2nd Amendment.

“When boldly we stand, balls out or boobs up, against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, it is nice to have superior firepower.”

-Baby Jesus

The Argument for Exploding Necklaces and Random Remotes. (Or: How Our Great Founders Failed Us With the Second Amendment.)

In the perfect unison they are legendary for working in, the founders of our constitution overlooked a crucial component within our penultimate of amendments. The second amendment is designed to help citizens defend themselves from the government. This is fine when your president worked part time at a bar in Ohio or when the biggest gun could be pulled by a few mules. But now we have high flying drones, smart bombs, and dumb asses running the show. As wondrous as the beautiful technology of commercially available weaponry is, even the blackest of markets lacks the products one would need to meet the threats now faced by even the third largest standing army in the world (which I am pretty sure is some dude in Kansas with an underground bunker and 12 corn-fed moonshiners who likes what he says). This is why we need exploding collars on every human being and universal access to the remotes.

Rightly worded, the question our second amendment seeks to answer is: How do we defend ourselves against tyranny? What if Elon Musk finally succeeds in developing the Obamatron 5000 (an adamantium android who will steal your guns and white daughters)?

Regardless of which dystopic prophecy you prefer, the fact is that technology is advancing much faster than our access to it. The government monopolizes the ability to kill in mass quantities and the only solution to this is outfitting every man, woman, and child on the planet with a wifi enabled, remote triggered, exploding necklace. This will make possible to all bipeds and monopeds and nolopeds (of the featherless persuasion), life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Too often, when this reasonable option is discussed, people worry that some collars won't work as well as others, that they will be ugly, or that jews might get them first. However, the careful explication of why incendiary neck decoration is necessary usually quells such worries.

Assumptions:

1.) The premise of rights and equality is built on a foundation of force. Ultimately, what isn’t? Even molecules have force fields so why not misuse the homonym? If someone takes away your rights by force, you no longer have them. If you have the right to something but no one can defend it for you, you do not truly have that right. Ron Paul's fanciful ideas of inalienability have a tough time in places where peewee murder ball is the national sport.

2.) Our access to firearms is ultimately the access to force. As inventive terrorists trying to impress the main character of their favorite book continue to prove, there are plenty of other means of force than the one Kansas men use against ISIS engineers posing as computer technicians from India. However, the gun is the traditional symbol of power and safety and is an efficient way to exert force in defense of your rights (plus, it's like, so cool to own a gun, please keep showing me your guns).

3.) If guns are force and force is necessary to preserve rights, I propose to make all equal with remote detonated necklaces we are fitted with at birth and the accompanying remote. The remote gives anyone, anywhere the ability to execute any number of other individuals. It has the ability to be specific to a person or an area or even simply select a random necklace to explode.

To this day, hippy-ass liberal organizations like the NRA advocate the use of primitive powder explosions to defend your rights. This is brainwashing, sheeple. Commercially available guns are as effective as rape whistles in a frat house. We deserve more.

When the government has space birds that can kill me on the toilet (that's where I type and they might try and stop the stream of sensible ideas coming from my throne. If I ever am found dead in the bathroom with a large hole in the roof and a certain 'exploded' look about me, believe me, it wasn't a suicide.), it is imperative that I have equivalent access to force lest someone who failed the SAT's be elected president and they decide they want to throw tantrums such as one might if their chronological age was equivalent to their single digit iq, attacking anyone who criticizes them through the malicious recitation of facts.

My solution will also address the other problem with our second amendment: How do I use a hand gun when I lost my hands when trying to greet the emissary from our robot overlords (my wife still insists it was still our garbage disposal but she can't stop me feeding it the tasty aborted fetuses it desires #liberalvalues)?

So even though toddlers have access to guns, there are still many in our god soaked country who are helpless to the imminent threat of Elon and his Musketeerbots. However, the most differently-abled Luddite could save the world from tyranny if they could kill everyone on the planet with a push of a button. Right now, we have technology that can kill all the human people on earth and it would kill all the deer, bison, and mole people as well but we hardly have time to equip every type of animal with collars too (especially snakes, they will be our most fearsome opposition once combustible vertibreal ornamentation makes man equal).

