Previous Post
Next Post

“Conservative pundits are quick to cite what I think of as a straw man—that there’s some kind of leftist boogeyman coming to take away the Second Amendment, and to my knowledge, there never has actually been one.” Clearly, Brooklyn artist Joshua Smith [via] doesn’t get out much. Or use Google. Anyway, Mr. Smith “likes the idea of inhabiting that space.” Edgy! And so . . .

Smith is proposing what he’s termed a Gun Violence Amendment to the United States Constitution that would repeal the Second Amendment—the foundation for firearm-ownership rights in the U.S.—and prohibit the “manufacturing, transportation or importation . . . of pump-action, semi-automatic or automatic firearms.”

The unending back and forth on the topic of gun violence coupled with the lack of substantive action to address it is part of what drew him to the issue. “It’s infuriating, so that’s inspiring as an artist,” he said. Given the laws and jurisprudence that support gun ownership, Smith feels that an amendment is the only way of adequately proceeding.

Just for S&G’s, here’s the text of Mr. Smith’s Gun Violence Amendment:

Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The manufacturing, transportation or importation in or into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of pump-action, semi-automatic or automatic firearms is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within ten years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

It would be awesome if The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Americans for Final Responsible Solutions, Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America et al. would get behind this Amendment, too. Talk about outing the opposition . . .

While these groups no doubt support Mr. Smith’s end game, there’s no chance they’d declare their true intentions. Instead, they hide behind weasel words. “We support the Second Amendment, but… INSERT IMPRACTICAL CIVILIAN DISARMAMENT TROPE HERE.”

As for Mr. Smith’s “art” . . .

On Thursday night, Smith will present a lecture on his proposed amendment at Artists Space in Downtown Manhattan and display 28 photographs of flowers that he recently photographed in Central Park, one for each person who died in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012. “It is a visual representation of gun violence, or just what you can do with an automatic weapon,” Smith said.

For the past two years, whenever he has heard about a mass shooting in the U.S., Smith has posted a brief animation on Instagram that shows black scribbles consuming—blacking out—the logo of the National Rifle Association.

“I thought that defacing their logo was a really interesting gesture—so simple and such a craving, you know?” Smith said. “Just deleting them from the face of the earth, because they’re villain number one for America, because they are responsible for so much harm and so much pain for so many people.”

Mr. Smith’s website doesn’t include any photos for this exhibit. But it does offer a selection of his black and white photographic series Vacancies. A more sarcastic writer might suggest that his latest project indicates a vacancy between Mr. Smith’s ears, but I couldn’t possibly comment.

Previous Post
Next Post


      • I can respect a mans honesty in his opinion, while still vehemetly disagreeing with said opinion. Besides, I appreciate a gun grabber being honest in their intentions for once.

        • I will respect his honesty on this point but it’s not enough to justify respecting the man.

    • “…Section 2. The manufacturing, transportation or importation in or into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of pump-action, semi-automatic or automatic firearms is hereby prohibited.”

      18th Amendment – Prohibition of Alcohol
      Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to its jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

      His proposed anti-firearm (prohibition) amendment sounded strangely familiar. Does he not understand how the 18th amendment affect America and the amount of crime and death it created, along with a gangster legacy we are still dealing with?

      That’s not to mention that since ratification NOT ONE SINGLE LINE of any of the Bill of Rights has been altered, amended, re-written, revoked or repealed by any Constitutional means. To do so, even the legitimate attempt to do so, is to set an extremely dangerous precedent.

      And we do not have to go into the argument that we are referring to a natural, civil and CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT that will continue to exist whether or not this ass manages to gt the Second Amendment repealed.

      • So, does he expect the military and police to go back to single shots or las…Er, “directed energy weapons”?
        Or just harsh language, and maybe some water ballons filled with pee if it gets real nasty.
        If you have no real brains and/or work ethic, “artist” is the profession for you.
        (But, yes, some artists are true craftsmen, visionaries, hard workers, and a benefit to society.)

      • “since ratification NOT ONE SINGLE LINE of any of the Bill of Rights has been altered, amended, re-written, revoked or repealed by any Constitutional means”

        But that has not stopped the left from passing numerous state and federal laws restricting our rights that “shall not be infringed”.

