits, and assigns it a provisional category based on its similarity to
 other Things. We then experience the Thing, exploring it further, and
 he brain pings up a
 Our brain t
 categorises the New
 based on the knowledge and traits. That is how humans experience the
 universe. We do our best, and we generally do it well.
 This is the basis of stereotyping. It
 behaviours (racism), some of our most challenging problems (trauma),
 helps us survive (stories) and sharing the ability with things that dont
 have it leads to some of our most whimsical creations (artificial
 In fact, one reason that humans are so wonderfully successful is that we
 can effectively gain knowledge from experiences without having
 experienced them personally! You dont have to eat all the berries to
 find the poisonous ones. You can just remember stories and
 descriptions of berries, and compare those to the ones you've just
 discovered. You can benefit from memorics that aren't your
 own!
 On the other hand, if you had a terribly traumatic experience involving
 say, an eagle, then your brain will try to protect you in every way
 possible from a similar experience. If you collect too many traumatic
 experiences with eagles, then your brain will not enjoy eagle-shapecd
 New Things. In fact, if New Things match up to too many cagle-like
 noise!!
 。The hot Glare of the Yellow Eye
 CLAWS VERY BAD VERY BAD
 Then the brain may shunt the train of thought back into trauma, and
 the person will actually experience the New Thing as trauma. Even if
 the New Thing was something apparently unrelated, like being
 generally pointy, or having a hot glare. (This is an overly simplistic
 explanation of how triggers work, but it's the one most accessible to
 people.)
 So the answer rests in how we categorise dogs, and what "dog" means to
 humans. Human brains associate dogs with universal categories, such
 efour legs
 Mcat Eater
 e Soft friend
 An
 BORK BORK
 Anything we have previously experienced and learned as A Dog gets
 added to the memory bank. Sometimes it brings new categories along
 with it. So a lifetime's experience results in excellent dog-intuition
 And anything we experience with, say, a 90% match is officially a Dog.
 Brains are super good at eliminating things, too. So while the concept
 of physical doggo-ness is pretty nebulous, and has to include
 greyhounds and Pekingese and mastiffs, we know that even if an animal
 LOOKS like a bear, if the other categories don't match up in context
 (bears are not usually soft friends, they don't Bork Bork, they don't have
 long tails to wag) then it is statistically more likely to be a Doggo. If it
 occupies a dog-shaped space then it is usually a dog.
 So if you see someone dragging a fluffy whatnot along on a string, you
 will go,
 Mop? (Unlikely-seems to be self propelled.)
 ° Alien? (Unlikely-no real alien ever experienced.)
 Threat? (Vastly unlikely in context.)
 Rabbit? (No. Rabbits hop, and this appears to scurry.) (Brains are very
 keen on categorising movement patterns. This is why lurching zombies
 and bad CGl are so uncomfortable to experience, brains just go
 INCORRECT!! That is WRONG!" Without consciously knowing why.
 Anyway, very few animals move like domestic dogs!)
 Very fluffy cat? (Maybe-but not quite. Shares many characteristics,
 though!)
 Eldritch horror? (No, it is obviously a soft friend of unknown type)
 Robotic toy? (Unlikely too complex and convincing.)
 animal detected!!! Thi
 s is a good animal!! This is
 pleasing!! It may be appropriate to laugh at this animal, because we have
 just realized that it is probably a
 DOG!! Soft friend, alive, walks on leash. It had a low doggo-ness
 quotient! and a confusing Snout, but it is NOT those other Known
 Things, and it occupies a dog-shaped space!
 Hahahaha!!! It is extra funny and appealing, because it made us
 guess!! We love playing that game
 * PING! NEW CATEGORIES ADDED TO "Doggo set mopness, floof.
 Snout.
 And that's why most dogs are dogs. You're so good at identifying dog
 shaped spaces that they can't be anything else!
The science of identifying Good Boys

