• ArxCyberwolf
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      67
      ·
      6 months ago

      And have to be visibly armed to stop the cops from harassing you for doing so.

      • Skates@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Yeah, this definitely is one of the more ludicrous things Christians have done. The crusades and the child molestation I was okay with, the inquisition just sounds like an awesome time for everyone, and shoving your religion down the throat of everyone else is just what you do sometimes when you feel you’re right. But making laws against feeding homeless people really makes me wonder if maybe Christians are a bit wrong sometimes.

  • Freefall@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    135
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    As a 2A liberal, I LOVE this. Black Panthers did it right, don’t change what works!

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      111
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Fun fact: California’s anti-gun culture was born out of racism and fear of the Black Panthers.

      Ronald fucking Reagan started the anti-gun movement to disarm black people

      • GroundedGator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        And then continued it federally with bans on assault weapons and magazines over a certain capacity after someone tried to assassinate him.

        I say we should bring back the Reagan approach on gun control.

        • trolololol@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          6 months ago

          You mean shooting presidents? That’s kinda like a tradition in the one country. In other places it’s more normal for US sponsored coups.

      • BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        6 months ago

        Sure, it can’t be that some people are more reasonable and don’t like in a western.

        • NABDad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          No. Sadly, it can’t. It’s the racism. It’s always the racism.

          • Leg@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            It’s an uncanny irony to me when I hear something like “not everything has to be about race” when, at least from the perspective of a non-white, everything in society really does have an unavoidable racial asterisk that we really wish wasn’t there. Racism is a fixed worldwide phenomenon that we have no choice but to acknowledge at this point. It impacts everything.

            • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Well, you have no choice but to acknowledge it. I’m perfectly capable of pretending it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t negatively affect me.

              (That’s sarcasm, if it wasn’t clear. I hate that there are people genuinely living by that maxim.)

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      31
      ·
      6 months ago

      You love it? You don’t look at this and think “This can’t possibly be how a reasonable society works”?

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        When it stops being illegal to help vulnerable people, I’ll stop cheering for folks who open carry firearms to deter cops that might otherwise try to stop them.

      • Themadbeagle@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        6 months ago

        Of course most of us don’t love it. A lot of us live in places where, due to concepts like gerrymandering, we have no political choice, so people have to resort to stuff like this. We love that people are fighting back, not that it has to be this way.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yeah, moving somewhere else isn’t an option, but pow pow bang bang shooty shooty sure is!

      • Freefall@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        It isn’t how reasonable society works. It is how OUR society works. Can’t play by the rules of another game you wish you were playing, you will lose every time.

      • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Not everyone agrees the cops should do whatever they want and sorting it out in court later is the way

        • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          and sorting it out in court later is the way

          Not with cops in US from what i heard. No chance.

          • CileTheSane
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            6 months ago

            That’s like saying the tolerant can’t be intolerant of the intolerant, when in fact they have to be.

            • rekabis
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              And it becomes even more viable when you consider that Popper’s idea is actually based off of a social contract.

              Essentially, tolerance is based on a social contract to be tolerant to each other. If someone is being intolerant, they are explicitly and intentionally removing themselves from the contract. Ergo, they no longer fall under protections, and people can then be intolerant of their intolerance.

                • Senal@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago
                  • Regular Ignorance
                  • Wilful Ignorance
                  • Bad Faith

                  Pick One, possibly two.

                  There will of course be some who haven’t considered this perspective and some who disagree.

                  I’d put money, however, on the vast majority arguing in favour of tolerating intolerance are the people this concept is talking about.

                  The actively intolerant using the tolerance of others to enact further intolerance.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          6 months ago

          And the key to getting to a reasonable society is for everybody to wear guns.

  • Perhapsjustsniffit
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    120
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’ve been following some of these folks on social media who do this every couple of weeks. It’s crazy. The police were arresting them for giving away food. So they went through the courts and won the right to feed homeless people. Crazy right. The even crazier part is the cops sit across the street every single time they give out free food and hygiene items and harass them, take photos and other ACAB sort of shit. 4-6 cruisers at a time. Insane.

    • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Its only crazy if you don’t want to look at why they’re doing it square in the eye. Please don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t judge anyone doing it, presuming it does apply a little you yourself. I could be wrong of course. The truth is very, very ugly and not something anyone would want to be true.

      Despite their claims, the problem was never the cost to the government of feeding the homeless, as can be seen. The reason the police do this is that wage slaves won’t be forced back into the worst, most poorly paid jobs we can find if they’re not facing death by starvation.