    • Which will be about as well as it worked in the 1930s, or as well as it has worked in the UK and Australia. Or Russia, the Balkans, China, Canada, Any South American country.

  1. It always amazes me when these people who claim to be so interested in stopping violence put forth proposals that are sure to bring violence on a level they that is apparently unfathomable to them. I think they must be non-sentient beings. It’s the only thing that explains such deeply held, yet poorly considered opinions.

    • “that there’s some kind of leftist boogeyman coming to take away the Second Amendment, and to my knowledge, there never has actually been one.” 
      And then the progressive presents himself as precisely that boogeyman.

    • Yup. And he got it. From a gun website, no less. Attention is attention, publicity is publicity.

    • Naww…attention is just a means to an end. What I bet he really wants is an NEA grant…..funded by taxpayers…..under penalty of tax law…..enforced by……men with GUNS.

      I guess he isn’t really anti-gun violence, after all. He just prefers to be on the winning (read: profitable) side.

    • and gattling guns.

      Regardless, it is a moot point if one lacks the right to keep and bear them.

  2. An artist you say? Are we sure this doofus isn’t just trying to sell his crap? BTW-all you NRA bashers take notice who the “bogeyman” ALWAYS turns out to be…sending in my extension of my NRA membership from latest Taurus.

    • That is one of the best reasons to support the NRA: it pisses off people like this “artist” chump. The NRA takes all the heat from the anti-gunners, which frees up the other pro-2A orgs to fight and win court cases.

    • Exactly, Notice he is not blacking out the logos of NAGR, SAF, GOA, etc. Those are fine organizations but everyone knows gun rights will stand or fall by the efforts and the heavy lifting done by the NRA (even if it’s really the NRA-ILA) doing the lifting. The anti’s don’t really care that those other organizations exist. If the NRA goes down then the blood will be in the water and the perceptions will shift.

      Love ’em or hate ’em, the NRA is where the front line is. I will renew my membership again.

  3. If memory serves, he’ll need two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, and two-thirds of the state legislatures to ratify.

    Good luck with that, Mr. Smith.

    • He knows that there is no way it could come into being. This is just his way of building notoriety and benefitting from the knee-jerk purchases of his art by rich members of his political party. Do you think any self-respecting artist would do anything as trite as taking pictures of flowers for the victims of gun violence? He’s smart enough to know he has an instant “fan-base” for that stuff. It’s like when all those various politicians wanted to get Hillary’s attention by loudly proposing symbolic nonsense before the election.

      • Never? Politics can swing both ways and demographics are more on the anti side long term. While a full repeal has no traction today, 50 years from now maybe a different story. Look at 1967. Look at 1917. Alot has changed over time.

    • Or he could get it via the back door with just an additional 1/9 of the Supreme Court.

      • “he could get it via the back door”
        Heh, of course… but let’s not descend to that level yet, we don’t really know him.

    • Ratification requires three quarters of the states, actually.

      Translation: not a chance in hell.

      • Never say never. In your lifetime, Connecticut went from home of the industry; to a very Anti gun place

  4. Guns aren’t the problem. People are the problem…… let’s just eliminate the people! (Sarc)

    Sadly, this would be the next step if the second was actually repealed.

  5. Just deleting [the NRA] from the face of the earth, because they’re villain number one for America, because they are responsible for so much harm and so much pain for so many people.

    Of the five million NRA members, approximately five million of them have not committed a crime using a firearm. Ever.

    Of the tens of thousands of violent criminals in any given year who have committed violent crime using a gun, approximately zero of them were NRA members.

    Clowns like this artist, talking about wiping five million law-abiding citizens from the face of the earth is, quite frankly, the reason that the second amendment exists.

  6. I don’t get the hate for the NRA. I see them accused of convincing cops to murder people, of handing out guns to white supremacist militias, of giving guns to thugs and so much more. Am I missing something? Do I need to attend a meeting to see what’s being mentioned? Last I checked, the NRA doesn’t give or sell guns to anyone.

    • Well, the NRA does raffle off hundreds of guns annually through their Friends of the NRA events. I only mention that as a plug for those events, not to be a smart a$$. They’re lots of fun; check out what’s offered in your area.

