this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2023
879 points (97.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

5846 readers
2360 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] qooqie@lemmy.world 115 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He might’ve been more interested in some antibiotics for syphillis lmao

[–] Jimbo@yiffit.net 23 points 1 year ago

Should probably grab some dentures for Washington

Oh and get him to tell Washington not to let doctors drain half his blood too

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Lol all the sex jokes, this one hits.

[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today 5 points 11 months ago

Not really a joke, though. Back in the old days Syphilis was an untreatable disease causing rampant infertility as well as disfigurement and debilitating pain.

[–] Coasting0942@reddthat.com 64 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Guys, they’d be overjoyed their government the hammered out in overnight binge drinking sessions lasted 200+ years.

All the present problems are our problems. They gave us the amendment system for a reason.

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Not universally. Jefferson would have been horrified that the same government he established was still trucking along. 50 years was the longest he wanted it to last, and called for dramatic change at that point

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 14 points 11 months ago (12 children)

They also wrote that system not expecting it to be able to be gummed up by as little as 2% of the population because of how stupid we were about drawing state borders

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ep1cFac3pa1m@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago

Benny would be too distracted with Tinder to give a shit about McChickens

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not sure many of them would see an issue with AR-15s. They're basically what the military has and what the civilians had back then was usually better than military grade. In fact, American civilians have always had better rifles than their contemporary military.

I loathe the title, and strongly disagree with it. Also, heard the presenter is a hard right-winger, but this is still an interesting history lesson. I never would have guessed most of this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dIsy3sZI2Y&t=2s

I'm betting the founders would have thought having a lesser armed citizenry to be pointless. Of course, they might well have thought that such a giant, world policing, military to be a far worse mistake.

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, it’s super hypothetical. We lift them up but they were just a bunch of dudes living in their own times. While I’m sure they wanted a framework that would lead the country into future prosperity, they knew adaptation was necessary.

They also knew that the backbone of this country's defense were militias made up of citizens. We don’t really have those. I’m all for regulated militias coming back. They could possibly get exceptions for many banned weapons.

Every citizen doesn’t need to have access to military grade weaponry at any given moment. Even when I served, my shit was locked up and required a document trail for access and ammo use.

Balancing safety and personal rights is a complex and divisive issue. Everyone having all the guns would be super cool with me if we fixed gun culture, mental health access, and our many many societal financial issues. 'Til then, reasonable laws.

[–] FluorideMind@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

We are a well regulated militia. Well regulated means well equipped/prepared.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

[–] blackstampede@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago (47 children)

That's all it means? Because it seems fairly clear that it means something like "well organized, supplied, and trained." If we're saying that the word "regulated" just means "armed", and the word "militia" just means "people", then it sounds a lot like you're interpreting it to mean what you want it to.

I've never heard "regulated" used that way outside of tortured 2nd amendment interpretations, and a militia requires some amount of training and regular drills.

load more comments (47 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Adalast@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I have a feeling the conversation to have with most of the founders would be centered around the political weaponization of the Second Amendment in the face of almost daily mass shootings. I have a strong suspicion that the "well-regulated militia" part of that amendment would become much more pronounced.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (5 children)

They would be far more concerned with the government embracing fascism, than they would about 2nd amendment considerations. If anything, they'd push for a less restrictive 2nd amendment, and dismantling of federal power structures. They were revolutionaries, after all.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I really doubt it. If they intended the right to belong to militias or members of one, they would have written that instead of people.

[–] leviathan3k@sh.itjust.works 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Plus there are a lot of people in the militia. Specifically every able-bodied male from the ages of 17 to 45.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] caffinatedone@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Or perhaps put something in about a militia, but one that was well regulated.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 11 months ago

You are a militia member.

Unless you are not an American, I am not creating a hypothetical scenario; I am stating that under the constitutional meaning of the term, you are a militia member. You may not be one for which Congress has created an obligation to register with selective service. You may not qualify under Congress's rules to be drafted. But under the constitution, Congress can use their powers over the militia to compel you to act. You. Are. Militia.

When you insinuate that the Militia is not "well regulated", what additional regulations do you wish to be subjected to?

Personally, I think every member of the militia (Every American) should be required to attend a class on the laws governing use of force. Not enough people actual understand them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 43 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well you see brown people were using it to feel good...

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 3 points 11 months ago

"You made brown people legal!?"

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They would likely be most upset you can't make your own liquor legally.

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can, just can't sell it (at least in my state which is one of the stricter ones for alcohol)

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

Federal law strictly prohibits distilling at home.

Offenses under this section are felonies that are punishable by up to 5 years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both, for each offense.

Edit: can we just talk for a second about how oppressive the law is for poor people? Do you have $10,000? Cool, give it to us and go home. Oh, you don't have it? FIVE YEARS in a federal penetentary!

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] verstra@programming.dev 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And overwhelmed by the number of people willing to discuss nuaced socio-political problems of states and governments.

[–] Patches@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He would be very upset that most of these people are neither white nor land-owners.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Not really. He could be a miserable bastard at times but all the sources agree he was very open minded and willing to accept the evidence of his eyes and honest arguments, condemning colonist atrocities against natives despite have quite a lot prejudice against them himself, freeing his own slaves, petitioning for abolition in Congress, etc.

He'd look around, say, "Well it seems to have worked out, where's the whorehouses?"

No. His great failing was championing the concept of time-based workdays instead of task-based. Ie, most people left work when everything was done before he got involved.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

He would be even more upset that they only talk about such things online and then shirk their voting responsibilities.

[–] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

"Tell me more about this 'online granny porn' my good sir."

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 11 months ago (5 children)

A few of our founding fathers were based and are remembered for their true merits as people.

And the rest were just the most rich and powerful people around at the time. They had to start a war and a new country in order to get away with defrauding England when they joined in on this settler colonial project. They stopped slavery from ending. They chased wealth and valor, and designed the country for their ends.

WE deserve a new constitution like every other modern country.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Their project was in part to legitimize the transfer of power from the nobility to the elite merchant and "gentleman" farmer class. They were very much a product of their time, just like you and I are today.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] HBK@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 11 months ago
[–] RIP_Cheems@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

"But I want mcchickeeeeeeens"

[–] MartinXYZ@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This has a Bill & Ted-vibe. Like Napoleon who just wants to go back on the waterslides again...

[–] ExfilBravo@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Kid me was like yeah water park! Adult me chuckles because of the Waterloo reference.

[–] Emerald@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Image Transcription: Twitter Post


shen the bird, @Shen_the_Bird

me: [after successfully using my time machine to bring a founding father to the present] so do you think the 2nd ammendment is still reflective of our culture and technology

benjamin franklin: can we go get more mcchickens

me: no stop asking me that

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago

At least you did not bring him back to McRib season

[–] therealjcdenton@lemmy.zip 5 points 11 months ago

Everything in moderation

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

With Franklin probably being one of the few exceptions, most of the founding fathers would probably have an adrenaline overload seeing that the USA successfully evolved into the world power to protect its corporate interests. They wouldn't even hesitate to host a billionaire rave party lol.

Now bring someone like FDR, Hugo Black, or JFK and they'd probably be horrified to find so much of their work undone and thrown down the trash.

The constitution is so weird lol.

load more comments
view more: next ›