      It was the same in the UK, back when they made feeding the homeless illegal and the penalty being being homeless OR without a job for 3 days was being sent to the workhouse where you might well be worked to death.

      Its the same thing, centuries apart.

      • ameancow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        The reason the police do this is that wage slaves won’t be forced back into the worst, most poorly paid jobs we can find if they’re not facing death by starvation.

        Systemically, yes this is why the police are allowed broadly by society to discourage helping those in need.

        On a more personal, fundamental and visceral level, it’s because the police are a product of people who have held power for a long, long time. And you know what poor and homeless people are to the systems that maintain the status quo? They’re an inconvenient reminder that our system is designed to benefit a few, and that there are people hoarding gold and diamond backscratchers for every day of the week while children starve on the street.

        That’s a pretty downer reminder, isn’t it? Throw in some of our human vices that we all share from top to bottom like substance abuse and you have a complete picture of what any of us could become if we’re not careful.

        See, for the vast majority of comfortable Americans, the homeless they pass every day are not reminders that humans need help, they are a reminder of failure. In a world where success is measured in dollar signs and possessions, someone without either is a scary, harsh reminder that we’re all on a tightrope.

        Brush them aside. Put them somewhere. Get them into some kind of “camp” and shuffle them out of view, lest they spoil this perfect image we have created of the modern world.

      • Jerkface (any/all)
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        That is the role of the state and capitalists but that is not what is on the mind of an abusive cop. They believe the bullshit.

    • radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I had1 a friend in middle school who shared my name. We’d hang out together all the time and play Super Mario Bros 3 and ride our bikes all over and shit. Dude was chill. Then he went into the army, came out, and become a cop in Dallas PD.

      1Had.

    • SendPicsofSandwiches@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s food serving legislation being taken too far. The clothes I think are fine, but since they’re not inspected by the health department like a restaurant the government can technically shut it down which is complete bullshit.

      • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        No, the Good Samaritan Act says free food doesn’t have to be inspected as long as it’s given “in good faith apparently wholesome food or apparently fit grocery products to a nonprofit organization for ultimate distribution to needy individuals”

        https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2020/08/13/good-samaritan-act-provides-liability-protection-food-donations

        All fifty states and the District of Columbia have additional food donation statues that limit food donor’s liability—these currently vary widely, such as by who (i.e., donors, nonprofit organizations), and what foods and food products are covered.

        state laws may provide greater protection against liability, but not less

        • SendPicsofSandwiches@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          6 months ago

          Anecdotally, I don’t think so. I used to do some work with a place that did a lot of charity work and would get together bi-weekly to talk about travel and have a banquet. The banquet was always prepared and served in accordance with the law, and there were often tons of leftovers. So we would give the leftovers to the homeless. The health department fined us because we weren’t allowed to serve food outside of our establishment.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            6 months ago

            That’s what the to-go bags are for.

            When I was living on the streets of Boston, one day a random dude showed up giving out McDonalds cheeseburgers. Didn’t look very official. He just rolled up with a big bag and started giving them out.

              • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                6 months ago

                The double cheeseburgers differ from the McDouble only in that the McDouble has one more slice of cheese.

                The double cheeseburgers are also buy one, get one for $1. Here in denver that means $4.50 for two of them.

                Probably the most bang for your buck if they’ve got the same deal going there.

                • Retrograde@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Hell yeah, it’s embarrassing but I did already know this, lol. Double cheese for life. Also, Denver for life, I’m from Colorado originally :)

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Did you have some kind of serve safe license that was limited? I wonder why the rules were different than a restaurant letting people take leftovers home.

            Were you guys handing out huge trays of food like after thanksgiving or a party, like “who wants this half a turkey in these ziplock bags”, or was it more like a bunch of to go containers handed out?

            Seems like the seal of government approval on a person’s ability to handle food safety should apply equally to serving in the restaurant and to prepping food for serving outside that building. Right? Just too complex to have it separated out like that.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Package the leftovers into “meals” (perhaps “family meals”). Have your people order those “meals” through Doordash.

            Your people can then (optionally) sign into their Dasher accounts to make those deliveries.

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        If only there were some way to fact check … some video evidence of what happened … if only they had YouTube channels documenting all of it.

        Ah well, let’s not even bother to look it up.

        • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Its not a crime to feed homeless people. They say that because they want to cause division in the US and anger against the government.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Look up how many times “Food Not Bombs” gets arrested for feeding the homeless.

        • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          6 months ago

          More like look up what OP says and realize its bullshit. Lemmy has become so disappointing with all the blind acceptance of this kind of nonsense.

