Markley’s Law for the police

Via email from Daniel S.


While I am opposed to the war on some drugs and the militarization of the police I just don’t understand why the whole guns/penis thing resonates with so many people. The only thing I can come up with is that their psychological development stopped when they were about 10 years old.


7 thoughts on “Markley’s Law for the police

  1. I think it resonates for two reasons. One is the incorrect belief that Freud said this (in fact, he said roughly the opposite). The more significant one is that it’s a handy insult, easy to remember for stupid people who have no choice but to resort to insult, since they have no real arguments to make.

  2. If we didn’t already have a problem with the militarization of police, I’d be fine with this.
    If civilians could by them, I’d be even happier.

    We’d probably have to cut off the armor to make the police and the soccer moms happy, but I’m betting there’s a ton of uses that the private sector could find for them. If it could tow combines, my last employer would have bought a gross of them.

    • You can have one tomorrow, if you want. The armor isn’t even a problem — only the machineguns and cannons. Which you can ALSO have, if you have the cash to pay for them and have them properly registered under the NFA.

      Of course, you have to find a seller of the armored vehicle willing to sell to you. But a lot of armor isn’t even that expensive, comparitively speaking.

      I’ve got a friend who is debating filing a Form 1 to reactivate the 37mm AT cannon in one of his WWII scout cars so he can have a new breech machined. (Originally breech had to be demilled when he had the vehicle imported from England a couple of years ago.) I even know a few guys with actual (including functioning main guns) tanks.

      Now, most military armor isn’t road legal in the US (but surprisingly, it is road legal in the UK!) because it is either tracked or doesn’t have safety equipment that was mandated for passenger cars when the vehicle was built (if the individual vehicle’s production date predates a particular safety reg, it can ignore it – which is why most military surplus jeeps don’t have to have seat belts, for instance)

  3. Just figure that “self worth = large penis OR a firearm, but never both, i.e. if you have a large-ish penis there’s no need for a firearm whatsoever. But then it’s still quite insane of course. It would seem to have to come from the view that sex is violence, that the penis is a sort of weapon of domination, which in turn is an ego boost. From that point of view, the Markley’s Law comments do make some kind of sense.

    It’s very pathological, and yet quite common, which doesn’t bode well for our culture. It points to some VERY deadly darkness lurking, not so much in the shadows, but more and more out in the open.

    • Some good sophisticated arguments for it. Given that the insult is so silly, I will still go with arrested development at age 10 and it’s a handy insult when you have nothing substantial to say for your cause.

Comments are closed.