      You make a great point here. The left libels the NRA, in part for allegedly fomenting lethal, illegal, racist violence among police, aka, armed agents of the government.
      Then they turn around and offer up a great solution: let’s disarm the People and leave them helpless against armed agents of the government.

      It’s as though their thinking not only cannot surpass the range of the moment, but cannot even conceive that it is thus limited.

      • Life seems so simple to me. If you’re afraid of being oppressed A, do things legally. B, lobby your elected representatives to change unfair laws. C, arm yourself.

        I don’t care what your skin color, gender, or sexual preference is. If you do those 3 easy things, you’ll find less trouble and more defense if trouble finds you.

        I have a shooting buddy who’s gay. I joined the Pink Pistols because they’re a pro gun gay group and I think that’s awesome. They welcomed me even though I’m straight and I welcomed them even though we don’t agree on every government policy.

        The biggest threat to Democrat disarmament agenda is when their constituency discovers the joys of shooting, the benefits of being armed, and talks to us horrible, racist, sexist, homophobic gun owners and realizes we’re not the demons they’ve been told we are.

        • Interesting. Well, I’m not saying that I’m not horrible, demonic and all the rest. Let’s just say for the sake if argument that I am. All that any object of my hypothetical hatred needs to know is that I have no interest in or intention of harming anyone, whether by firearms or other means.

          This is America. You should be free to hate whomever you want, up until the point that you elect to act on that impulse and hurt someone. At such point, you have become the criminal, the problem in need of solution.

    • Timothy,

      The freedom hating leftists need someone, or something, to demonize, vilify and blame for their failures. Blaming the people who elect the legislators who vote down their gun-grabbing schemes would require publicly admitting that they lack popular appeal.

  7. From one artist to the other, GFY Joshua Smith.
    A repeal of the 2nd Amendment is as smart as repealing or *pearl clutching* infringing your 1st Amendment right to artistic expression as being without merit, artistic worth, or obscene. The largely left leaning art community is as corrupted by elites as the Democratic party, it is the reason this shyt you call art is allowed. It serves a political purpose to cater to these fellow travelers and provides a financial incentive for you and the other puscy hat wearing phlucktards.

    I’m sick of seeing the blatant Democratization of art in my local community and in the country at large. It is a cheap cop out, and the basest form of whoring yourself for money. Your purpose you dingbat is to champion the PEOPLE, regardless of political leanings, it is to INSPIRE not INCITE. You are just another shell, for a larger force to wield its power through you. You are everything wrong with art today.

    Do a coffee table book on the difference between real guns, and the fake guns that auntygun codpieces believe exists. A 14 X 20 HD image of an AR15 on one page and the mythic Ghost Gun on the other, with a 30 round clipazine with the thing that goes up. I’d buy that book in a heartbeat to laugh at! That’s lucrative. Call it Ghosts of Guns or something catchy.

  8. Sorry idiot..the Bill of Rights DOES NOT GIVE US OUR RIGHTS…it merely enumerates of GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. You can’t “repeal” rights that I have simply by being born. Same thing with my freedom of speech, etc.

    So go ahead and “repeal”…you then become an illegitimate govt who is trying to take away my God given rights….thank god I have guns to defend them…Oh wait! Huh…maybe that’s why the 2nd is there in the first place.

  9. What a Trite bastard!

    he is a Superficial and even Lazy artist!
    Art is about Original Ideas, this is as regurgitated and consumed as dog vomit.

  10. There are lots of initiatives to start a Constitutional convention, he should join one of them. I doubt his amendment will be adopted, but it might at least be considered.

    • And most people who want a constitutional convention don’t realize that in such a convention, the entire constitution is up for grabs, not just the parts they don’t like. That’s one of the major reasons there’s never been one (except for the first one, which gave us our current constitution in 1787).

      • As someone who supports an Article 5 Convention, I am well aware there will be attempts by fringe lunatic groups to abolish the second amendment. But I am equally confident such proposals will not make it far, especially not in today’s political climate. In the unlikely chance any proposed anti-2a amendment does get accepted, it will still require majority of the states to ratify it, and if you haven’t paid attention to the map in recent years, observation of the 2A has expanded, not shrunk.