              • Syrc@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                This article talks about the ordinance. Yes, you can feed them in specific situations and places. Still, you can’t tell me it isn’t making it intentionally hard to do.

                • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Pretty big assumption that all the governments in the many cities with laws like this are evil people coordinating efforts to starve homeless people.

        • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Like the fact that that headline is sensational and wrong? Its not illegal to feed homeless people in those cities, the city governments just require people to get permits and do it in a safe way.

  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Texas boggles my mind because it’s such a blue state with some of the deepest red politicians running the place.

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 months ago

          Congressional districts should have a perimiter-area ratio limit, and the largest district should not be allowed to contain 10% more people than the smallest district.

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I like that and it would probably work better than suing over a gerrymandered map only for the courts to uphold the crazy district, exactly what happened with the Texas 2nd Congressional District map.

            Honestly with our current level of technology, a more direct democracy approach like a popular vote representation based on stance alignment would probably work better. For example, Average Joe would optionally select a party and then vote on policies, and the representatives would have selected their policies to align with constituents. Policies and candidates on ballot would be chosen through a regular primary, so each party might have separate policies on the ballot. Independents could select a mix of each and get automatically assigned a politician.

            I bet the GOP wouldn’t even oppose it because they love forcing people to commit to a party.

    • Halosheep@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      A whole lot of empty land seems to have really important votes, since theirs seems to count for more than mine.

    • caboose2006
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Too bad this is an extremely rare use case, but yes this is exactly the INTENT of the second amendment.

      • aski3252@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Does it actually work? Because I fear that it doesn’t and just gives cops/the state even more excuses to further militarize police in the long teem.

        I’m not antigun, but this seems like an arms race you can’t win.

        • caboose2006
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          It does. Armed peaceful protesters don’t get hassled by the police. These are armed peaceful protesters and they were not hassled. It worked for the black panthers. Cops only brutalize the weak.

          • Blackmist@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            6 months ago

            Well I’m not sure it worked that well for Fred Hampton or the MOVE guys.

            There’s always a danger of escalation, and the boys in blue have no upper limit.

          • aski3252@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            Armed peaceful protesters don’t get hassled by the police.

            There were quite a few shoot outs between panthers and cops, no? Some even argue that the increasing use of “swat” was, in part, because of black panthers.

            Again, I’m not speaking out against armed groups, but it seems a bit romantized to say “armed protesters don’t get hasseled”…

          • 0^2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            I’m pretty sure there are some statistics on the mental profiles of cops the people who end up becoming them being people who enjoy power.

            • Glytch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              More will be willing once they realize that the state will kill them whether they support it or not.

      • doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        The INTENT of the second amendment was protect the states’ militias from being disarmed by the feds. So that enslavers like Washington could rest assured that his slave state of Virginia wouldn’t be liberated by the feds

    • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      I mean, that was always the point.

      To fight tyrannical bullshit.

      It’s just that purist assholes don’t want any regulation whatsoever - so that anyone, anyone can get a gun. And welp… the tragic bullshit happens.

      I’m not pro-gun or anti-gun. I’m pro-common-sense.

      • doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        6 months ago

        No it wasn’t. The second amendment was written to protect tyrannical bullshit. The slaveowners wanted to make sure the federal government couldn’t disarm their state-owned militias

            • vonbaronhans@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              I took a look at their comment history. They don’t seem like a troll to me. Maybe a bit further left than myself, but that’s not always a bad thing.

          • doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            You just posted a federalist society goon. He’s one of the people that worked on the great American project to make abortion illegal, and the president a king. I mean, you’re trying to prove your point by posting the arguments of an extreme right wing lawyer https://fedsoc.org/contributors/stephen-halbrook

            The text of the second amendment is pretty clearly talking about militias, and the history shows the same. The individualist interpretation is very recent, and Heller was a shitty decision written by the most corrupt supreme coirt justice. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2020/10/why-heller-is-such-bad-history

            I’m not anti-gun. I respect the fuck out of the people in OP, who are doing what they can to stay safe. I wouldn’t discourage them from doing so. but I hate right wing propaganda

            • vonbaronhans@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              I’m unsure what you’re arguing against.

              To my knowledge, the link I provided wasn’t a treatise on individual ownership or saying that it wasn’t about militias. It was a direct rebuttal to the idea that the 2nd amendment was proposed to protect slavery.

              I was unaware of Halbrook’s associations, so thank you for bringing that to my attention. However, even a broken clock is right twice a day. If you’d like to change my mind about this, I’d like to see a direct rebuttal of the facts and arguments presented.

              • doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                I’m arguing against the idea that the second amendment was designed to protect individuals against tyrannical government

                I didn’t say it was specifically/exclusively to protect slavery. I didn’t say anything about slave rebellions. The constitution was all about balancing the power of wealthy landed slaveholders of the south with the wealthy landed urbanites of the north. Ensuring state militias was one element of that balancing act.

                Pretending the second amendment was written to protect against tyrannical governments is ahistorical right wing propaganda. * Unless you view it as one sovereign being protected from the tyranny of another. Eg Virginia is protected from the tyranny of Pennsylvania or vis versa

                If you want to read a rebuttal of halbrooks legal theory, read the Heller dissents

                • vonbaronhans@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Okay. But, I didn’t say anything about tyrannical governments, either. Only that the 2nd amendment didn’t seem to be driven by any sort of slave related anything, per the history presented in the link I read.

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Every single protest should have an armed contingent in America. That is the only way cops will take you seriously, but make sure you dot the i’s and cross the t’s, because your permits better be current.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      6 months ago

      This gives the cops license to start slaughtering protestors. They’re allowed to kill if they have a reason to fear for their safety.

      • madcaesar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Nope. Cops are bullies and cowards by nature. They love to swing their dicks around unarmed, peaceful protesters.

        Any sign of any possible resistance or discomfort and they’ll suddenly turn into pillars of restraint and caution.

        IE look at all the armed Nazi protests, or uvlade or any other of the myriad of examples.

        • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          There’s a reason why cops are polite at the Nazi protests, and it isn’t because the protesters are armed.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      150
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Yes, it deters the cops. You have to understand that many or most cops are paranoid, cowards, and bullies. They aren’t going around enforcing laws because they think that they need to uphold justice. Rather, they’re going around power tripping. And it’s not such a great power trip if you have to worry about getting shot because people think that you’re dirty.

      Of course this is not true for all cops all the time, but it’s certainly true for many cops most of the time.

      • Tattorack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        *American cops.

        Everything you just said would not be true of, for example, Danish cops. Or French cops, for that matter.

          • Tattorack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            My point exactly. If you’re going to do something with weapons on display in France because of the police, the police are only going to take that as a provocation. There’d be a fire fight.

        • orcrist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 months ago

          The French cops are notoriously dirty, my friend. They have their own similar issues. We saw this during the protests a while back, and that’s even international news…

          • lad@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Judging by another reply, ey meant that French cops will engage in a fight rather than chicken out. That doesn’t make them the good guys, of course

        • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          The police are an arm of the state formed specifically for the purpose of maintaining a societies class structure because the laws they enforce are dictated by that societies ruling class. French and Danish cops absolutely will do whatever the state tells them because its their job, they are law enforcers not law interpreters. One day shit will go down hill for the French and Danish ruling class and when that happens they will use their law enforcers to maintain their standard of living which is to say their positions of power and wealth. This is very normal and becomes quite clear when you learn the history of labor and civil rights movements all over the world.

    • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      118
      ·
      6 months ago

      It stopped the cops from entering a school while someone slaughtered 19 kids and 2 adults and that was just 1 person with a gun. So I’d say this would.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      The thing is, those guns cause pain and injury by ejecting small pieces of metal so fast they go right through you.

      That pain and injury is a deterrence, yes. Even in Texas.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        6 months ago

        A single armed guy in a Texas school will attract cops at a medium distance but repel them at a short distance.

    • chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yes I have. It’s called a sword cane. I happen to have some knee damage, and if I play up my limp a bit, no one even looks twice at my cane.

        • chaogomu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          6 months ago

          I did, something like 15 years back.

          It’s okay quality, but I did have to fix the rattle of the sheath. Just ripped one of the faces off a piece of cardboard, and then rolled it up and shoved it in the sheath. Now the cane doesn’t rattle at all when you shake it, but it still draws smoothly.

          Honestly, any of my solid canes would make a great weapon, but people never realize it, so the sword cane is mostly for the intimidation option.

          Almost anyone can recognize a sword as a weapon, even if I could ruin your day just as much with a wooden hook cane.

    • Fishbone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      Big dresses and a lotta cleavage means you got no idea who’s got a concealed sword at a ren faire.

        • Fishbone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          lol I’m not describing myself here, I’m just a fish with no meat.

          It’s just been (oddly, I think) a recurring thing that multiple friends have done at ren faires (and costume parties). I know at least 3 people who have done the concealed boob sword thing, and plenty of extras who opted for bottles of hard alcohol instead.