661
top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 61 points 7 months ago

TIL "quartering troops" means giving them shelter, not cutting them into four pieces... makes much more sense now!

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 31 points 7 months ago
[-] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 7 points 7 months ago

Let's not be hasty here. We haven't explored all the pros and cons of drawing and quartering the troops yet

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Pro: don't have to pay veteran benefits

Con: hard to get people to enlist

[-] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago

Pro: it's fun

Con: soldiers will catch on and they're heavily armed

Where will we get enough horses?!

[-] ZeroCool@slrpnk.net 57 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

YEAH, YOU HEAR THAT MR. ARMY MAN? CAN'T STAY HERE! GO FIND A FUCKIN' MANGER, BABY JESUS STYLE! IT'S MUH 3RD 'MENDMENT RIGHT! YEE HAW!

[-] sawdustprophet@midwest.social 38 points 7 months ago
[-] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 19 points 7 months ago

I don't get the last two panels of that one.

[-] greenhorn@lemm.ee 18 points 7 months ago

You've gotta read parts 1, 2, 4, and 5

[-] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 8 points 7 months ago
[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 18 points 7 months ago

There was a time when Ron Paul was viewed as less of a libertarian nut job, and more an amusing libertarian with a weirdly enthusiastic following on the Internet.

Cory doctorow is a technologist who was influential in the late 2000s influencing how a lot of technology was built by talking about it's potential for collaboration and openness.
In an era where "blogging" was new, he was a proponent for it in a notable way.

So it's essentially a pile of late 2000s Internet references made into a silly narrative.

[-] GiantRobotTRex 4 points 7 months ago

The final panels show Ron Paul's blimp finally approaching Washington DC. The balloon spotted on their radar is presumably piloted by blogger Cory Doctorow, as revealed in the next installment, Secretary: Part 4.

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/496:_Secretary:_Part_3

[-] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago
[-] neptune@dmv.social 3 points 7 months ago

Is it a joke about recreating the hindenburg? Yeah I don't really get it either.

[-] TubeTalkerX@kbin.social 23 points 7 months ago

Don’t tread on my Futon!

[-] Assman@sh.itjust.works 6 points 7 months ago

Rick James enters the chat

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 13 points 7 months ago

Funny thing, it's worded that way because to the founding fathers an occupation force was the same thing as law enforcement.

The 3rd amendment is basically, "you cannot be forced to assist the cops" but in that way that gets really split from original intentions due to societal shifts.

[-] Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net 54 points 7 months ago

I disagree with you. The 3rd was a response to the very real practice by the British army where they'd show up and tell the owner that they have to house soldiers in their home.

[-] Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world 25 points 7 months ago

Having no formal military presence in America, the British passed various Quartering Acts requiring that citizens of the Colonies pay for the foreign British army’s upkeep while stationed in America. It was unpopular and seen as unnecessary and despite much protest by the colonies was forced through. It is tough to see a group showing up unannounced demanding your home and personal property while armed with weapons and a letter of marque as something other than pirates.

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social 11 points 7 months ago

It is tough to see a group showing up unannounced demanding your home and personal property while armed with weapons and a letter of marque as something other than pirates.

You mean like police today?

[-] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works -3 points 7 months ago

"Those damn warrants are a pain in my ass!" - Deceptichum

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Read about civil asset forfeiture for 5 minutes and tell me how we actually put up with that shit.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago

That's what I'm saying, this was an act of law enforcement in a day which predates the development of the modern civilian policing model used by modern cops.

Prior to their inception in the US, law enforcement was primarily carried out by an elected sheriff, but also by troops specifically dedicated to the task.

[-] hglman@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago

Unironicly the post is going to become true

[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It became unironically true the second the police force was created. After the founding fathers. You won't find them complaining about police explicitly because cops didn't exist back then.

So, while we can say the founding fathers had no opinion of police, you can be damn sure they still understood the problems of unchecked authority and would've been adamantly against many of the protections police have today.

[-] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Add to it the lack of common space (as it was a frontier colony and we hadn't invented malls yet) and you ended up quartering soldiers in any place that people could meet, preventing them from being able to assemble and talk shit on England.

Real talk: a militarized police force is what what the third amendment was trying to prevent.

People can get together and talk shit.

People can police themselves, and should.

Barring a war, the government can't just come in and occupy common spaces and monitor people.

The government can't just inspect people willy nilly either.

The government can't just force you to confess stuff.

They didn't just make this stuff up, they were trying to prevent real problems that had occurred that people could remember and led to a revolution. Something said revolutionaries were not interested in repeating a few years later.

[-] mdwhite999 7 points 7 months ago

Literally Robert Evans

[-] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 7 months ago

Turns out, Americans just wanted penis extensions instead of freedom the whole time.

[-] smut@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 7 months ago

They'll actually eagerly give up freedom -- especially other peoples -- to keep their penis extensions.

I'm convinced many 2A types are drawn to authoritarians because they'll give them an excuse to fire into crowds of people they disagree with.

They weren't shy about their murder fantasies during BLM, puffing their chests out and bragging what they'd do to "looters and rioters" while simultaneously trying to ensure their definition of "looters and rioters" included as many peaceful protesters as possible.

this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
661 points (98.1% liked)

People Twitter

4812 readers
215 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying.
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS