Surely it's only a matter of time before it goes out of fashion, if Bieber's doing it.
It's evident that despite the best attempts of Middle America to crack down on sagging pants - da yoof's low-slung kecks look that has right-minded citizens firing up the Twat-O-Tron - the US way of life continues to be menaced by trousers flying at half mast. Back in 2007, the Louisiana town of Delcambre took up cudgels …
I see kids wearing their pants like this all the time. Always makes me laugh! Although the "people" who really need to be "up in arms" about this are the purveyors of fine underwear, like, well I guess Calvin Klein and Ralph Lauren and similar trash. After all, in order for these kids to show off their fashionable frilly panties (or equivalent), said frilly panties (or equivalent) need to be obtained in the first place, right? That's got to be good for someone's, er, bottom line.
Actually, it's the ones carrying the guns that look like idiots. Very dangerous idiots, but idiots just the same. And before you need to ask, I'm an American gun owner, but some things have their limits. If you need a hundred round clip to go hunting, you are obviously a horrible shot and I don't want you in my party or within several miles of me. Saggy pants? Another case of old white people worrying about stuff that really doesn't matter while really important things like people starving to death gets ignored.
What does hunting with a 100 round "magazine" have to do with carrying a gun?
The two are completely different and I have never seen anybody hunt with even half that.
Please, have some knowledge before you decide to post such nonsense.
To anybody trying to hunt, that is using 100 rounds of ammo for anything other than varmint, you are probably doing it wrong. If it is varmint, then you are probably just having fun.
Well, smart boy, if you don't need a hundred round magazine to hunt, why is the NRA and all the other wing nuts so up in arms about it? As for my pedigree, I probably held a firearm before you stood up to pee. I lived on Army bases until I was 12. And I turned 12 before the Beatles came to America. Any more questions?
I don't want to get in a pissing contest with anybody.
Of course, living on an army base must make you an expert!
I have never heard anybody say they need a big magazine to hunt. There are a lot of advocates for the ability to use whatever they want. If you are in the wilderness and get lost, 3 shots in the air is a universal signal for distress, with low amounts of ammo you can eat that up quickly. There are also larger animals in some areas. Mountain lions, bears, and even moose can be quite dangerous.
I certainly don't need to pee standing up, have a car that can go over the speed limit, or have a tv as big as my wall. I certainly like having those things, and like having the ability to buy them if I so desire.
Certainly though I was referring mostly to your comment about carrying a gun makes one look like an idiot and also making a bad reference and incorrect terminology to a magazine limit and hunting, all three which are generally completely seperate issues. All while saying you are a gun owner.
Carrying a firearm is for self defense. So if you say carrying a firearm makes one look like an idiot, I would like to see you say that to all those that are currently serving, all of the police officers, and anybody who takes the responsibility to protect their family.
Hunting is for food/sport and I certainly wouldn't call someone hunting for food an idiot.
Magazine limits are for sport and protection of rights. It is very easy to go through 100 rounds, especially in a semi automatic firearm. The size of the magazine doesn't really change that but a split second for even semi accurate shooting.*
So, because you have been around them, because you own it, doesn't make you an expert in any sense, and when you state something so broadly and poorly it just looks bad.
*note: if someone wants to shoot a deer 100 times while they are hunting, that is their right. I will probably shake my head and hope I am far far away from them, but I shouldn't be able to stop them.
So, because you have been around them, because you own it, doesn't make you an expert in any sense
Apply that to yourself, hoss.
I was struggling to find just the right word or phrase and I found it on a right wing blog that was discussing this very topic: anal retentive. That's how many describe people who get all riled up when they think people use the wrong terminology in reference to their favorite method of mass murder.
-= SMH =- And this comes from a proponent of a point of view that loves to demonize political correctness.
It does makes some sense from an evolutionary point of view.
It's like the peacock's tail, it hinders his ability to get away from danger, but the fact that he does have that ludicrous tail and yet is still alive and strutting in front of a peahen demonstrates his obvious higher fitness.
In the same way, saggy pants need one hand to keep them from sagging the rest of the way (a hand that is not available for offense/defense), and running away is, at best, a fast waddle. It demonstrates higher fitness!
Plumbers & builders have been wearing this fashion trend for decades with no issues... apart from a few grimaces, a few smiles and one or two upchucks. Live and let live I say, we have enough problems with the real police without the fashion police getting in on the act as well.
It's not about advertising anything, it stems from the practice of confiscating items such as belts and shoelaces from inmates. It's the 'just got out of lock-up' look, rather like the Adidas trainers with no laces look, as popularised by Run DMC.
The stupidest variant on this I have seen is yoofs with low slung kecks with a belt in. Clearly not getting the point of their own ridiculous 'look'.
The thing is, according to the US
Presidential Toilet Paper Constitution, nobody is actually allowed to make a law like that, since it would be abridging free speech (1st amdt) and states are not allowed to ban anything the federal government isn't (9th and 10th amdts). Anti-sagging ordinances are actually unconstitutional.
As soon as some rich kid gets busted, the lawyers are going to have a field day.
A J, it depends upon how general the law is. The nearest thing to sagging case law can be found in Bivens v. Albuquerque Public Schools (1995) in US district court. Not all conduct (e.g. sartorial choice) is considered speech in the 1st amendment sense; and even if sagging were protected speech in the 1st amendment, school dress codes could still constitutionally ban it. (I think that such an anti-sagging law would be extremely silly, but then I’m not a Wisconsin legislator.)
You seem to have misinterpreted the aims of the 9th and 10th amendments. Consider this example: firms that sell baked goods in Pennsylvania must be registered with (and licensed by) the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. (This is evidenced on packaging by the cryptic phrase “Reg. Penna. Dept. Agr.”, even for baked goods sold outside of Pennsylvania.) The federal government does not have jurisdiction to ban unregistered, unlicensed bakeries in Pennsylvania; however, Pennsylvania does.
1. The folks who sag ALWAYS get caught by the cops - pants fall down as they as running. (Watch 'Cops', it's a riot -no pun intended)
2. Cured that with my boys by pantsing them in public - shame is underrated. Always told my kids they can do whatever they want, once they were out of the house and I wasn't paying the bills. Very fair, I think.
People in public do NOT have the right to wear their pants around their knees exposing their arse and genitals. That's public indecency and prosecutable in virtually every civilized society. Only a dumbarse would suggest this is some kind of God given "right' and only a dumberarse would actually drop their pants like this in public. I think a cap up their arse would be a VERY good deterrent and I hope more people adopt this subtle means to encourage the scumbags to pull their pants up. No one should be forced to endure this abusive behavior of the dirtbags who think it's cool to flash their arses.
And I suspect that there is a very strong gender bias here. If it were girls/women doing it, the commentators here would be all in favour.
[Personally, I think the look is ridiculous and impractical, and cannot see how it is "cool" (drafty, perhaps), but I'm aware enough of the gap between what I like and most styles that I just shrug in my usual clueless way when it comes to fashion. The pinnacle of practical elegance to me is cargo trousers with belt and two holsters (penknives on one hip, phone on the other), a tee/polo/light dress shirt, and light fleece, so I know I have nothing to add to any fashion discussion!]
Going back a years or two when my sons where involved in kids football (uk), there were one or two teams from the rougher side of town who had a a couple of players who insisted they wear their shorts like this during the game - why the Ref didn't have a word I don't know - but since it only really affectted the other teams mobility we didn't really have problem with it ! - Did look damm silly though - Stupid Fashon victims !
"2010, a Memphis man popped a cap in the ass of a passing youth whose hip dress sense "
If it was 2010 and anyone was wearing their pants rounds their hips, you can hardly say they had a "Hip dress sense".
Flashing your ass was done by the gay community in the clubs way back in the 80's.
Our "yoof" are just catching up now!
As someone who was a teenager in the '80s, the notion of people walking around "looking stupid" is almost ingrained with me as a way of life. If they're wearing their trousers stupidly so what? Are they wearing pants? If yes, then they're not exposing themselves, grow up and get over your mock sensibilities. If no then arrest them for indecent exposure as you would anyone else. Rocket science it ain't. Deliberately choosing to take offence at something that is no more than a moronic fashion (in the eyes of us oldies) is simply retarded. Footloose anyone?
I will leave the great Steve Hughes to explain it to those who can't grasp it:
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019