The science of identifying Good Boys

Internet, News, and Sorry: SAVE THE INTERNET Coogle Save the Internet SAVE THE INTERNET 、■Neutrality <p><a href="https://theshitopinionsofsomeasswipeblm.tumblr.com/post/173212271752/libertarirynn-since-net-neutrality-is-in-the" class="tumblr_blog">theshitopinionsofsomeasswipeblm</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/173211263389/since-net-neutrality-is-in-the-news-again-its" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Since “net neutrality“ is in the news again it’s timely to bring this back up.</p></blockquote> <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%3DnqJDW_s93rc"><iframe width="540" height="304" id="youtube_iframe" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nqJDW_s93rc?feature=oembed&amp;enablejsapi=1&amp;origin=https://safe.txmblr.com&amp;wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></figure><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%3DGGJMwvZKueY"><iframe width="540" height="304" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GGJMwvZKueY?feature=oembed&amp;enablejsapi=1&amp;origin=https://safe.txmblr.com&amp;wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></figure><p>Sorry, <a class="tumblelog" href="https://tmblr.co/mZHrjydhp9oUbxMGBDJA8rw">@libertarirynn</a>, you’re usually awesome, but… you’re barking up the wrong tree with this one, and PSA Sitch covered some of the bullshit covered by Rageoholic.</p> <p>Firstly, Net Neutrality isn’t some “unexplained, undefined” thing like Rageoholic, it’s a specific set of parameters that essentially goes as:</p> <blockquote> <p><i>i. <b>Transparency.</b> Fixed and mobile broadband providers <b>must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services;</b></i></p> <p><i>ii. <b>No blocking</b>. Fixed broadband providers <b>may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services</b>; and </i></p> <p><i>iii. <b>No unreasonable discrimination</b>. Fixed broadband providers <b>may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic</b>. </i></p> </blockquote> <p>I know you don’t want the government to overtake literally everything in our daily lives, but the trouble is, when we <b>let </b>private corporations have their hand at doing their own regulations, they decide that it’s much more valuable to <b>throttle internet traffic to other P2P services</b> and create <b>monopolies</b> instead of playing fair.</p> <p>I mean, as a capitalist, you do realize that monopolies never help anyone, right?</p> </blockquote><p>I’m sorry did the world just discover the Internet in 2015? </p>
Internet, News, and Sorry: SAVE THE
 INTERNET
 Coogle
 Save the Internet
 SAVE THE
 INTERNET
 、■Neutrality
<p><a href="https://theshitopinionsofsomeasswipeblm.tumblr.com/post/173212271752/libertarirynn-since-net-neutrality-is-in-the" class="tumblr_blog">theshitopinionsofsomeasswipeblm</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/173211263389/since-net-neutrality-is-in-the-news-again-its" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Since “net neutrality“ is in the news again it’s timely to bring this back up.</p></blockquote>
<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%3DnqJDW_s93rc"><iframe width="540" height="304" id="youtube_iframe" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nqJDW_s93rc?feature=oembed&amp;enablejsapi=1&amp;origin=https://safe.txmblr.com&amp;wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></figure><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%3DGGJMwvZKueY"><iframe width="540" height="304" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GGJMwvZKueY?feature=oembed&amp;enablejsapi=1&amp;origin=https://safe.txmblr.com&amp;wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></figure><p>Sorry, <a class="tumblelog" href="https://tmblr.co/mZHrjydhp9oUbxMGBDJA8rw">@libertarirynn</a>, you’re usually awesome, but… you’re barking up the wrong tree with this one, and PSA Sitch covered some of the bullshit covered by Rageoholic.</p>
<p>Firstly, Net Neutrality isn’t some “unexplained, undefined” thing like Rageoholic, it’s a specific set of parameters that essentially goes as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><i>i. <b>Transparency.</b> Fixed and mobile broadband providers <b>must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services;</b></i></p>
<p><i>ii. <b>No blocking</b>. Fixed broadband providers <b>may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services</b>; and </i></p>
<p><i>iii. <b>No unreasonable discrimination</b>. Fixed broadband providers <b>may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic</b>. </i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I know you don’t want the government to overtake literally everything in our daily lives, but the trouble is, when we <b>let </b>private corporations have their hand at doing their own regulations, they decide that it’s much more valuable to <b>throttle internet traffic to other P2P services</b> and create <b>monopolies</b> instead of playing fair.</p>
<p>I mean, as a capitalist, you do realize that monopolies never help anyone, right?</p>
</blockquote><p>I’m sorry did the world just discover the Internet in 2015? </p>