        Besides, it’s not like current legislatures and Judges aren’t ignoring the Constitution or the 2A in any way, shape, or form anyways. /sarc

  11. “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.” – Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

  12. May as well get a jump on things and repeal the rest while we’re at it since that will be the end result anyway.

  13. You can chuck the whole Constitution. You just can’t repeal the Declaration of Independence (specifically Para. 2). That will be enforced by a new Constitution, after some serious unleashed hell, and Brooklyn just earned a little extra.

  14. Why don’t we just mash all the Northeastern U.S. States into one and call it (D)bag (officially, un-officially it’s already called (D)bag).

      • Wish you could see it from here.

        NY is one of the ‘bigger’ states in the Northeastern U.S., and it still doesn’t make the top half of the list of U.S. states in area. They could pack another hundred jillion illegal aliens within their borders and not represent another square inch of the United States, or its values.

        Conversely, we could pack 3x to 100 x the number of illegal aliens within our borders and not be as big a pack of dictatorial aholes.

        you gotta just stay the F put.

  15. I definitely agree. The language of the 2A is somewhat ambiguous, and it should be replaced:

    “The right of individuals to bear arms, of any type, of any degree of lethality, is absolute. Anybody attempting to restrict this right in any manner, including by international treaty, judicial order, or legislation, shall be committing treason and, if found guilty, subject to execution.”

    • The execution part is pretty extreme, but this is much more likely to pass than repeal. Republicans control 32 state legislatures, so they would need only six more to ratify.

  16. Is no one noticing he said an Automatic weapon was used in Sandy Hook? These people really just get an idea in their had and never release it.

  17. Pump action??? Even the fudds won’t like that one!

    Good luck getting 3/4 of both houses to pass such an amendment.

    What a bunch of maroons.

    Make no mistake about it. The gun control agenda is incremental.

  18. No exclusions for police or the military. Perhaps if he’d put more than 30 seconds of thought into it….

    • But, hey, this will lead to a resurgence of the Springfield 03 and the .38 police special.just what you need to go up against a AK-47/sarcasm

  19. Yawn, another Castrati. Piss off. I had enough Castrati over the 8 year Obama term.

  20. Pass as many ignorant gun laws you want it will NEVER STOP EVIL. No guns? They’ll use hands and feet, knives, sticks, rocks, ropes and so on.

    • No, we would the ones stuck using hands and feet, et al; criminals will still have their guns, because if they gave a shit about laws, they wouldn’t be criminals.

      Don’t play the gun-grabber’s game by saying bad guys will just do y in the absence of x, because that just gives them a springboard to launch into their usual stats & talking points. Besides, if they had any problem with crime victims who are beaten, stabbed or strangled, they’d have called themselves “Crime Control” activists.

  21. I applaud him for his honesty about his intentions, his willingness to do things the right way by amending the constitution instead of violating it, and his lack of a carve-out for law enforcement and military weapons.

  22. There is no gun violence epidemic. He has been misinformed by his liberal idiot media. Gun violence is at record lows. Along with all violent crime. The only gun violence issues are in small parts of inner cities. Primarily in the black communities there. That’s it. The biggest issue is law abiding citizens in those violent neighborhoods are prohibited from owning good self defense firearms. He’s trying to address a problem that doesn’t exist.

  23. Noted that the majority of commentary is simple bar talk, and tiresome repetition of character assassination. This is why we can’t have nice things.

    Finally, a gun grabber comes straight out and advocates for the correct method of pursuing gun control/confiscation; constitutional amendment. And POTG slobber crap all over themselves.

    We can only win if someone would actually launch a proposed amendment. Such would be crushed, likely quickly. That just may put things to rest, because failure of an amendment would be a useful tool to undo all the gun control legislation existing. If the constitution cannot be amended by the vote of the people (because they do not support it), where then is the justification of all the laws trying to circumvent the amendment process?

    Heck, whether there is any lasting, or far-reaching, degradation of current gun laws, watching state, after state, reject “common sense gun control” would be worth the price of the entertainment.