Currently, the barriers to accessing the ability to kill everyone are too onerous for any Americans and those other things to have more than a papery facade of rights. Even in places where access is pretty lax, there is simply too great of a power imbalance for citizens to have more than a participation trophy of freedom. In the U.S., for example, the access to this power is granted only to those whose mothers dropped them whole unto the sacred soils of Mother America directly upon exiting the womb, surviving for 35 revolutions round an exploding ball of gas, preferably having a clitoris which grew into a penis and ovaries bouncing around in the wrinkled bag their sealed labia made for them, and then you need to win a series of popularity contests. That’s it. There is no IQ test, you don’t need to provide any evidence that you are a decent person or are capable of doing anything you say or undergo any kind of emotional or mental stability evaluation. Basically, be born here, be old enough to wonder why the pop music isn’t as good anymore, probably have a penis, get enough people to hate you less than the other person, and boom, here’s a gun that can kill a fucking world. In such a country, why do we content ourselves with the present theater of autonomy? Why do we not demand the real thing?

North Korea has an Asian dough boy beauty contest, Russia has a game of 'tag, you’re dead' with journalists and opposition to maintain control of enough nukes to simulate the surface of the sun more times than what’s his name has bitchless problems. Germany gives control of it’s nuclear arsenal to the librarian of the year. China... China has... I mean, they’re communist, so... a president? A premier? Trouble reaching tall shelves?

The point is that there are these artificial barriers to getting access to the ability to trigger the nuclear forces of multi-syllabic molecules and turn lots of people into dust. They give us toys and tell us they are the real thing, the present the porn of liberty and convince us we are free. These tyrannically atomic forces needs to be accessible to all, for how can man be equal when less than 1% of the people have the ability to kill the other what is meaningfully 100% of the population? That isn’t equality! Am I equal to a herd of second graders? What if I have a gun and they don't? What if they all have guns and I don't? The point is, everyone needs the ability to kill everyone else. How else will we be equal?

Now, you sensitive snowflakes might quaver in your safe space blankets thinking of just the humans you know being given the ability to kill any other or all others on the planet. But that is the only effective path to peace (but by all means, keep up the virtue signalling 'trade agreements' and 'treaties' and 'concealed carry permits' if that's the voodoo you want to rely on).

Also, that’s pretty much what we have now. There are no mental health evaluations to use these guns. There are no iq tests. Proof or evidence or even the tiniest hint you are not a psychopath with all the guile and wisdom of semisentient pond scum is not required to access the most devastating firepower in history. But we still enact laws and structures and make paperwork trying to protect billionaires and poor people from each other and the government.

We could save so much money if everyone could kill anyone. I am still waiting on an estimate for how much a few billion exploding necklaces (and accompanying remotes) would cost, but I bet it is way less than what we spend developing more roundabout ways of making one another and each other’s children dead.

Children would be the group that benefits the most from this. Even if we keep the remotes locked to their safest setting (self), they will still have an easier time defending themselves against their most deadly threat (themselves (after pools and car accidents but I don't have a plan to kill those yet)) than they do now when they have to crawl all the way to mommy's purse in order to spackle the kitchen in kiddie brains.

You might be inclined to winge that crazy people might kill random folks. Again, that’s what is going on now. It would be easier, however, to defend yourself if a little button was all you needed. Would you want Stephen Hawking on your side in a street fight? Well, now you might not be so dismissive. So next time an untreated (healthcare is not a right, keep our crazies on the street, away from houses where they might hurt real humans) schizophrenic comes at you with gun, you might wish the black hole electric roller derby champ was there with you. You might wish that you had the remote to blow up the head of the mentally ill.

See? Equality. Besides, market forces would quickly drive the development of affordable mental healthcare and childproof remote lockers. It's like the old problem: would you rather be locked in a room with 10 people, one of whom is crazy and guns will be distributed randomly? Or would you rather have everyone have a gun? Either only a few get guns, maybe you, maybe the crazy people; or everyone gets guns and then at least you know you can kill the crazy person (even if it's you).