theshitopinionsofsomeasswipeblm: libertarirynn: Since “net neutrality“ is in the news again it’s timely to bring this back up. Sorry, @liber...

Fucking, Target, and Tumblr: keepc00lin: inherited-characteristics: Are you fuCkiNg KidDing Me?!???? They end up sorted at the end‽ But how ?
Fucking, Target, and Tumblr: keepc00lin:
inherited-characteristics:

Are you fuCkiNg KidDing Me?!????
They end up sorted at the end‽


But how ?

keepc00lin: inherited-characteristics: Are you fuCkiNg KidDing Me?!???? They end up sorted at the end‽ But how ?

Basketball, Future, and Memes: OR CHOOSE THE RIGHTROES HE "What do you want to be when you grow up?" is a question most students have heard and most likely thought about for a long time. Having plans for the job OR lifestyle you hope to pursue in the future is important, but so is having a person whose values and actions you can emulate. Role models act as a guide to help you understand who you would like to become in the future. - 👇There are many things to learn from a role model, but here are 5 top benefits of having a role model: - ✔️Learn the characteristics of a successful person. "Success" is a subjective term, but if someone is a role model they have done something to be successful in your eyes. ✔️Learn how to overcome obstacles. Everyone has a story of a time they had to overcome adversity. Hearing that Michael Jordan didn't make his high school's varsity basketball team, or that Oprah Winfrey was fired as a news reporter reminds us that failure won't prevent you from being successful in the future. Understanding how your role models overcame their obstacles will help you prepare to deal with future drawbacks. ✔️Have someone to inspire you. When you don't have the motivation to get work done, it is nice to have someone to emulate. Think about their success, and feel inspired to work as hard they did to reach a success of your own. ✔️Become the best version of yourself. Even though having a role model means looking up to another person, the end goal is to become the best version of yourself. Having someone to emulate gives you a guideline of values and actions to follow, but at the end of the day you are also your own person. - I hope you liked this posts and don’t forget to leave a comment below!👇 - rolemodel success millionairementor
Basketball, Future, and Memes: OR
 CHOOSE THE
 RIGHTROES
 HE
"What do you want to be when you grow up?" is a question most students have heard and most likely thought about for a long time. Having plans for the job OR lifestyle you hope to pursue in the future is important, but so is having a person whose values and actions you can emulate. Role models act as a guide to help you understand who you would like to become in the future. - 👇There are many things to learn from a role model, but here are 5 top benefits of having a role model: - ✔️Learn the characteristics of a successful person. "Success" is a subjective term, but if someone is a role model they have done something to be successful in your eyes. ✔️Learn how to overcome obstacles. Everyone has a story of a time they had to overcome adversity. Hearing that Michael Jordan didn't make his high school's varsity basketball team, or that Oprah Winfrey was fired as a news reporter reminds us that failure won't prevent you from being successful in the future. Understanding how your role models overcame their obstacles will help you prepare to deal with future drawbacks. ✔️Have someone to inspire you. When you don't have the motivation to get work done, it is nice to have someone to emulate. Think about their success, and feel inspired to work as hard they did to reach a success of your own. ✔️Become the best version of yourself. Even though having a role model means looking up to another person, the end goal is to become the best version of yourself. Having someone to emulate gives you a guideline of values and actions to follow, but at the end of the day you are also your own person. - I hope you liked this posts and don’t forget to leave a comment below!👇 - rolemodel success millionairementor

"What do you want to be when you grow up?" is a question most students have heard and most likely thought about for a long time. Having plan...

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...