  24. Yeah, well I want an amendment put into the constitution that demands a new bikini model arrive at my house, prim and proper for my entertainment every week. Really my amendment stands a better chance of passing than his.

    • You don’t specify age, gender, or minimum level of attractiveness. Could be a great government jobs program for workers displaced by automation and outsourcing….

  25. This is strictly my opnion and right or wrong I’m going to say this as some won’t agree, but it needs to be said.

    Any American that calls for the repeal or removal of any Amendment in the Bill of Rights needs to forfeit their citizenship and move to another country as calling for the repeal of any Amendment in the Bill of Rights is Un-American and implication of such methods is a clear indication that they do not understand our Country and they aren’t trying to understand. Therefore they have no right to reside or be a citizen of our Country because they cannot appreciate it’s merits and only focus on trying fixing what they think are it’s flaws.

    From now on I’m calling out anyone that would call for the repeal or removal of any Amendment in the Bill of Rights!

    If they refuse to fight for freedom all of it with it’s merits and it’s flaws then they don’t deserve to benefit from said freedom!

    • So, everyone who voted to repeal Prohibition was un-American?

      What can be more American than formally amending the constitution? Were the founders un-American for not making provision to prohibit the repeal of any amendment?

      • “So, everyone who voted to repeal Prohibition was un-American?”

        Nope. Everyone who voted to instate it in the first place sure as Hell was, though.

        What, exactly, is the point you’re trying to make here? That this imbecile has the same understanding of Constitutional provisions that anyone who paid attention in 8th-grade Civics class should have? Whoop-de-freakin’ doo. Until he can also name the 38 states he believes will ratify his proposed amendment, I’d suggest you save your adoration for those who want to protect our rights, not dismantle them.

        • He/she stated that anyone, anyone, who voted to repeal any, any amendment is un-American. He/she made the charge, and the charge requires consistency not only in statement, but in application.

          And yes, if someone does not know that the amendment process is entirely “American”, they forfeit the privilege of being taken seriously.

        • Sam I Am, that’s not what he said.
          Here’s the quote: “Any American that calls for the repeal or removal of any Amendment in the Bill of Rights needs to forfeit their citizenship and move to another country as calling for the repeal of any Amendment in the Bill of Rights is Un-American and implication of such methods is a clear indication that they do not understand our Country and they aren’t trying to understand.”
          Not “any, any” amendment, but one in the Bill of Rights.
          Does that change your opinion?

          • “Not “any, any” amendment, but one in the Bill of Rights.”

            Yes, indeed. He/she did write that. And I overlooked it, to take on a bigger issue.

            The founders did not fence-off the BOR from amendment, or repeal. The BOR encompasses the first ten amendments, not the ten commandments. So, my question remains, “Are the founders un-American because they did not prohibit amendments to the BOR (or any other provision of the constitution)?

            • Are the Founders un American for yada yada yada? No I don’t think so. However the point the other fellow is I think trying to make is that the BoR has remained unchanged long enough that a unique culture and heritage has grown up because of it. What I hear him saying is that to even attempt to change the BoR is to subvert this unique culture & heritage that is American. That anyone claiming to be American is claiming to be a apart of. For one to attempt to subvert their own culture demonstrates a profound lack of cultural understanding and should therefore void any benefits associated with membership in previously stated culture & heritage.

              • Have never seen “subversion” defined as an action taken via the existing legal framework authorizing said action. If the founders had wanted to make permanent (in perpetuity) any provision of the constitution, they were equipped with the analytical and reasoning abilities to include that provision in the document. At the very least, they would have put the idea on the table for discussion, and those notes would be available to us, today. The fact that the framers permitted “certain unalienable rights” to be regulated via the amendment process means doing so cannot be “un-American”.

              • Sam I am: “Have never seen “subversion” defined as an action taken via the existing legal framework authorizing said action.”
                I’ll bet you have.
                One example: Swatting. A subversion of a legal action to harass someone.

              • “Swatting” is not legal in my little corner. “Swatting” is not legal in many little corners of the country. “Swatting” is not a legal, specifically authorized action on the part of anyone. Amending the constitution, even to the point of abolishing the constitution is a legally authorized activity. There is not even a scintilla of “illegal” (subversive) about it.

                Were the founders aware of the risks of the government they established? Of course. Franklin is credited with noting we have a republic, “if you can keep it.”

              • The BoR now has the weight of tradition in addition to the weight of law behind it. So to challenge that tradition while not technically un American from a legal viewpoint is still under desirable.

                P.S. I said they were subverting the culture not the law.

              • We agree. But “undesirable” is not “subversive”.

                When I was in uniform, people would sometimes ask me about being military in a nation that was becoming so anti-military. My answer was always the same, “We in the military stand to the wall to defend this nation, even if the people of the nation tear it down, brick-by-brick. We defend the right of the people to obliterate the nation, if that is their choice.”

                Even converting this nation, via the ballot box, into a third-world banana republic is not “subversive”.

              • You are correct, undesirable is not subversive in the same way an airplane is not a jet.
                To work against the culture and traditions esspoused in the BoR (even if by the legal frame work to do so) is by definition subverting and therefore undesirable.

                For society to remain stable there must be concepts that are sacrosanct. Freedom of expression, right to life liberty & pursuit of happiness, I could go on but brain is spongy.

              • “Freedom of expression,…”

                See? Right there. Freedom. Expression. Vote. Change. Legal and legitimate. There is nothing sacrosanct about anything human caused, thought, built, stated, believed. Everything is subject to scrutiny, agreement, objection, modification, eradication, support. The issue is how many people in the society accept anything, at any time.

              • Just because something is legal to do does not automatically mean it must be societally condoned. It is morally wrong to legally bar someone the attempt to change the BoR, just as it is morally wrong to attempt the change in the first place.

              • The moral equivalence you want to assign to retaining and repealing the BOR is a false one. The real equivalence is that both exist because the founders established the legal and political means to do both. But let’s take a specific example: third amendment.

                What is immoral about a government requiring a people to provide housing for the very security forces they depend on to protect them from external enemies? You want military security? Be prepared to pay sufficient taxes to keep them out of your house, or offer up your abode to ensure the security force is properly housed and fed. The founders of the US determined that “quartering” troops among the populace was intolerable because the populace was not rich enough to house themselves, and two or three soldiers. Today’s military has fixed positions (bases) to maintain security forces; paid for through taxes. Would it be immoral to repeal a meaningless (useless?) amendment to the BOR?

                If morality is the basis for the BOR, what is the morality of having an amendment that serves no purpose at all?

              • Well given that the founders were against a standing army in the first place, means the permanent housing positions were also not intended either hence the continuing need to bar Congress from requiring average American s to house the temporary army.

      • Umm, he specifically said Bill of Rights. The BoR is only amendment 1-10, prohibition doesn’t count.

        • You are correct about the comment being restricted to the BOR. However, the framers did not prohibit repeal of any portion of the BOR, nor any other amendment. My question about the framers being un-American for not prohibiting changes to the constitution, including the BOR, stands.

  26. Wow, a radio antenna protruding from the right front fender! How retro! One could make a .22 caliber zip gun with this!

  27. Looks like there is no exemption for the military or police. Blanket prohibition. Like most antigun proposals, not well thought out.

    • I’d call that a good thing. We should applaud him for the lack of carve out and exemptions.

  28. Brooklyn NY has extreme gun laws in place already, dickhead. How’s that working out? There are more guns than citizens in the US, and most aren’t registered. Tough luck for you limp-wristed anti-gunners. Even if you were right to attack gun ownership you will NEVER be able to get rid of guns in the US. NEVER. How does that taste?

  29. LOL, his amendment has no exceptions for the military!
    If his amendment passed, the U.S. Army would have to go back to using 19th century weapons to fight 21st century wars with lever-action rifles, bolt-action rifles, revolvers, and derringers! Maybe Gatling guns would be a loophole in the amendment that the U.S. Army could exploit, the old-fashioned crank-operated Civil War Gatling guns. Then the U.S. Army can recruit cowboy action shooters from SASS. I’ve got a new recruitment slogan for them: “Join the U.S. Army — it’s just like Westworld now, but without the sex or nudity! Charge a machine gun nest armed with just your Marlin 1894 lever-gun!”

Comments are closed.